***************************************************************** 01/31/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.23 ***************************************************************** 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 FT.com: Bush, Iraq and the hydrogen economy 2 IPS-English MIDEAST: Nuclear Heat Grows Over Iran 3 [NYTr] IAEA Chief Highlights Iranian Cooperation 4 New York Times Letter to Editor on Iran Nuclear Program 5 PTI: Force remains an option against Iran's nuclear programme - Rice 6 Xinhua: Pakistan likes role in mediation of Iran's nuclear issue 7 AFP: US invited to engage in dialogue with Iran on nuclear issues - 8 Guardian Unlimited: Top Intel Analyst Warns About Nuclear Iran 9 AFP: Iran vows enrichment suspension to be short-lived 10 FT.com: Hope for N Korea nuclear talks lies in Bush speech 11 US: [NukeNet] SIGN ONS NEEDED TO U.N.- LETTER TO THE UN SECRETARY 12 US: Guardian Unlimited: Senate Unanimously Confirms Energy Chief 13 Bellona: 37 kg of uranium seized on Kazakhstan border 14 AFP: German farmers championing 'flower power' for cleaner energy - 15 Asia Times: Nuclear buildup continues apace 16 BusinessWeek: The Method in Nuke Madness NUCLEAR REACTORS 17 US: [NukeNet] Exelon gets probation for training at TMI, Hope 18 [NukeNet] Fwd: Rokkasho problems on NHK, etc 19 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meet 20 CBC: Canada should consider new nuclear plants, expanded oil explora 21 Eastern Province Herald: Nuclear plant plan still on course 22 Slovak Spectator: IAEA assesses nuclear risks 23 US: Wired 13.02: Nuclear Now! 24 asahi.com: Nuclear plants to be braced for quakes 25 US: NRC: NRC Assigns New Resident Inspector to Grand Gulf Nuclear St 26 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet Feb. 1 27 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find 28 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find NUCLEAR SAFETY 29 US: NRC: Safety Light Corporation; Notice of Reconstitution 30 US: EPA: Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Notification of Adviso 31 US: AP Wire: Sen. Bond joins in seeking speed up of payments to form NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 32 [NukeNet] Nuclear Backers Modify Stance On Yucca,Waste 33 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear power advocates modify stance on waste 34 US: VG: Cask cow: Could nuclear waste storage help fund renewable en 35 American Online: LES markets uranium enrichment facility NUCLEAR WEAPONS US DEPT. OF ENERGY 36 ABQjournal: Blog a Forum for LANL Workers 37 ABQjournal: Comments on Draft LANL Contract Go to Agency 38 Inside Bay Area - Argus: Lab closes facility for safety review 39 PRN: Hanford Community Health Project Announces New Health 40 CMU: Udall Continues Fight to Speed Up Compensation Care For Sick Ro OTHER NUCLEAR 41 ESR: Manhattan book review ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 FT.com: Bush, Iraq and the hydrogen economy By John Dizard Published: January 31 2005 02:00 | Last updated: January 31 2005 02:00 There can be no one left who thinks that yesterday's elections in Iraq will have ended the political instability in the Middle East. It is now assumed even by the US military leadership that the forces in Iraq cannot be significantly decreased for years. There is going to be more and more political pressure to achieve energy independence rather than face the prospect of endless military occupations of sources of oil. The closest thing to an independence plan produced by the Bush administration or the energy industry is the hydrogen economy. The idea is to convert our vehicles, ships, and aircraft to burn the pollution free fuel in various forms. It would solve a problem, but it could take 20 years or so. However, hydrogen isn't a source of fuel - it's a storage medium. It is produced by expending some other primary source of energy. The source the government, energy industry, and the automotive industry has in mind is nuclear power. We are talking about literally thousands of new nuclear facilities dedicated to the production of hydrogen through fission powered electrolysis (the splitting of water into hydrogen and oxygen gas). The hydrogen economy is really a nuclear economy. Investors and the rest of corporate America may not realise how close the country is to making a gigantic bet on a nuclear future. The scientists and engineers at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory have been developing the advanced nuclear technologies that would power the hydrogen world. Among the designs the INEEL has been working on is the Very High Temperature Reactor, the one best suited to provide the process heat necessary to break hydrogen apart from water so it can be turned into fuel. (There are a few issues with storing hydrogen, but we won't deal with them here.) Among the high temperature reactor variants is the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor being developed here and in China. I asked Dr Steve Herring of the INEEL how many of these new, relatively efficient reactors would be needed to displace the estimated US fuel import requirements 20 years from now. Based on the Energy Information Administration's estimate of 2025 fuel imports (measured in quads, or quadrillion British thermal units), the output of 300MW per VHTR reactor, and the comparative efficiency of hydrogen fuel compared to gasoline, you come up with a requirement of about 4,000 reactors. Now these reactors are much smaller than most of the power reactors in operation, but that's still a significant number. However, the US used to have more than 1,000 land-based nuclear ballistic missiles in underground silos. The relatively small VHTR reactors might be housed in underground facilities that wouldn't be much bigger. Anti-nuclear activists want hydrogen fuel to come from renewable energy sources, such as wind power. However, that arithmetic doesn't work. For example, California has the most developed wind power industry in the US. Its share of those reactors in 2025, based on population, would be about 480. The entire current wind development in California would only account for four reactors' worth of energy for hydrogen production. Whatever your doubts about nuclear power, the hydrogen economy might at least be cheaper than occupying the Middle East indefinitely. Using a cost estimate of $1,200 per KW for the reactors, those 4,000 reactors would cost about $1,500bn. The direct costs of the peacekeeping, if that's the term I'm looking for, in the Middle East, are about $100bn a year. Over 20 years, that's $2,000bn. Throw in the deferred military capital costs, not to mention the survivors' benefits, and nuclear powered hydrogen becomes quite competitive. The real hurdle with nukes is the capital cost. Maintenance, fuel and operation add up to less than 1 cent per kwh, and total energy content in a kilogramme of hydrogen or a gallon of gasoline is about 50 kwh, which would mean operating costs of about 50 cents a gallon. There would still be a couple of issues. The first would be finding all the new uranium supplies to fuel the reactors. Geophysical surveys suggest there should be enough uranium in the US and Canada. Then there is the problem of storing the used fuel. It would be necessary to find, or create, some caves in geologically stable formations such as the granite in the Northeastern US. That would be politically difficult. Then we'd have to gather the helium that's used for heat transfer in the pebble bed reactors. There's a lot of helium in the universe; little of that is on our planet. The US produces a lot of helium, mostly in association with natural gas. The problem is helium reserves are running down and would be in decline by 2025. It might be necessary to go overseas to where new helium reserves have been discovered. Where would some of those be? In Qatar, just across the Gulf from Iraq. johndizard@hotmail.com © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2005. "FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. ***************************************************************** 2 IPS-English MIDEAST: Nuclear Heat Grows Over Iran Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 16:44:58 -0800 ROMAIPS MM IK PI IP MIDEAST: Nuclear Heat Grows Over Iran Analysis by Peter Hirschberg JERUSALEM, Feb 1 (IPS) - When Israel dispatched F-16 bombers almost 24 years ago to destroy Saddam Hussein's nuclear reactor in Osirak, the pilots knew they only had to hit a single target. Were Israeli or U.S. planes to be sent today to neutralise Iran's nuclear programme, the mission would be far more complicated: with Iranian facilities spread out, the pilots would have to strike targets across the country, and none of them a large, clearly identifiable reactor. Speaking last week, though, U..S. Vice-President Dick Cheney was not ready to rule out military action - by Israel. If Jerusalem became convinced, he said, that "the Iranians had significant nuclear capability, given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning up the diplomatic mess afterwards." Israeli leaders, extremely concerned by the prospect of a nuclear Iran, have been less brazen. If Israel acted alone, "we will remain alone," Vice Premier Shimon Peres said. "Everyone knows our potential but we also have to know our limits. As long as there is a possibility that the world will organise to fight against Iran's nuclear option, let the world organise." With the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) discussing Iran's nuclear activities, the rhetoric has become increasingly shrill. Israeli leaders have long warned of what they see as the danger of Iran's nuclear programme to the entire region, and are hoping the Americans will ultimately prevent Tehran from getting the bomb. IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei told the Washington Post Sunday that he could not see "how a military solution can resolve the Iran issue. In my view, with Iran having almost self-sufficiency in the technology, the Iranians will go underground...you might delay them, but they will rebuild it with the objective of having a weapon." Israeli intelligence officials estimate that Iran could be capable of producing enriched uranium within six months and have nuclear weapons within two years. Earlier this month, head of Israeli military intelligence Maj. Gen. Aharon Ze'evi said that while Iran was not currently capable of enriching uranium to build a nuclear bomb, "it is only half a year away from achieving such independent capability - if it is not stopped by the West." Israeli officials have also accused Tehran of trying to dupe the international community.. They believe Iran will try and stave off the threat of sanctions while pushing ahead secretly with its efforts to attain nuclear weapons capability. ElBaradei admitted Iran had "cheated" in the past about its nuclear programme, but said it was now "cooperating". The IAEA determined in November that Iran was complying with an agreement to cease uranium enrichment. For its part, Iran insists that its programme has a purely civilian goal - the production of electricity. The European Union is urging Tehran to completely ditch its nuclear fuel programme to prove it is not seeking to produce atomic weapons. It is holding out a trade accord as an incentive. But German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, who along with Britain and France is trying to engage Iran on the nuclear issue, said last week at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland that "diplomatic and political" means were required to persuade Tehran, not force. As with Iraq, the United States has taken a far more hardline stance. Earlier this month, President George W. Bush hinted at possible military action against Iran. He said he hoped the issue could be resolved diplomatically, but that he would "never take any option off the table." In Jerusalem, officials interpreted Cheney's warning about a possible Israeli military strike as a message to the Europeans to get tough on Iran. A senior Israeli official was quoted as saying that Cheney's remarks were "intended to tell the Europeans: 'If you don't take a greater role in a policy of implementing sanctions and moving vigorously to stop Iran's nuclear programme, then we are not responsible for what Israel will do'." Ze'evi said he has been trying to explain the magnitude of the Iranian nuclear threat to European countries. "The Iranians can reach Portugal with nuclear weapons," he said. "This doesn't worry the Europeans. They tell me that during the Soviet regime as well they were under a nuclear threat, and I try to explain to them that Iran is a different story." Some observers in Israel argue that a nuclear Iran would be less of a threat to Israel than to other countries in the region. They point to reports that Israel possesses a submarine-based second-strike capability. Arab countries blame Israel for spurring nuclear aspirations in the Middle East. The Jewish state is believed to be the only Middle East country with nuclear arms, although it neither denies nor confirms its possession of such weapons - a policy that has been dubbed "nuclear ambiguity". Israel has between 100 and 200 nuclear warheads, according to foreign reports. Israel's atomic secrets were exposed for the first time almost 20 years ago by Mordechai Vanunu, a technician at the nuclear plant in Dimona in the south of the country. Vanunu, who was released from jail last year after serving an 18-year term for treason, handed information in 1986 to the Sunday Times in London about Israel's nuclear programme. He was later kidnapped by Israeli agents in Rome and smuggled to Israel to stand trial. Dr. Shmuel Bar, a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Centre in Herzliya near Tel Aviv says the chances of Israeli military action are low. "If we act unilaterally, we will be blamed, the Iranians will react, and we will not get public American backing," he told IPS. Israel, he added, must not turn the Iranian nuclear issue into an Israeli problem. "It is first and foremost an American problem." The United States cannot accept a nuclear Iran which would be able to "dictate its positions in the Gulf and in Iraq," says Bar. He foresees disagreement between Europe and the United States, leading ultimately to unilateral American action. "There could be an oil embargo on Iran with the American Sixth Fleet blocking passage (of Iranian vessels) in the Gulf." A growing number of experts now argue that a military option no longer exists because Iran has spread its nuclear facilities across the country and has not concentrated them in one place, as was the case in Iraq. There have also been reports of Tehran setting up dummy nuclear facilities. A single air strike, therefore, would be insufficient to knock out Iran's programme. What is more, Israel is aware that Tehran would likely respond, possibly with long-range missiles. This might explain why some in the United States today talk of regime change in Iran, rather than of military action. It is also questionable whether Bush, mired in Iraq, has the appetite for another major military escapade. But Shmuel Bar does not rule out the possibility of U.S. military action. "Bush is an ideological president and he isn't going to be running for a third term," he says. (END/IPS/MM/IK/PI/IP/PH/SS/05) = 02010103 ORP003 NNNN ***************************************************************** 3 [NYTr] IAEA Chief Highlights Iranian Cooperation Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 14:08:47 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit IAEA Chief Highlights Iranian Cooperation Bern, Jan 29 (Prensa Latina) Director of the Internacional Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Mohammed Al Baradei highlighted on Saturday Iran's good collaboration regarding investigations into its program of enriching uranium. The task is not easy as many times the topic is just the tip of the iceberg in second or third parties' political interests, Al Baradei admitted in Davos, where he is attending a World Economic Forum. He said, though, that IAEA's work to verify Iran's nuclear program counts on Tehran's good cooperation including an authorization to visit military areas. He stressed his experts have not found any sign of the existence of material that could be used for purposes other than peaceful ones.=20 ef/rma/hav * Search the NYTr Archives at: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your settings via the web, visit: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 4 New York Times Letter to Editor on Iran Nuclear Program Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 02:46:54 EST New York Times, Letter to the Editor ------------------------------------------------------------------------ January 31, 2005 Nuclear Ambitions: Iran vs. the World? To the Editor: Re "Military Rumblings on Iran" (editorial, Jan. 27): Your call for "severe economic penalties" in the event Tehran fails to end its enrichment ambitions is a hollow threat. Neither Russia nor China, both Security Council members with growing economic stakes in Iran, will buy in. Furthermore, the mullahs insist that they will never give up their "peaceful" program. Under the circumstances, Europe should call Tehran's bluff and offer an enrichment partnership on Iranian soil. In exchange, Iran would agree to permanent European operating and monitoring personnel coupled to enforcement of the 1997 additional protocol - which Tehran has not ratified - allowing International Atomic Energy Agency snap inspections of suspect nuclear sites. To enforce this, there would be a clear NATO declaration that safeguard violations would result in the prompt destruction of all Iranian fuel cycle and suspicious nuclear activities. Bennett Ramberg Los Angeles, Jan. 27, 2005 The writer was a policy analyst at the State Department, 1989-90. Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company | Home | Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to Top ***************************************************************** 5 PTI: Force remains an option against Iran's nuclear programme - Rice Jan 31, 2005 05:54:00 AM Washington, Jan 31 (PTI) Describing a nuclear-armed Iran as a force of instability in the Middle East, the United States has said that military force remained an option to ensure that the Islamic Republic lived up to its international obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty. "The President never takes any option off the table," US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told ABC TV yesterday. She, however, expressed hope that force will not be necessary. "We believe fully that this can be resolved by diplomatic means. All that we need is unity of purpose, unity of message to the Iranians, and the willingness to stay the course in terms of verification of anything that the Iranians are doing. And I think we are getting that kind of unity of purpose." Rice said even civilian nuclear cooperation with Iran could lead to proliferation. "An Iran that is nuclear-armed is going to be a force for instability in that region and all kinds of things are possible if Iran gets a nuclear device that is usable. That is why we are focused so on getting the Russians and others to recognise that even civilian nuclear engagement, civilian nuclear programmes with the Iranians, have proliferation risks." Asked whether she was concerned over the role that Iran, which she described as an "outpost of tyranny," has been playing in Iraq, Rice said Tehran provided "some support for, perhaps, for insurgents that is really not warranted. I do believe that the Iranians have not been particularly a force for stability and for good." PTI Copyright PTI 2003-2004 Developed by NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) If you agree with the letter and have not signed it already, we ask you to confirm this by sending an email to elvira.poeschko@aon.at mailto:elvira.poeschko@aon.at until 23th of February 2005 at latest and please state your name, organisation and country. We will sent the letter with all signatures before March 1st 2005 - the commemoration day of H-bomb test at the Bikini atoll - to UN Secretary General, with copies to IAEA, and the NGO community, but also to national representatives to UN. Please, send this urgently to all you contacts, sections and affiliates. Thank you, Elvira and Patricia for coordinating this. Kind regards Michel and Solange Fernex ---------- De : "Elvira Poschko" : Elvira Pschko Objet : LETTER TO THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL: EXCLUDE THE PROMOTION OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY FROM THE MANDATE OF IAEA! Date : Mon, 31. Jan 2005 14:40 Uhr LETTER TO THE UN SECRETARY GENERAL: EXCLUDE THE PROMOTION OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY FROM THE MANDATE OF IAEA! PLEASE SIGN AND FORWARD LETTER TO YOUR MAILINGLISTS! DEADLINE is 23th of February 2005 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, dear friends, we proudly announce that by now already 95 organisations worldwide have signed the letter to UN Secretary General on the role of IAEA that was draftet during the symposium "The Lie of the peaceful use of atomic energy - nuclear weapons and nuclear power plants - two sides of the same coin" held in Linz (Austria) on 1st/2nd October 2004. All organisations that signed the letter so far are listed at the end of this email. There is - and this was agreed by the international participants of the symposium - an inevitable connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. There are deficiencies of international non-proliferation regimes connected with the promotion of nuclear energy. The following letter was elaborated within a workshop group lead by Prof. Alexey Yablokov (Russia) and Dr. Kumar Udayakumar (India). If you agree with the letter and have not signed it already, we ask you to confirm this by sending an email to elvira.poeschko@aon.at mailto:elvira.poeschko@aon.at until 23th of February 2005 at latest and please state your name, organisation and country. We will sent the letter with all signatures before March 1st 2005 - the commemoration day of H-bomb test at the Bikini atoll - to UN Secretary General, with copies to IAEA, and the NGO community, but also to national representatives to UN. Thanks to all organisations who already confirmed their participation within this letter to UN-Secretary General! Please spread this email in order to get as much attention as possible. Thanks in advance for your support! ATOMSTOPP INTERNATIONAL To: UN Secretary General With copies to: IAEA, national representatives to UN, media, NGO community EXCLUDE THE PROMOTION OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY FROM THE MANDATE OF IAEA! We, the undersigned organisations, would like to bring your attention to the urgent deficiencies of international non-proliferation regimes connected with the promotion of nuclear energy. Today, many countries can obtain nuclear weapons because of the undeniable and inevitable connection between nuclear power and nuclear weapons. The existing system of non-proliferation treaties and IAEA safeguard systems have failed to put a halt to proliferation since their conception. The fact that the concepts of "atoms for peace" and "atoms for war" are indistinguishable from one another has led to the current crisis situation where the nuclear programs of countries such as Iran and North Korea are causing such concern amongst the international community. The IAEA has identified the prevention of nuclear weapons proliferation as a major challenge but it acknowledges the "failed operation of the export control regime, as evidenced by the recently discovered black market of nuclear material and equipment" and " the perilous spread of fuel cycle technology." As the IAEA states, under the current non-proliferation regime, there is nothing illicit in a non-nuclear-weapons state having enrichment or reprocessing technology, or possessing weapon-grade nuclear material; and if a State with a fully developed fuel-cycle capability and highly industrialised infrastructure were to decide to reject its non-proliferation commitments, it could produce a nuclear weapon within a matter of months. The IAEA has recently acknowledged that in order to address these vulnerabilities, it needs to bring theproduction of new fuel, the processing of weapon-usable material, and the disposal of spent fuel and radioactive waste under multi-national control and claims that advantages in terms of cost, safety, security and non-proliferation could accrue from such a multi-national approach. It is not clear how the same multi-national approach that has failed to accomplish non-proliferation of nuclear weapons or addressed many other crucial issues could accomplish this. This public admission of failure by IAEA amounts to an appeal for the overhaul of international non-proliferation regimes and we the undersigned would like to add our support to this call. At present, the nuclear establishment operates as a state within a state without any accountability, transparency or public debate, especially where budgetary considerations are involved. It is not in the public interest to allow such practices to continue. Civil society has experienced the erosion of democratic and human rights and we would request that you initiate a discussion on these matters within the UN structure and would, as principal stakeholders, be willing to participate in such a discussion. Our aim is a world free of nuclear technology and to achieve this we suggest that the existing IAEA be substituted with an agency for the efficient control of all nuclear facilities (military and civilian) and materials, and that excludes the promotion of nuclear technology from its mandate. We would also advocate the installation of a new International Renewables Energy Agency (IREA) for the promotion of renewable energy, which is today already capable of completely substituting the dangerous and environmentally destructive nuclear and fossil fuel energy sources, and supports the efficient use of energy. The sun sends 7000 times the amount of energy as the sum consumed by the entire world at present to the surface of the earth. It is a question of political will, and not of technology, to enable the provision of the global supply of electrical energy with clean renewable energy sources within a decade or two. Yours faithfully Signatures for the letter to UN-Secretary General Signatures for the letter to UN-Secretary General ALBANIA 1.. Ali Eltari, Albanian Ecological Club, Albania ARGENTINA 1.. Julio Grace, Human Rights Organization, Bariloche, Rio Negro, Argentina AUSTRALIA 1.. Jo Vallentine, People for Nuclear Disarmament, Western Australia AUSTRIA 1.. Mathilde Halla, ATOMSTOPP - O Plattform gegen Atomgefahr, Austria 2.. Anneliese Teufel, ATOMSTOPP - O Plattform gegen Atomgefahr, Austria 3.. Werner Halla, ATOMSTOPP - O Plattform gegen Atomgefahr, Austria 4.. Edith Furch, ATOMSTOPP - O Plattform gegen Atomgefahr, Austria 5.. Ursula Stoff, ATOMSTOPP - O Plattform gegen Atomgefahr, Austria 6.. Roland Egger, ATOMSTOPP - O Plattform gegen Atomgefahr, Austria 7.. Brigitte Scheiblhofer, ATOMSTOPP - O Plattform gegen Atomgefahr, Austria 8.. Johannes Scheiblhofer, ATOMSTOPP - O Plattform gegen Atomgefahr, Austria 9.. Helga Mitter, ATOMSTOPP - O Plattform gegen Atomgefahr, Austria 10.. Edeltraud Koller, Dizese Linz, Austria 11.. Mathias Reichl, Begegnungszentrum fr aktive Gewaltlosigkeit, Austria 12.. Irene Winkler, Mtter gegen Atomgefahr Freistadt, Austria 13.. Christine Wurm, Organisation "Gemeinsam fr Sonne und Freiheit", Austria 14.. Maria Urban, WIENER PLATTFORM "Atomkraftfreie Zukunft", Austria 15.. Inge Scherff, Wiener Plattform "Atomkraftfreie Zukunft", Austria 16.. Monika Simon-Paseka, Wiener Plattform "Atomkraftfreie Zukunft", Austria 17.. Erwin Mayer, Greenpeace Austria, Austria 18.. Gerhild Kremsmair, PLAGE - Salzburger Plattform gegen Atomgefahren, Austria 19.. Hildegard Breiner, Vorarlberger Plattform gegen Atomgefahren, Austria 20.. Christine Schmutterer, ARGE ja zur Umwelt, nein zur Atomenergie, Austria 21.. Christine Wurm, "Gemeinsam fr Sonne+Freiheit", Austria 22.. Erwin Mayer, Greenpeace Austria, Austria BELARUS 1.. Svetlana Semenas, NGO "Ecohome", Belarus BULGARIA 1.. Dian Deyanov, Ecosouthwest, Bulgaria CANADA 1.. Dr. Rosalie Bertell, GNSH, International Institute of Concern for Public Health, Toronto, Canada CZECH REPUBLIC 1.. Pavel Vlzek, OIZP Obansk Iniciativa Pro Ochranu ZP BIU, Czech Republic 2.. Dana Kuchtova, Sdruzen Jihocesk Matky, Czech Republic 3.. Edward Sequens, CALLA, Czech Republic FINLAND 1.. Ulla Kltzer, Women against Nuclear Power, Finland 2.. Anna-Liisa Mattsoff, No More Nuclear Power movement, Finland 3.. Anita Antell and Christer Alm, Miljringen-Ympristrengas rf.ry., Finland 4.. Leo Stranius, Friends of the Earth Finland, Finland FRANCE 1.. Harsh Kapoor, South Asians Against Nukes, France 2.. Jean-Yvon Landrac Rseau "Sortir du Nuclaire", France 3.. Solange Fernex, WILPF France GERMANY 1.. Dieter Kaufmann, Arbeitskreis gegen Atomanlagen Frankfurt a. M. 2.. Gerhard Albrecht, berparteiliche bayerische Plattform gegen Atomgefahr, insbesondere aus Temelin e.V. 3.. Bernd Scheibner, berparteiliche bayerische Plattform gegen Atomgefahr, insbesondere aus Temelin e.V. 4.. Franz Moll, Nuclear-Free Future Award, Germany GREAT BRITAIN 1.. Jill Stallard,,cnd cymru, Great Britain GREECE 1.. Yannis Schizas, ECOTOPIA, ecological magazine and organization, Greece INDIA 1.. S.P. Udayakumar, Coordinator, People's Movement Against Nuclear Energy, India JAPAN 1.. Satomi Oba, Plutonium Action Hiroshima, Japan KYRGYZ REPUBLIC 1.. Charsky Vjacheslav, NGO "Club AGAT", Kyrgyz Republic 2.. Igor Hadjamberdiev, NGO association "For Civil Society" Kyrgyz Republic NEW ZEALAND 1.. Marion Hancock, The Peace Foundation, Aotearoa/New Zealand 2.. Barney Richards, New Zealand Peace Council, New Zealand ROMANIA 1.. Aurel Duta, MAMA TERRA/For Mother Earth-Romania RUSSIA 1.. Alexey Yablokov, Center for Russian Environmental Policy, Russia 2.. Oleg Bodrov, Green World, Russia 3.. Vladimir Slivyak, Ecodefense, Russia 4.. Vladimir Lagutov, NGO Green Don, Russia 5.. Askhat Kayumov, Ecological center "Dront", Nizhny Novgorod, Russia 6.. Alexey Toropov, Siberian Ecological Agency, Russia 7.. Elena Burlakova, Head of the Scientific Council on Radiobiology of Russian Academy of Sciences, Russia 8.. Gennady Smirnov, Varvara Litovka, Maxim Litovka, Chukotka's regional ecological public association "Kaira Club", Russia 9.. Fatima Kobzhasarova, Chelyabinsk city public of women "Fatiha", Russia 10.. Boris Nekrasov, Siberian Environmental Alliance, Russia 11.. Achkasova Inna, Ecologik-cultural family public organization "ETHNOS", Russia 12.. Raschupkin Gennady, Ural Ecological Union, Ekaterinburg, Russia 13.. Olga Kobzar, Tomsk Regional Non-governmental Organization Centre of Environmental Policy and Information, Russia 14.. Elena Grigorieva, Union of Architects of Russia, Irkutsk organization, Russia 15.. Olga Chupachenko, "Bereginya", Nizhny Novgorod, Russia 16.. Baikal Environmental Wave, Russia 17.. Vladimir Mikheev, Citizens' Center on Nuclear Non-Proliferation, Russia 18.. Svetlana Gannushkina, Migration Rights Network, Russia 19.. Natalie I. Mironova, Movement for Nuclear Safety, Chelyabinsk, Russia 20.. Valeriy Sulin, Voronezh Ecological organization "Endemic" (Regional department of Socio-Ecological Union), Russia 21.. Alexey Sevastyanov, Organization of lawyers "Pravosoznanie", Chelyabinsk, Russia 22.. Alexey Zimenko, Biodiversity Conservation Center, Russia 23.. Konstantin Razbash, Chairman of Coordinational Council of "Youth Ecological Forum" NGO, Russia 24.. Knyazeva Lubov, Social Women Movement "Ozerchanka", Russia SWITZERLAND 1.. PSR/IPPNW Schweiz SPAIN 1.. Dr. Josep Puig, GCTPFNN, Spain SWEDEN 1.. Ingeborg Kleinhans, Folkkampanjen mot krnkraft-krnvapen, Sweden 2.. Eia Liljegren, Folkkampanjen mot krnkraft-krnvapen, Sweden THE NETHERLANDS 1.. Peer de Rijk, World Information Service on Energy - WISE Amsterdam, The Netherlands TURKEY 1.. Yasar Ozturk, Arkadas Environment Group, Turkey TURKMENISTAN 1.. Andrei Zatoka, Socio-Ecological Union Int., Turkmenistan UKRAINE 1.. Olexi Pasyuk, National Ecological Centre of Ukraine, Ukraine 2.. Olha Lyashchuk, National Ecological Centre of Ukraine, Ukraine 3.. Ukrainian Ecological Association "Green world" Ukraine 4.. Slesarenko Vasiliy energy and problem Chernobyl damage, Ukraine 5.. Shaparenko Sergey, Environmental Group "Pechenigy", Kharkiv, Ukraine 6.. nzhela Karpinska, Organization Novovolynsk branch of Social Service of Ukraine, Ukraine USA 1.. Jan Provost-Director, Northland Chapter, Grandmothers for Peace, WI 54880, USA 2.. Greg Mello, Los Alamos Study Group, Albuquerque, USA 3.. Alice Slater, Global Resource Action Center for the Environment(GRACE), USA 4.. Dr. Kathleen Sullivan, Nuclear Weapons Education and Action Project, New York, USA 5.. Valerie Heinonen, o.s.u., Ursuline Sisters, New York, USA 6.. Judi Friedman, PACE :People's Action for Clean Energy, Inc., USA WALES 1.. Mike Hayes, Swansea C. N. D., Wales UK 2.. Brian Jones, Mor Ddi-Niwclear, Wales 3.. _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: Senate Unanimously Confirms Energy Chief From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday February 1, 2005 12:16 AM By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP)- The Senate on Monday easily confirmed Samuel Bodman as energy secretary, the seventh new member of President Bush's Cabinet to get congressional approval. Bodman, who served as deputy secretary in both the Commerce and Treasury departments during Bush's first term, was approved by unanimous voice vote shortly before the Senate adjourned for the day. Two of Bush's nine new Cabinet nominees still await Senate confirmation: White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales as attorney general and Michael Chertoff as secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Bodman, 66, has had little experience in energy matters, but senators said his academic and business background make him well suited to head a department that oversees a wide range of research from maintaining nuclear weapons to developing cleaner burning coal for power plants. He has a chemical engineering background and once taught at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He also is a former president of Fidelity Investments and a former chairman and chief executive officer of Cabot Corp., a multinational chemicals and specialty materials company. During a confirmation hearing, Bodman promised to continue focusing on Bush's energy priorities. He expressed support for trying to develop oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska and said he would continue a push to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Among Bodman's most difficult tasks will be trying to persuade Congress to pass a comprehensive national energy bluepepartment's ethics office that he plans to keep his financial holdings in Cabot Corp., including stock options, deferred compensation and proceeds in a retirement savings plan. But he pledged to recuse himself from any Energy Department matters specific to the company. His holdings include Cabot Microelectronics Corp. stock options that are valued at $1 million to $5 million and expire in April. He also has a Cabot Corp. deferred compensation arrangement that is worth $1 million to $5 million and pays him about $15,000 per month; two Cabot Corp. defined benefit plans that together provide him annuities of about $11,000 per month; and a Cabot Corp. retirement income savings plan that is valued at $1 million to $5 million and pays him about $61,000 per month. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 13 Bellona: 37 kg of uranium seized on Kazakhstan border Customs in the southern Russian city of Orenburg have seized a container with 37 kilograms of depleted uranium heading to Kazakhstan on unknown date. 2005-01-31 15:17 This news was first reported by ITAR-TASS correspondent Alexey Mikhalin on December 29,2004, but then for some reasons it was repeated by the ITAR-TASS agency again on January 28, where the day of the incident was January 26. Both reports are almost identical. The agency cited in the latter report a spokesman at the Federal Customs Service saying that offisers of the Orenburg customs service on the Kazakhstan border spotted the dangerous cargo on January 26 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 a radioactive substance smuggling has been initiated. Specialists of the Russian Agency of Atomic Energy told Itar-Tass that neither a conventional nor a dirty bomb could be made from the confiscated amount of uranium. Publisher: [bellona@bellona.no] , President: [frederic@bellona.no] Information: [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 14 AFP: German farmers championing 'flower power' for cleaner energy - New Scientist | AFP Sunday January 30, 09:13 PM BERLIN (AFP) - Germany is looking to messier energy sources to produce cleaner fuel, showing the world that it is possible use all-natural plant and animal products to run cars and heat homes. In a famously ecological country, innovators have backed away from belching gas guzzlers and looked to new energy sources such as gas from liquid manure, rapeseed diesel and wood-burning electric power stations. The "Green Week" in Berlin, Europe's biggest agricultural fair, has given center stage to cleaner forms of energy whose sources can be found right on the farm. Growers of rapeseed, one of the primary sources of cooking oil, have discovered their crop has a new calling at petrol stations. Heated to a high temperature, it becomes a biological form of diesel that emits only a fraction of the carbon dioxide. Some 1.1 million tonnes of the fuel, nicknamed "flower power", were produced by about 20 manufacturers in 2004 in Germany. About 1,800 petrol stations sell it, benefiting from an exemption from the fuel tax. In time, up to 10 percent of the diesel used in the European Union could be "biodiesel," according to its promoters, up from two percent in Germany today. "With this type of product, you know it will always sell," said Tobias Mickler of the Renewable Products Agency, pointing out several brand new car models running on biodiesel on display at the Green Week. A few meters away, engineer Eckhard Schneider sings the praises of power stations running on liquid manure -- cattle urine and dung -- fermented with corn, rye or grass. The energy released is used as a source of heat on farms and surrounding areas and can be used to produce electricity. "Two thousand farms use biological gas in Germany," Schneider said, adding that he also has clients in France. "In time, half the 400,000 German farms will be equipped with these kind of power stations." Wood burning systems of all sizes that offer the same dual sources of heat and electricity were also out in force at the Green Week. Publicly subsidized, they can be used on farms but also in private homes and workshops. In 2003, renewable energy supplied 3.1 percent of the energy used by consumers in Germany, versus 1.3 percent in 1990, according to the consumer protection ministry. Germany's center-left government has taken a leading role in championing cleaner energy sources, reducing the country's reliance on tightening oil supplies, risky nuclear power and heavy carbon dioxide producers, believed to be responsible for global warming. Biological energy is the most productive of the renewable energy sources which also include wind, hydraulic and solar power, the ministry said. Each year, it allows the country to prevent the emission of nearly 20 million tonnes of greenhouse gases. The dreamers even believe that biomass -- organic products used to produce energy -- could power an entire town. Juehnde, close to the northern university city of Goettingen, decided to test the theory. The town, population 800, now predicts it will soon be able to satisfy all of its heat and electricity needs with animal and plant products from its own backyard. Copyright 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 15 Asia Times: Nuclear buildup continues apace www.atimes.com By Ranjit Devraj NEW DELHI - Not only are the year-old peace talks between India and Pakistan floundering, but the South Asian neighbors are also steadily increasing their nuclear arsenals, warn leading physicists on both sides of the common border. "Those who say that the chances of a nuclear war between India and Pakistan are small might like to consider that a little over a month ago the probability of a tsunami killing over 200,000 people around the Indian Ocean was also considered small," R Rajaraman, professor emeritus of physics at the Jawaharalal Nehru University, told IPS in an interview. Rajaraman is in agreement with visiting peace activist and physicist from the Qaid-e-Azam University in Islamabad, Pervez Hoodbhoy. Both say that India and Pakistan have been beefing up their nuclear arsenals and delivery mechanisms, even while they have been engaged in a "composite dialogue" aimed at building peace that started in January 2004. Hoodbhoy, who is currently on a lecture circuit in India on an invitation from the Ministry of Science and Technology, believes that India has a bigger nuclear weapons program than Pakistan. India, he says, has about 100 warheads, while Pakistan possesses half that number. Both South Asian countries declared themselves as nuclear powers in 1998 and within a year came close to testing their weapons on each other after skirmishes over a few hills at Kargil on the Line of Control (LoC) that runs through the disputed territory of Kashmir. Kargil saw the use of fighter aircraft and the Pakistani and Indian navies in battle maneuvers. In 2001, an attempt by a suicide squad to blow India's parliament using a car bomb led to India mobilizing 700,000 troops along the border. The Indian troops were prepared to attack Islamic militant camps in Pakistani-controlled areas within Kashmir amid threats and counter-threats that nuclear weapons would be resorted to. Alarmed governments around the world advised their nationals in India and Pakistan to evacuate. They also scaled down the presence of diplomatic staff in their respective missions, fearing a nuclear exchange between both countries. Deft diplomacy, however, by the United States helped defuse what easily might have been a nuclear holocaust. According to Hoodbhoy, the only reason Washington did not get any more involved in the Kashmir problem beyond Kargil was because "there is no oil there". Hoodbhoy, who won the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization's (UNESCO's) prestigious Kalinga Award for Peace in 2003, said the current series of bilateral talks and confidence-building measures were meaningless as long as "both sides kept on testing missiles and sabre-rattling each other". "What should be done is to reduce the testing of missile and fissile material," stressed Hoodbhoy. Instead of spending money on glaringly neglected social sectors like education and health, both countries have - over the past year - been busy acquiring sophisticated weapons systems or building them. In what seems like a new edition of the Cold War, India has in collaboration with Russia built supersonic guided missiles and acquired frontline Sukhoi fighters, while Pakistan is awaiting delivery of F-16 fighters cleared by Washington for its "closest ally outside NATO" - the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Neither Hoodbhoy nor Rajaraman was prepared to accept the idea of nuclear weapons acting as a deterrence and say that there is every possibility of nuclear war breaking out between India and Pakistan because of an irrational decision or even by accident. "Anyway, as long as you are talking about nuclear weapons acting as deterrence, the fact is that both countries already have more than enough weapons to serve that requirement," Rajaraman said. Confidence in the progress of peace talks between India and Pakistan were shattered by a dispute that arose earlier this month over the sharing of the waters of the Indus river and its tributaries that were supposed to have been settled decades ago by the 1960 Indus Water Treaty. After joint inspections, a Pakistani team said that a 450-megawatt hydroelectric dam being built at Baglihar on the Indian side of the LoC in Kashmir violated the 1960 treaty and Islamabad announced that it would seek the arbitration of the World Bank, which mediated the treaty but is not its guarantor. But the Bank doesn't seem to want to get involved in the dispute. "The treaty does not envisage a role for the World Bank in the determination of any issues which might be brought before a neutral expert. The bank will not participate in any discussion or exchange beyond its role in the process of appointing a neutral expert,' it said in a January 28 statement. The dispute between the two countries over Kashmir goes back to 1947 when the two countries were partitioned on the basis of religion into Muslim Pakistan and Hindu-majority India following decolonization and the end of British rule on the sub-continent. After the formal grant of independence in August 1947, Kashmir continued to remain as an independent princely state, but within two months the first of a series of wars over the territory had broken out between India and Pakistan. With more than half a century of war and diplomacy failing to resolve the dispute over Kashmir, leading analysts have been calling for fresh approaches to the long-festering problem. Hoodbhoy believes that the Kashmir issue is best kept aside for now. "People-to-people contact, including student exchange programs, demilitarization in the area and the softening of borders should be encouraged first," he said. The future of the peace talks now hinge on meetings between Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh and his Pakistani counterpart Shaukat Aziz on the sidelines of the summit of the seven-nation, South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation scheduled to be held from February 6-7 in the Bangladeshi capital of Dhaka. (Inter Press Service) Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 ***************************************************************** 16 BusinessWeek: The Method in Nuke Madness AFFAIRS OF STATE By Stan Crock Understanding nations' reasons for and against such arms can help maintain stability, even with North Korea and Iran in the nuclear club Why do countries decide to launch military nuclear programs -- or abandon the idea when they have the capability to develop nukes? The answers will be critical as the Europeans try to dissuade Iran from developing nuclear arms, the Six-Party talks try to persuade North Korea to give up the arsenal it's believed to have, and other countries, not wanting to be left behind, mull their own options. The renewed focus on nuclear weapons in the wake of 9/11 and the Iraq war stems from a remarkable shift in the proliferation pendulum. Until India and Pakistan tested bombs in 1998, the world had seen a significant move toward disarmament. A wide range of countries -- from former Soviet Bloc members such as Ukraine and Kazakhstan, to Argentina, Brazil, Taiwan, and South Africa -- had given up their nuclear programs. NOT NECESSARILY DISASTROUS. However, if efforts to stop Iran and North Korea from joining the nuclear club fail, will the three dozen or so countries with strong commercial nuclear programs decide they need to jump on the bandwagon and convert their knowhow to military uses? The answer might be no. The world would clearly be better off if Tehran and Pyongyang jettisoned their nuclear ambitions and the other potential wannabes decide they don't wannabe. Some experts fear a much higher level of risk if volatile, confrontational countries develop more bombs. Iran is believed to be close to having a weapons capability. Experts think North Korea has had enough fissile material for two bombs for a decade and could have reprocessed more plutonium since it kicked out weapons inspectors. It may have as many as six bombs now, though such suspicions haven't been confirmed. Still, if the number of nuclear-club members rises, it won't necessarily lead to disaster. Ted Galen Carpenter, a foreign-policy expert at the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, argues that the world has seen an unpredictable, weird regime armed with nukes before -- the Chinese government during the Cultural Revolution under Mao Zedong. STATURE HUNGRY. "Mao said it would be possible to fight and win a nuclear war by outlasting us" because the Chinese population was so much larger, Carpenter recalls. Yet Beijing and the U.S. didn't go to war -- no doubt because the prospect of massive nuclear retaliation served as a deterrent. Why do countries develop the bomb in the first place? The most obvious reason is for defensive purposes -- to deter a potential enemy from even thinking about attacking. But in a collection of essays entitled The Coming Crisis: Nuclear Proliferation, U.S. Interests, and World Order, some of the authors argue that countries have reasons beyond a possible external threat for pouring resources into weapons programs. Scott D. Sagan, a political-science professor at Stanford University and co-director of the school's Center for International Security & Cooperation, suggests the desire to enhance France's global stature helps explain Paris' development of a weapon, while internal bureaucratic imperatives and domestic political demands prodded India into moving ahead with a bomb. FORSWEARING NUKES. Caroline F. Ziemke of the Institute for Defense Analysis emphasizes the importance of a country's "strategic personality," which reflects how a nation perceives and pursues its interests. She cites as an example Iran and its sense of Persian cultural and moral superiority, which prompts Tehran to try acquiring nuclear capability. Equally important are the reasons countries that could make bombs relatively easily decide not to do so. Libya made that choice so it could become integrated into the international community. Some analysts believe that Seif al-Islam al-Qaddafi, Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi's son, pushed his father in that direction to help improve the economy he eventually might govern. Egypt abandoned its program because it jeopardized stability in the region, economic growth, and the country's close ties with Washington, according to an essay by former diplomat Robert J. Einhorn included in The Nuclear Tipping Point: Why States Reconsider Their Nuclear Choices. Taiwan dropped its program under pressure from the U.S. and the International Atomic Energy Agency, according to a paper by Derek J. Mitchell of the Center for Strategic & International Studies in the same volume. And Saudi Arabia forswore its nuclear plans to mollify an outraged Washington after the Reagan Administration discovered the Saudis had bought some intermediate-range missiles from China behind Reagan's back, according to a chapter written by Thomas W. Lippman of the Middle East Institute. UNDERSTANDING COUNTRIES. What does all this mean for policy in the future? Giving countries assurances that they can feel secure under a U.S. nuclear umbrella -- that Washington will respond if they are attacked -- will take away an important incentive for countries thinking about obtaining their own nukes. That would require America to maintain a stockpile, though the Bush Administration has pledged to slash its warhead count by 50%. Such assurances may not be enough, however. Countering the desire to enhance stature may require a strengthening of international norms barring nuclear-arms development, Sagan says. Thus, a country that develops a bomb would see its status diminished, rather than enhanced, as it becomes a pariah. Furthermore, Ziemke recommends avoiding tactics that feed strategic-personality issues. With Iran, she says, the U.S. should stay away from talk of an Islamic threat and argue that nuclear weapons are immoral because they waste limited resources. To play to Tehran's desire for superiority in the Muslim world, the U.S. could try to persuade Iran to take a leadership role in the region in renouncing these weapons. While it's hard to say which scheme will work, the point is strategies to try to preserve stability exist -- even if Iran joins the nuclear club and North Korea beefs up its presumed nuclear stockpile. What Washington needs to do is understand why countries act as they do. Scholars are trying to lay a foundation for that. It's up to policymakers to put that knowledge to good use. [ width=] [stan_crock@businessweek.com] covers national security and foreign affairs for BusinessWeek from Washington. Follow his views in Affairs of State twice a month, only on BusinessWeek Online Edited by Patricia O'Connell magazine, please click here. Learn more, go to the [http://www.businessweek.com/] ***************************************************************** 17 [NukeNet] Exelon gets probation for training at TMI, Hope Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:44:17 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Please see the press coverage below--the National Nuclear Accrediting Board placed Exelon on probation. Union officials and nuclear watchdogs say staffing cuts are to blame. The Board's action could prevent it from re-accrediting Exelon's training program. The Board reports its findings to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, an industry policing body established after the 1979 accident at TMI. The institute's ratings are used to set insurance rates for the plants. In other news--- Hope Creek went "off-line" this weekend due to equipment problems. This is despite the 90+ day outage that ended last week. In addition, the start-up that followed the NRC giving PSEG the green light to restart on 1/10/05 without replacing the B recirculation pump shaft, was delayed nearly five days due to a plethora of equipment problems. Also, Exelon personnel, who on 1/17/05 began managing daily operations at Salem and Hope Creek under a special contract with PSEG, are already--in record time--under investigation for violating procedures and federal regulations, including firing managers outspoken about safety, work environment, and procedure adherence issues. Suzanne Leta Energy Associate NJPIRG 11 N. Willow St Trenton, NJ 08608 609 394 8155 x310 sleta@njpirg.org ----- Original Message ----- From: Eric Epstein To: Suzanne Leta Sent: Saturday, January 29, 2005 8:40 AM Subject: Probation for TMI training USA Today, Pennsylvania Friday, January 28 Harrisburg - The National Nuclear Accrediting Board placed the training program for control room workers at Three Mile Island on probation. A union official and the watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert blamed staffing cuts. The board reviews training programs at commercial nuclear plants every four years. The Associated Press HARRISBURG, Pa. - A policing agency of the nuclear industry has concluded that the training program for control room workers at Three Mile Island needs improvement. The Exelon Nuclear training program was placed on probation last month by the National Nuclear Accrediting Board, which reviews training programs every four years at commercial nuclear plants. The action could prevent the board from reaccrediting Three Mile Island's program. The exact result is unclear, however, because no nuclear station has lost its accreditation since the program started 20 years ago. The National Nuclear Accrediting Board reports its findings to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, an industry policing organization established after the 1979 accident at the plant's other reactor. Institute spokesman Terry Young would not discuss the case. A union official said staffing cuts were to blame, as did a watchdog group. "This is not the workers' fault. This is management's fault," said Eric Epstein, chairman of the nuclear watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert. "The plant is not adequately staffed." The number of employees has been cut more than 30 percent since 1999, when Chicago-based Exelon bought Three Mile Island's Unit 1 from GPU Nuclear. Unit 2 hasn't been used since the nation's worst commercial nuclear accident, when a portion of the reactor's core melted. Exelon spokesman Ralph DeSantis said staffing was not an issue. He said the plant was faulted for "not using a systematic approach to training as vigorously as we should be." The accrediting organization will re-evaluate the training program next summer, DeSantis said. --- Information from: The Patriot-News, http://www.pennlive.com/patriotnewsJanuary 27, 2005 8:44 AM 2005 Copyright Calkins Media, Inc. All rights reserved. ----- Board raps TMI Unit 1 training Thursday, January 27, 2005 BY GARRY LENTON Of The Patriot-News The training program for control-room operators at Three Mile Island Unit 1 needs improvement, an industry policing agency says. The National Nuclear Accrediting Board placed Exelon Nuclear's operator training program on probation last month. The action by the board, which reviews training programs at commercial nuclear plants every four years, could prevent it from re-accrediting TMI-1's program. The consequences of that are unknown, because no nuclear station has lost accreditation since the program began in 1985. The accreditation board reports its findings to the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, an industry policing body established after the 1979 accident at TMI. The institute's ratings are used to set insurance rates for the plants. Terry Young, communications director for the institute, would not discuss TMI's case. A union official said the probation stems from problems caused by staffing cuts. Exelon representative Ralph DeSantis said staffing was not the issue. He said TMI was faulted for "not using a systematic approach to training as vigorously as we should be." The institute shares its findings only with plant owners and operators, enabling it to maintain a high level of trust and cooperation, Young said. TMI will have a chance next summer to regain a higher standing when the accrediting organization re-evaluates the program, DeSantis said. Exelon conducts an intense self-evaluation and did not dispute the findings, he said. "I think it's serious," said Mike Gabner, business agent of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 777, which represents some TMI workers. "But it's not a danger to the public. "We think we know what the problem is, and it's a lack of people," he said. "They [Exelon] have cut back on the training department." Since 1999, the year Chicago-based Exelon bought TMI-1 from GPU Nuclear, the number of employees has been cut more than 30 percent. Eric Epstein, chairman of the nuclear watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert, agreed with Gabner. "This is not the workers' fault. This is management's fault," he said. "The plant is not adequately staffed." DeSantis disagreed. "Staffing at TMI is consistent with other plants," he said. Staff writer David DeKok contributed to this report. GARRY LENTON: 255-8264 or glenton@patriot-news.com _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 18 [NukeNet] Fwd: Rokkasho problems on NHK, etc Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:44:12 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) ----- Begin forwarded message ----- From: Aileen Mioko Smith Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2005 20:54:03 +0900 January 28, 2005 Dear All, Hi. This is Aileen writing from Kyoto. This is news about the first significant trouble arising since uranium commissioning began at Rokkasho December 2003! We're looking forward to how the media coverage goes in Aomori tomorrow. This morning's national NHK news reported design flaws discovered in the ventilation system for the HLW storage facilities to be used when Rokkasho operates. (See translation of NHK below.) As a result, we (Stop Reprocessing! National Network) and other organizations and individuals in Aomori issued a statement of protest today, January 28th to JNFL, the government (NISA), and a third statement to Aomori Prefecture. We are calling for a halt in uranium commissioning since these new revelations seriously question JNFL's management ability. We will be holding a press conference in Aomori on the 31st and meeting with NISA in Tokyo on February 1st. See below for further details. ---- NHK REPORT (JANUARY 28th 6AM) At the spent nuclear fuel reprocessing plant located in Rokkasho, Aomori, there are two buildings (facilities) to store high level nuclear waste coming out of the plant. Two additional new buildings are also planned. These buildings are structurally constructed to be ventilated so the internal temperature can be kept below 500 degrees. However, it has became evident during the priliminary examination of the government that one of the planned buildings cannot cool the nuclear waste sufficiently. After the operator JNFL undertook an examination because of this, it was discovered that the other 3 buildings also had the same problem. According to JNFL, the design flaw occurred as a result of a subcontractor using a wrong calculation formula when calculating ventilation performance. Since the buildings are not yet being used, there are no (immediate) effects, however, at the reprocessing plant 4 years ago, there was also a problem which occurred as a result of flawed construction work of the spent fuel storage pools, resulting in leakage, and therefore the management regime of the operator may be questioned. --- SUMMARY OF OUR PETITION: Our petition points out that JNFL is using the subcontractor as scapegoat. The temperature in question indicated in JNFL licensing documentation for the earlier HLW buildings and then for these 4 new buildings is IDENTICAL (the same temerature) even with design changes in the new buildings (much less ventilation space volume in the 4 new buildings). We point out there is suspicion that JNFL actually made no new calculations based on the new design conditions but simply transferred the number from the earlier licensing applications. We suspect JNFL made the design changes to " improve execution of construction" (their words), and we state that this may have been the motivation behind the lack of implementing proper calculations. Citizens' Nuclear Information Center 3F Kotobuki Bdg, 1-58-15, Higashi-Nakano, Nakano-ku, Tokyo 164-0003 Phone: 81-3-5330-9520 Fax: 81-3-5330-9530 http://cnic.jp/english/ cnic@nifty.com _______________________________________________________________________ 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: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards; Subcommittee Meeting FR Doc 05-1688 [Federal Register: January 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 19)] [Notices] [Page 4890-4891] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31ja05-97] on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena; Notice of Meeting The ACRS Subcommittee on Thermal-Hydraulic Phenomena will hold a meeting on February 15, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday, February 15, 2005-8:30 a.m. until the conclusion of business. The Subcommittee will continue review of the development of the TRACE thermal-hydraulic computer code. The Subcommittee will hear presentations by and hold discussions with representatives of the NRC staff and their contractors regarding this [[Page 4891]] matter. The Subcommittee will gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Ralph Caruso (Telephone: 301-415-8065) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda. Dated: January 25, 2005. John H. Flack, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. 05-1688 Filed 1-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 20 CBC: Canada should consider new nuclear plants, expanded oil exploration - IEA [http://www.cbc.ca/] 09:34 PM EST Jan 31 JAMES STEVENSON CALGARY (CP) - New nuclear power plants, better automotive fuel efficiency and an end to oil and gas exploration moratoriums in areas such as the British Columbia coast are among suggestions in a report on Canada's energy policies by the International Energy Agency. In its review of Canada's energy situation, the Paris-based IEA stressed Monday that the country needs better co-operation between provincial and federal governments to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and strengthen electricity markets. Canada's energy policy must focus on security of supply, economic growth and environmental protection, said executive director Claude Mandil. "A sound energy policy has to stand on these three legs, and if you jettison one of those goals, it's the whole energy policy which is in a bad position," Mandil said in a conference call from Paris. Mandil said Ottawa needs to evaluate the costs and benefits of nuclear power plants. "Nuclear is an essential component of Canada's energy mix, and this is a key asset for security of supply, competition and climate change issues," he said. While Canada's newer nuclear stations are performing quite well, older plants are experiencing significant refurbishment problems, the IEA noted. Ontario's planned re-start of unit 4 at its Pickering A nuclear plant in Ontario was years late and millions of dollars over budget. The province is moving slowly on further nuclear retrofits even though it faces an electricity crunch as it tries to shut down heavily polluting coal-fired plants. The International Energy Agency also said Canada needs to seriously consider lifting exploration bans in areas like the West Coast. British Columbia's Liberal government wants to look at lifting the 32-year-old federal ban but Ottawa has remained silent on the issue and recent reports point to large-scale public opposition. The IEA commended Canada on its "excellent measuring and monitoring of energy efficiency." But meeting its targets under the Kyoto climate change protocol while maintaining economic growth "remains the single biggest economic and political challenge for Canadian energy policy in the coming years," said Mandil. With a Feb. 16 deadline looming when the Kyoto agreement comes into legal force, Natural Resources Minister John Efford has said large industrial polluters will not be able to meet the target of a 55-million-tonne cut in annual carbon emissions from business-as-usual projections for 2010. Efford said Monday he favours working with industry on experimental technologies such as injecting carbon dioxide into the ground instead of releasing it into the air. "This file is not going to close," he declared. "This is a file that will be ongoing into the future." Mandil said Canada is not alone in running the risk of missing its Kyoto targets but said there is tremendous scope for improving energy efficiency. "I think the most cost-effective way of reducing emissions today is really to increase energy efficiency by raising standards, and in introducing new regulations for cars, et cetera." The IEA report recommends Canada create three regional electricity markets - in the West, central Canada and in Atlantic Canada - to enhance security of supply and protect against future failures like the August 2003 blackout. The IEA, associated with the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, serves primarily as a forum for proper management of energy resources, and periodically reviews the energy policies of its member countries, which include most of the developed world. The Canadian Press, 2005 [http://www.cp.org/] ***************************************************************** 21 Eastern Province Herald: Nuclear plant plan still on course Monday January 31, 2005 12:10 - (SA) By Guy Rogers Last week's Cape High Court ruling on the demonstration pebble bed modular reactor nuclear project at Koeberg won't affect Eskom's proposed nuclear sites in the Eastern Cape. The electricity utility owns land at Thuyspunt in Oyster Bay near St Francis. The site was on a short list for the pebble bed demo plant before Koeberg was chosen. The Coega industrial development zone has also more recently been suggested as a nuclear plant site. Pebble bed communications manager Tom Ferreira said the Cape Town court ruling had not been about the merits of the project or nuclear power in general. "It was solely about a technical point in the environmental impact assessment process. The judge thought the (national environmental affairs and tourism) department should have afforded (environmental activist NGO) Earthlife the opportunity to make submissions after the submission of the final EIA." "He ruled that the department is obliged to give Earthlife and others the opportunity to make those submissions." In terms of the EIA process, having given the public time to comment on the issue, the department must also apply its mind to that comment, before issuing a final decision on whether it should be allowed to go ahead or not. The submissions that will now be allowed focus on the economic feasibility of the project at Koeberg and the onus it places on the taxpayer. Earthlife brought the case specifically against the director-general of the department, Dr Chippy Olver. The court found that the director-general made his ruling on the final EIA while he had only allowed comment on the draft EIA, which was substantially different. Olver announced his retirement last week but, responding smartly to the court ruling against him, the department has announced it will be challenging the ruling. Ferreira said his understanding was that the criticism of the Koeberg proposal was not about the site but about pebble bed reactors and nuclear technology generally. "The point is it will not make any sense for Eskom to start looking away from Koeberg. It is not about the site." It is understood the corporation backed away from Thuyspunt as a possible site because of the strong opposition from the St Francis community. But Eskom spokesman Fani Zulu said yesterday that Koeberg had been chosen because it made sense to extend the existing nuclear operation. Once the environment department appeal has been heard and the matter finalised, Eskom will have a better idea if it can meet its 2007 deadline for the construction of the demo pebble bed reactor at Koeberg, he said. [http://www.sundaytimes.co.za/competitions] All material copyright Sunday Times © Johnnic Media Investments Limited 1996-2005. All Rights ***************************************************************** 22 Slovak Spectator: IAEA assesses nuclear risks Volume 11, Number 4 Slovakia's English language newspaper January 31 - February 6, 2005 [http://www.relo.sk] From press reports REPRESENTATIVES from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) began a two-week conference in Bratislava January 24 to analyze risks inherent in the phasing out of Jaslovsk Bohunice's nuclear power plant. The current plan is to close the first of the power plant's blocks by 2006 and the second by 2008. Critics of the plan say that a 2008 deadline for both blocks would be safer. IAEA's main goal is to assess the survey of the plant and judge if Slovakia's numerical calculations are accurate, so that the results can be used in documentation to be submitted to the cabinet by the Economy Ministry in February, the TASR news agency wrote. Six experts appointed by IAEA - from Bulgaria, Russia, Spain, the United Kingdom and Switzerland, are taking part in the talks. [1/31/2005] [http://www.slovakia-online.sk] Copyright 1998-2003 The Rock spol. s r.o. All rights ***************************************************************** 23 Wired 13.02: Nuclear Now! + [Wired News] Issue 13.02 - February 2005 Nuclear Now! How clean, green atomic energy can stop global warmingBy Peter Schwartz and Spencer Reiss Green vs. Green On a cool spring morning a quarter century ago, a place in Pennsylvania called Three Mile Island exploded into the headlines and stopped the US nuclear power industry in its tracks. What had been billed as the clean, cheap, limitless energy source for a shining future was suddenly too hot to handle. In the years since, we've searched for alternatives, pouring billions of dollars into windmills, solar panels, and biofuels. We've designed fantastically efficient lightbulbs, air conditioners, and refrigerators. We've built enough gas-fired generators to bankrupt California. But mainly, each year we hack 400 million more tons of coal out of Earth's crust than we did a quarter century before, light it on fire, and shoot the proceeds into the atmosphere. The consequences aren't pretty. Burning coal and other fossil fuels is driving climate change, which is blamed for everything from western forest fires and Florida hurricanes to melting polar ice sheets and flooded Himalayan hamlets. On top of that, coal-burning electric power plants have fouled the air with enough heavy metals and other noxious pollutants to cause 15,000 premature deaths annually in the US alone, according to a Harvard School of Public Health study. Believe it or not, a coal-fired plant releases 100 times more radioactive material than an equivalent nuclear reactor - right into the air, too, not into some carefully guarded storage site. (And, by the way, more than 5,200 Chinese coal miners perished in accidents last year.) Burning hydrocarbons is a luxury that a planet with 6 billion energy-hungry souls can't afford. There's only one sane, practical alternative: nuclear power. We now know that the risks of splitting atoms pale beside the dreadful toll exacted by fossil fuels. Radiation containment, waste disposal, and nuclear weapons proliferation are manageable problems in a way that global warming is not. Unlike the usual green alternatives - water, wind, solar, and biomass - nuclear energy is here, now, in industrial quantities. Sure, nuke plants are expensive to build - upward of $2 billion apiece - but they start to look cheap when you factor in the true cost to people and the planet of burning fossil fuels. And nuclear is our best hope for cleanly and efficiently generating hydrogen, which would end our other ugly hydrocarbon addiction - dependence on gasoline and diesel for transport. Some of the world's most thoughtful greens have discovered the logic of nuclear power, including Gaia theorist James Lovelock, Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore, and Britain's Bishop Hugh Montefiore, a longtime board member of Friends of the Earth (see "Green vs. Green," page 82). Western Europe is quietly backing away from planned nuclear phaseouts. Finland has ordered a big reactor specifically to meet the terms of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. China's new nuke plants - 26 by 2025 - are part of a desperate effort at smog control. Even the shell-shocked US nuclear industry is coming out of its stupor. The 2001 report of Vice President Cheney's energy task force was only the most high profile in a series of pro-nuke developments. Nuke boosters are especially buoyed by more efficient plant designs, streamlined licensing procedures, and the prospect of federal subsidies. In fact, new plants are on the way, however tentatively. Three groups of generating companies have entered a bureaucratic maze expected to lead to formal applications for plants by 2008. If everything breaks right, the first new reactors in decades will be online by 2014. If this seems ambitious, it's not; the industry hopes merely to hold on to nuclear's current 20 percent of the rapidly growing US electric power market. That's not nearly enough. We should be shooting to match France, which gets 77 percent of its electricity from nukes. It's past time for a decisive leap out of the hydrocarbon era, time to send King Coal and, soon after, Big Oil shambling off to their well-deserved final resting places - maybe on a nostalgic old steam locomotive. Besides, wouldn't it be a blast to barrel down the freeway in a hydrogen Hummer with a clean conscience as your copilot? Or not to feel like a planet killer every time you flick on the A/C? That's how the future could be, if only we would get over our fear of the nuclear bogeyman and forge ahead - for real this time - into the atomic age. The granola crowd likes to talk about conservation and efficiency, and surely substantial gains can be made in those areas. But energy is not a luxury people can do without, like a gym membership or hair gel. The developed world built its wealth on cheap power - burning firewood, coal, petroleum, and natural gas, with carbon emissions the inevitable byproduct. Indeed, material progress can be tracked in what gets pumped out of smokestacks. An hour of coal-generated 100-watt electric light creates 0.05 pounds of atmospheric carbon, a bucket of ice makes 0.3 pounds, an hour's car ride 5. The average American sends nearly half a ton of carbon spewing into the atmosphere every month. Europe and Japan are a little more economical, but even the most remote forest-burning peasants happily do their part. And the worst - by far - is yet to come. An MIT study forecasts that worldwide energy demand could triple by 2050. China could build a Three Gorges Dam every year forever and still not meet its growing demand for electricity. Even the carbon reductions required by the Kyoto Protocol - which pointedly exempts developing countries like China - will be a drop in the atmospheric sewer. What is a rapidly carbonizing world to do? The high-minded answer, of course, is renewables. But the notion that wind, water, solar, or biomass will save the day is at least as fanciful as the once-popular idea that nuclear energy would be too cheap to meter. Jesse Ausubel, director of the human environment program at New York's Rockefeller University, calls renewable energy sources "false gods" - attractive but powerless. They're capital- and land-intensive, and solar is not yet remotely cost-competitive. Despite all the hype, tax breaks, and incentives, the proportion of US electricity production from renewables has actually fallen in the past 15 years, from 11.0 percent to 9.1 percent. The decline would be even worse without hydropower, which accounts for 92 percent of the world's renewable electricity. While dams in the US are under attack from environmentalists trying to protect wild fish populations, the Chinese are building them on an ever grander scale. But even China's autocrats can't get past Nimby. Stung by criticism of the monumental Three Gorges project - which required the forcible relocation of 1 million people - officials have suspended an even bigger project on the Nu Jiang River in the country's remote southwest. Or maybe someone in Beijing questioned the wisdom of reacting to climate change with a multibillion-dollar bet on rainfall. Solar power doesn't look much better. Its number-one problem is cost: While the price of photovoltaic cells has been slowly dropping, solar-generated electricity is still four times more expensive than nuclear (and more than five times the cost of coal). Maybe someday we'll all live in houses with photovoltaic roof tiles, but in the real world, a run-of-the-mill 1,000-megawatt photovoltaic plant will require about 60 square miles of panes alone. In other words, the largest industrial structure ever built. Wind is more promising, which is one reason it's the lone renewable attracting serious interest from big-time equipment manufacturers like General Electric. But even though price and performance are expected to improve, wind, like solar, is inherently fickle, hard to capture, and widely dispersed. And wind turbines take up a lot of space; Ausubel points out that the wind equivalent of a typical utility plant would require 300 square miles of turbines plus costly transmission lines from the wind-scoured fields of, say, North Dakota. Alternatively, there's California's Altamont Pass, where 5,400 windmills slice and dice some 1,300 birds of prey annually. What about biomass? Ethanol is clean, but growing the amount of cellulose required to shift US electricity production to biomass would require farming - no wilting organics, please - an area the size of 10 Iowas. Among fossil fuels, natural gas holds some allure; it emits a third as much carbon as coal. That's an improvement but not enough if you're serious about rolling back carbon levels. Washington's favorite solution is so-called clean coal, ballyhooed in stump speeches by both President Bush (who offered a $2 billion research program) and challenger John Kerry (who upped the ante to $10 billion). But most of the work so far has been aimed at reducing acid rain by cutting sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions, and more recently gasifying coal to make it burn cleaner. Actual zero-emissions coal is still a lab experiment that even fans say could double or triple generating costs. It would also leave the question of what to do with 1 million tons of extracted carbon each year. By contrast, nuclear power is thriving around the world despite decades of obituaries. Belgium derives 58 percent of its electricity from nukes, Sweden 45 percent, South Korea 40, Switzerland 37 percent, Japan 31 percent, Spain 27 percent, and the UK 23 percent. Turkey plans to build three plants over the next several years. South Korea has eight more reactors coming, Japan 13, China at least 20. France, where nukes generate more than three-quarters of the country's electricity, is privatizing a third of its state-owned nuclear energy group, Areva, to deal with the rush of new business. The last US nuke plant to be built was ordered in 1973, yet nuclear power is growing here as well. With clever engineering and smart management, nukes have steadily increased their share of generating capacity in the US. The 103 reactors operating in the US pump out electricity at more than 90 percent of capacity, up from 60 percent when Three Mile Island made headlines. That increase is the equivalent of adding 40 new reactors, without bothering anyone's backyard or spewing any more carbon into the air. So atomic power is less expensive than it used to be - but could it possibly be cost-effective? Even before Three Mile Island sank, the US nuclear industry was foundering on the shoals of economics. Regulatory delays and billion-dollar construction-cost overruns turned the business into a financial nightmare. But increasing experience and efficiency gains have changed all that. Current operating costs are the lowest ever - 1.82 cents per kilowatt-hour versus 2.13 cents for coal-fired plants and 3.69 cents for natural gas. The ultimate vindication of nuclear economics is playing out in the stock market: Over the past five years, the stocks of leading nuclear generating companies such as Exelon and Entergy have more than doubled. Indeed, Exelon is feeling so flush that it bought New Jersey's Public Service Enterprise Group in December, adding four reactors to its former roster of 17. This remarkable success suggests that nuclear energy realistically could replace coal in the US without a cost increase and ultimately lead the way to a clean, green future. The trick is to start building nuke plants and keep building them at a furious pace. Anything less leaves carbon in the climatic driver's seat. A decade ago, anyone thinking about constructing nuclear plants in the US would have been dismissed as out of touch with reality. But today, for the first time since the building of Three Mile Island, new nukes in the US seem possible. Thanks to improvements in reactor design and increasing encouragement from Washington, DC, the nuclear industry is posed for unlikely revival. "All the planets seem to be coming into alignment," says David Brown, VP for congressional affairs at Exelon. The original US nuclear plants, built during the 1950s and '60s, were descended from propulsion units in 1950s-vintage nuclear submarines, now known as generation I. During the '80s and '90s, when new construction halted in the US, the major reactor makers - GE Power Systems, British-owned Westinghouse, France's Framatome (part of Areva), and Canada's AECL - went after customers in Europe. This new round of business led to system improvements that could eventually, after some prototyping, be deployed back in the US. By all accounts, the latest reactors, generation III+, are a big improvement. They're fuel-efficient. They employ passive safety technologies, such as gravity-fed emergency cooling rather than pumps. Thanks to standardized construction, they may even be cost-competitive to build - $1,200 per kilowatt-hour of generating capacity versus more than $1,300 for the latest low-emission (which is not to say low-carbon) coal plants. But there's no way to know for sure until someone actually builds one. And even then, the first few will almost certainly cost more.  Recycle nuclear fuel. Here's a fun fact: Spent nuclear fuel - the stuff intended for permanent disposal at Yucca Mountain - retains 95 percent of its energy content. Imagine what Toyota could do for fuel efficiency if 95 percent of the average car's gasoline passed through the engine and out the tailpipe. In France, Japan, and Britain, nuclear engineers do the sensible thing: recycle. Alone among the nuclear powers, the US doesn't, for reasons that have nothing to do with nuclear power. Recycling spent fuel - the technical word is reprocessing - is one way to make the key ingredient of a nuclear bomb, enriched uranium. In 1977, Jimmy Carter, the only nuclear engineer ever to occupy the White House, banned reprocessing in the US in favor of a so-called once-through fuel cycle. Four decades later, more than a dozen countries reprocess or enrich uranium, including North Korea and Iran. At this point, hanging onto spent fuel from US reactors does little good abroad and real mischief at home. The Bush administration has reopened the door with modest funding to resume research into the nuclear fuel cycle. The president himself has floated a proposal to provide all comers with a guaranteed supply of reactor fuel in exchange for a promise not to reprocess spent fuel themselves. Other proposals would create a global nuclear fuel company, possibly under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency. This company would collect, reprocess, and distribute fuel to every nation in the world, thus keeping potential bomb fixings out of circulation. In the short term, reprocessing would maximize resources and minimize the problem of how to dispose of radioactive waste. In fact, it would eliminate most of the waste from nuclear power production. Over decades, it could also ease pressure on uranium supplies. The world's existing reserves are generally reckoned sufficient to withstand 50 years of rapid nuclear expansion without a significant price increase. In a pinch, there's always the ocean, whose 4.5 billion tons of dissolved uranium can be extracted today at 5 to 10 times the cost of conventional mining. Uranium is so cheap today that reprocessing is more about reducing waste than stretching the fuel supply. But advanced breeder reactors, which create more fuel as they generate power, could well be the economically competitive choice - and renewable as well.  Rekindle innovation. Although nuclear technology has come a long way since Three Mile Island, the field is hardly a hotbed of innovation. Government-funded research - such as the DOE's Next Generation Nuclear Plant program - is aimed at designing advanced reactors, including high temperature, gas-cooled plants of the kind being built in China and South Africa and fast-breeder reactors that will use uranium 60 times more efficiently than today's reactors. Still, the nuclear industry suffers from its legacy of having been born under a mushroom cloud and raised by your local electric company. A tight leash on nuclear R&D may be good, even necessary. But there's nothing like a little competition to spur creativity. That's reason enough to want to see US companies squarely back on the nuclear power field - research is great, but more and smarter buyers ultimately drive quality up and prices down. In fact, the possibility of a nuclear gold rush - not just a modest rebirth - depends on economics as much as technology. The generation IV pebble-bed reactors being developed in China and South Africa get attention for their meltdown-proof designs. (See "Let a Thousand Reactors Bloom," issue 12.09.) But it's their low capital cost and potential for fast, modular construction that could blow the game open, as surely as the PC did for computing. As long as investments come in $2 billion increments, purchase orders will be few and far between. At $300 million a pop for safe, clean energy, watch the floodgates open around the world.  Replace gasoline with hydrogen. If a single change could truly ignite nuclear power, it's the grab bag of technologies and wishful schemes traveling under the rubric of the hydrogen economy. Leaving behind petroleum is as important to the planet's future as eliminating coal. The hitch is that it takes energy to extract hydrogen from substances like methane and water. Where will it come from? Today, the most common energy source for producing hydrogen is natural gas, followed by oil. It's conceivable that renewables could do it in limited quantities. By the luck of physics, though, two things nuclear reactors do best - generate both electricity and very high temperatures - are exactly what it takes to produce hydrogen most efficiently. Last November, the DOE's Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory showed how a single next-gen nuke could produce the hydrogen equivalent of 400,000 gallons of gasoline every day. Nuclear energy's potential for freeing us not only from coal but also oil holds the promise of a bright green future for the US and the world at large. The more seriously you take the idea of global warming, the more seriously you have to take nuclear power. Clean coal, solar-powered roof tiles, wind farms in North Dakota - they're all pie in the emissions-free sky. Sure, give them a shot. But zero-carbon reactors are here and now. We know we can build them. Their price tag is no mystery. They fit into the existing electric grid without a hitch. Flannel-shirted environmentalists who fight these realities run the risk of ending up with as much soot on their hands as the slickest coal-mining CEO. America's voracious energy appetite doesn't have to be a bug - it can be a feature. Shanghai, Seoul, and Sao Paolo are more likely to look to Los Angeles or Houston as a model than to some solar-powered idyll. Energy technology is no different than any other; innovation can change all the rules. But if the best we can offer the developing world is bromides about energy independence, we'll deserve the carbon-choked nightmare of a planet we get. Nuclear energy is the big bang still reverberating. It's the power to light a city in a lump the size of a soda can. Peter Huber and Mark Mills have written an iconoclastic new book on energy, The Bottomless Well. They see nuclear power as merely the latest in a series of technologies that will gradually eliminate our need to carve up huge swaths of the planet. "Energy isn't the problem. Energy is the solution," they write. "Energy begets more energy. The more of it we capture and put to use, the more readily we will capture still more." The best way to avoid running out of fossil fuels is to switch to something better. The Stone Age famously did not end for lack of stones, and neither should we wait for the last chunk of anthracite to flicker out before we kiss hydrocarbons good-bye. Especially not when something cleaner, safer, more efficient, and more abundant is ready to roll. It's time to get real. The environmental movement, once staunchly antinuclear, is facing resistance from within. by Amanda Griscom Little From Greenpeace to the Green Party, some of the most prominent environmental groups today made their reputations in the 1970s as opponents of nuclear power. So it was no wonder that greens were vexed last summer when prime minister Tony Blair proposed a new generation of nuclear power plants for Britain to confront the problem of climate change. But what galled them even more was the response to Blair from Hugh Montefiore, a former Anglican bishop and longtime trustee of Friends of the Earth. Writing in the British journal The Tablet in October, Montefiore committed what colleagues viewed as the ultimate betrayal: "I have now come to the conclusion that the solution [to global warming] is to make more use of nuclear energy." When Montefiore told fellow trustees that he planned to speak out, they made him resign his post. Montefiore isn't the only dyed-in-the-wool green who has been exiled for advocating nuclear power. Greenpeace cofounder Patrick Moore left the organization after embracing atomic energy. British biologist James Lovelock, whose Gaia theory was an environmental watchword before he turned pro-nuke, is now persona non grata within the movement. "There are members of my former organization who would agree with me but have not gone public about the matter," Montefiore laments. "If only we had a few more people who would stick their necks out, it would help." Maybe not. Consider the green reaction to the National Commission on Energy Policy, whose board of directors includes a Harvard professor emeritus of environmental policy and a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. In December, the commission released a 150-page report that proposed reinvigorating the nuclear industry with billions in subsidies. The US must seek "a substantial expansion" of atomic power to counter climate change, the report said. Environmental groups bristled. The NRDC rejected the report's nuclear section as "old-style thinking." Members of Greenpeace, the Sierra Club, and the Union of Concerned Scientists heaved their own brickbats. So what would it take for environmentalists to accept nukes? Although green opinions vary, sources in the movement say much of the resistance would soften if the industry dealt with four persistent issues. The top priority for many environmentalists is to counter proliferation of nuclear weapons. To stem the creation of weapons-grade materials, they want to prohibit plants from recycling fuel and install robust security at reactor fuel production facilities. Second, to diminish the risk of Chernobyl-style accidents, they'd like to see aging plants updated, safety protocols strengthened, and oversight tightened. Third, greens want a secure place to put waste. Yucca Mountain in Nevada, they say, needs to be proven capable of holding radioactive refuse for the hundreds of thousands of years it will take to decay; alternatively, a national system of short-term interim storage might be acceptable. Fourth, environmentalists insist that uranium mines, which are notorious polluters, employ cleaner extraction methods and submit to tougher environmental regulations. "If our concerns were thoroughly addressed, there could be a greater role for commercial nuclear power that we would support," says Geoffrey Fettus, senior project attorney at the NRDC. "But the devil is in the details, and the industry hasn't acknowledged that the problems even exist." While none of the leading environmental groups are going to lead the nuclear charge, insiders say the Union of Concerned Scientists has a growing pro-nuke faction. But don't look for a trend. "I want to drive a stake through the heart of the nuclear industry," says Greenpeace senior nuclear policy analyst Jim Ricchio. "I don't expect that to change." Amanda Griscom Little (amanda@grist.org) writes about the environment for Salon. Peter Schwartz (peter_schwartz@gbn.com) is chair of Global Business Network, a scenario-planning firm. Contributing editor Spencer Reiss (spencer@upperroad.net) wrote about pebble-bed nuclear reactors in issue 13.01. Additional research by Chris Coldewey. ***************************************************************** 24 asahi.com: Nuclear plants to be braced for quakes The Asahi Shimbun To calm public fears, Chubu Electric Power Co. said it will strengthen the earthquake resistance of its five facilities, including reactors, at its 30-year-old Hamaoka Nuclear Power Plant in Shizuoka Prefecture, which sits on a plate boundary. Chubu Electric Power officials said the reinforcements will be the first made to nuclear plants in the nation. Chubu Electric said the five nuclear facilities in Omaezaki were built to withstand quakes of up to magnitude 8.5 on the Richter scale, greater than the projected magnitude of a massive Tokai earthquake. ``We have taken sufficient measures (to withstand earthquakes), but these reinforcements will set minds more at ease,'' Fumio Kawaguchi, Chubu Electric president, told a news conference Friday. He added that the reinforcements will enable the facilities to withstand 30 percent stronger seismic waves with short to long ranges. The Hamaoka reactors were built to withstand maximum seismic accelerations of 600 gals, Chubu Electric officials said. After reinforcement, the reactors will withstand strong jolts of up to 1,000 gals, the company expects. That is two to three times stronger than the Tokai quake strength estimates by the government's Central Disaster Prevention Council. The cost to reinforce the five reactors will reach tens of billions of yen per reactor, officials said. Other reactors in Japan are thought capable of withstanding quakes of at least 370 gals, according to studies done after the Great Hanshin Earthquake of 1995. But the planned Hamaoka reinforcements are likely to raise questions on the resistance of other reactors. Power companies have argued that their reactors are safe because the Hamaoka plant is considered safe, although it is regarded as the most risky nuclear plant. In fact, the government's Nuclear Safety Commission is now reviewing its quake resistance guideline. If a stricter guideline is set, power companies will be forced to make further reinforcements at all their nuclear plants. Public concern over the safety of the Hamaoka nuclear reactors has grown partly because the oldest reactors, No. 1 and No. 2, were built in the early 1970s-before the plate boundary that is expected to set off a massive temblor was discovered right under the Hamaoka plant site. However, since the Great Hanshin Earthquake, some experts have said that the expected safety of the Hamaoka plant falls far short of what likely will be needed if the ``Big One'' hits. But some argue that Chubu Electric's earthquake estimates are based on methods used more than 20 years ago that underestimate the effects of a strong quake. Residents have filed a lawsuit demanding a permanent halt to operations at Hamaoka. The reinforcements could extend the life span of the No. 1 and No. 2 reactors, whose operations are now temporarily suspended while shrouds that cover the reactor cores are replaced. The reactors will be offline for another 12 to 21 months, until the reinforcements are finished in March 2008. Hamaoka's No. 3 to No. 5 reactors will halt operations for about two years for the reinforcement work.(IHT/Asahi: January 31,2005) [Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 25 NRC: NRC Assigns New Resident Inspector to Grand Gulf Nuclear Station News Release - Region IV - 2005-00 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-05-004 January 28, 2005 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: [opa4@nrc.gov] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has assigned Andrew Barrett as resident inspector at the Grand Gulf nuclear plant near Port Gibson, Miss. Andrew Barretts inspection skills, questioning attitude and commitment to safety will help the NRC ensure that Grand Gulf conducts operations with the highest safety standards to protect public health and safety, said NRC Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. Barrett joins Tim Hoeg and Geoff Miller, the current resident inspectors at the plant. He will fill a vacancy that will occur when Hoeg transfers to the Saint Lucie nuclear plant in Florida in February, and Miller replaces him as the senior NRC inspector at Grand Gulf. In August 2003, Barrett joined the NRC at the Region IV office in Arlington, Tx., as a reactor engineer, and was named a project engineer several months later. Prior to joining the NRC, Barrett graduated from Texas A&M University with a Bachelor of Science degree in nuclear engineering in 1997. He then worked as a nuclear engineer at River Bend Station in St. Francisville, La. He subsequently worked for ILD Services, a nuclear contracting company based in Baton Rouge, La., as a field engineer. Barrett and his wife will reside in Port Gibson, Miss. Each of the countrys commercial nuclear plants has resident inspectors who serve as the agencys eyes and ears at the facility, conducting regular inspections, monitoring significant work projects and interacting with plant workers and the public. The resident inspectors at Grand Gulf can be reached at (601) 437-4620. Last revised Monday, January 31, 2005 ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet Feb. 10-11 in Rockville, Maryland 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. 05-017 January 28, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards will hold a public meeting Feb. 10-11 in Rockville, Md., to discuss an 8 percent power uprate request for Entergy Operations Waterford Nuclear Plant in Louisiana. The committee will also discuss, among other items, the draft Safety Evaluation Report related to the proposed MOX (mixed oxide) Fuel Fabrication Facility at the Savannah River Site. The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. The meeting will run from 8:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. each day. A complete agenda will be available on the NRCs Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2005/. Individuals with questions or those wanting to make public statements during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at 301-415-7364. Last revised Monday, January 31, 2005 ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc 05-1685 [Federal Register: January 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 19)] [Notices] [Page 4889-4890] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31ja05-95] of NoSignificant Impact for License Amendment for the Department of Health and Human Services' Facility in Kensington, MD AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan A. Parker, Health Physicist, Commercial and R Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone (404) 562-4728, fax (610) 337-5269; or by email: bap@nrc.gov [bap@nrc.gov] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a license amendment to the Department of Health and Human Services for Materials License No. 19-07538-05, to authorize release of its facility in Kensington, Maryland for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The purpose of the action is to authorize the release of the licensee's Kensington, Maryland facility for unrestricted use. The Department of Health and Human Services was authorized by NRC from May 29,1990, to use radioactive materials for research and development purposes at the site. On September 21, 2004, the Department of Health and Human Services requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. The Department of Health and Human Services has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by the Department of Health and Human Services. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to release the facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated the Department of Health and Human Services's request and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action complies with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has found that the environmental impacts from the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts from the action are expected to be insignificant and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the action. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for the license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession number for the document related to this Notice is ML042680139. Please note that on October 25, 2004, the NRC terminated public access to ADAMS and initiated an additional security review of publicly available documents to ensure that potentially sensitive information is removed from the ADAMS database accessible through the NRC's Web site. Interested members of the public may obtain copies of the referenced documents for review and/or copying by contacting the Public document Room pending resumption of public access to ADAMS. The NRC [[Page 4890]] Public Documents Room is located at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD, and can be contacted at (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by email to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. The PDR is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 24th day of January, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James P. Dwyer, Chief, Commercial and R Branch,Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,Region I. [FR Doc. 05-1685 Filed 1-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding FR Doc 05-1686 [Federal Register: January 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 19)] [Notices] [Page 4890] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31ja05-96] of No Significant Impact for License Amendement for SWATCH Group(U.S.), Inc.'s Facility in Lancaster, PA AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of availability. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie McLaughlin, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, Region I, 475 Allendale Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19406, telephone (610) 337-5240, fax (610) 337-5269; or by email: mmm3@nrc.gov [mmm3@nrc.gov] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a license amendment to Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc. for Materials License No. 29- 30923-01, to authorize release of its facility in Lancaster, Pennsylvania for unrestricted use. NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The amendment will be issued following the publication of this Notice. II. EA Summary The purpose of the action is to authorize the release of the licensee's Lancaster, Pennsylvania, facility for unrestricted use. Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc. was authorized by NRC from August, 1986, to use radioactive materials for manufacturing and distribution purposes at the site. On August 16, 2004, Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc. requested that NRC release the facility for unrestricted use. Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc. has conducted surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20 for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has prepared an EA in support of the license amendment. The facility was remediated and surveyed prior to the licensee requesting the license amendment. The NRC staff has reviewed the information and final status survey submitted by Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc. Based on its review, the staff has determined that there are no additional remediation activities necessary to complete the proposed action. Therefore, the staff considered the impact of the residual radioactivity at the facility and concluded that since the residual radioactivity meets the requirements in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20, a Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared the EA (summarized above) in support of the license amendment to release the facility for unrestricted use. The NRC staff has evaluated Swatch Group (U.S.), Inc.''s request and the results of the surveys and has concluded that the completed action complies with the criteria in Subpart E of 10 CFR Part 20. The staff has found that the environmental impacts from the action are bounded by the impacts evaluated by NUREG-1496, Volumes 1-3, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities' (ML042310492, ML042320379, and ML042330385). On the basis of the EA, the NRC has concluded that the environmental impacts from the action are expected to be insignificant and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the action. IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, including the application for the license amendment and supporting documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] . From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related to this Notice are: The Environmental Assessment (ML043410211), the letter dated August 16, 2004, requesting amendment of the license (ML042680179), the Final Status Survey, dated September 9, 2004 (ML042670407), additional information submitted October 19, 2004 containing survey maps (ML043010357), and a facsimile dated November 15, 2004 containing radwaste shipping papers (ML043340152). Please note that on October 25, 2004, the NRC terminated public access to ADAMS and initiated an additional security review of publicly available documents to ensure that potentially sensitive information is removed from the ADAMS database accessible through the NRC's web site. Interested members of the public may obtain copies of the referenced documents for review and/or copying by contacting the Public Document Room pending resumption of public access to ADAMS. The NRC Public documents Room is located at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, MD, and can be contacted at (800) 397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. The PDR is open from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., Monday through Friday, except on Federal holidays. Dated at King of Prussia, Pennsylvania this 24th day of January, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. James Dwyer, Chief, Commercial & R Branch,Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,Region I. [FR Doc. 05-1686 Filed 1-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: Safety Light Corporation; Notice of Reconstitution FR Doc 05-1687 [Federal Register: January 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 19)] [Notices] [Page 4889] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31ja05-94] Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.321, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in the above captioned Safety Light Corporation proceeding is hereby reconstituted by appointing Administrative Judge Alan S. Rosenthal in place of Administrative Judge Ann M. Young. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.302, henceforth all correspondence, documents, and other material relating to any matter in this proceeding over which this Licensing Board has jurisdiction should be served on Administrative Judge Rosenthal as follows: Administrative Judge Alan S. Rosenthal, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,Washington, DC 20555-0001. Issued at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of January 2005. G. Paul Bollwerk, III, Chief Administrative Judge, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel. [FR Doc. 05-1687 Filed 1-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 30 EPA: Science Advisory Board Staff Office; Notification of Advisory Meetings of the Science Advisory Board Radiation Advisory FR Doc 05-1717 [Federal Register: January 31, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 19)] [Notices] [Page 4847-4848] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr31ja05-67] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY [FRL-7865-5] Committee AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Science Advisory Board (SAB) Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC) will receive briefings from the Agency and discuss its advisory agenda for FY 2005. DATES: February 28, 2005. The SAB RAC will meet on February 28, 2005, via teleconference from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. eastern standard time. Location: The public teleconference meeting will take place via teleconference only. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Any member of the public who wishes to obtain the teleconference call-in number and access codes; would like to submit written or brief oral comments (3 minutes or less); or who wants further information concerning this public meeting should contact Dr. Jack Kooyoomjian, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), EPA SAB, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW. (MC 1400F), Washington, DC 20460; via telephone/voice mail: (202) 343-9984; fax: (202) 233-0643; or e-mail at: kooyoomjian.jack@epa.gov [kooyoomjian.jack@epa.gov] . General information concerning the SAB can be found on the EPA Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/sab] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background and Purpose: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, the SAB Staff Office hereby gives notice of a public meeting of the Radiation Advisory Committee (RAC). The EPA Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (ORIA) requested the SAB to provide advice on the National Monitoring System (NMS) upgrade, formerly known as the Environmental Radiation Ambient Monitoring System (ERAMS). The RAC will receive briefings from ORIA about this request and discuss its plan for the coming year. Availability of Meeting Materials: Copies of the agenda for the SAB meetings described in this notice will be posted on the SAB Web site at: http://www.epa.gov/sab [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/sab] prior to the meeting. Persons who wish to obtain background materials on the current ERAMS network may find them at the following Web site: http://www.epa.gov/narel/erams/index.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.epa.gov/narel/erams/index.html] . For copies of the EPA/ORIA briefing materials on the NMS, please contact Dr. Mary E. Clark of the U.S. EPA, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air (Mail Code 6601J), by telephone/voice mail at (202)-343- 9348, by fax at (202)-343-2395; or via e-mail at clark.marye@epa.gov [clark.marye@epa.gov] . Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings: It is the policy of the SAB Staff Office to accept written public comments of any length, and to [[Page 4848]] accommodate oral public comments wherever possible. The SAB Staff Office expects the public statements presented at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously-submitted oral or written statements. Oral Comments: In general, each individual or group requesting an oral presentation at a conference call meeting will be limited to a total time of three minutes (unless otherwise indicated). Requests to provide oral comments must be in writing (e-mail, fax, or mail) and received by the DFO no later than noon eastern time five business days prior to the meeting in order to reserve time on the meeting agenda. Speakers should bring at least 35 copies of their comments and presentation slides for distribution to the reviewers and public at the meeting. Written Comments: Although the SAB Staff Office accepts written comments until the date of the meeting (unless otherwise stated), written comments should be received in the SAB Staff Office no later than noon eastern time five business days prior to the meeting so that the comments may be made available to the Panelists for their consideration. Comments should be supplied to the DFO (preferably by e- mail) at the address/contact information noted above in the following formats: one hard copy with original signature, and one electronic copy via e-mail (acceptable file format: Adobe Acrobat PDF, WordPerfect, Word, or Rich Text files (in IBM-PC/Windows 98/2000/XP format)). Those providing written comments and who attend the meeting are also asked to bring 35 copies of their comments for public distribution. Meeting Access: Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting should contact the DFO at the phone number or e-mail address noted above at least five business days prior to the meeting, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Dated: January 21, 2005. Vanessa T. Vu, Director, EPA Science Advisory Board Staff Office. [FR Doc. 05-1717 Filed 1-28-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ***************************************************************** 31 AP Wire: Sen. Bond joins in seeking speed up of payments to former atomic workers | 01/31/2005 | [http://www.kansas.com/ BETSY TAYLOR Associated Press ST. LOUIS - Marilyn Schneider worked for Mallinckrodt Chemical Co. as a secretary for a year and a half in the 1950s, when the business was producing materials for atomic weapons for the U.S. government. She got colon cancer in 1975. She got breast cancer in 2000. And she got cancer of the soft tissue - called leiomyosarcoma - in 2001. On Monday, she joined other former Mallinckrodt workers, relatives of deceased workers and Sen. Kit Bond to urge the federal government to speed up approval of payments to about 3,500 Cold War-era atomic workers. Bond, R-Mo., is working with activist Denise Brock, whose father was a former Mallinckrodt worker and died of lung cancer, to try and eliminate the complex process of radiation dose reconstruction needed to determine exposure levels before money can be paid or denied. "Time is running out. Justice has long been denied to these former Mallinckrodt workers who helped to win the Cold War," Bond said at a news conference in downtown St. Louis. He pointed to new evidence that not enough data exists to properly do dose reconstructions for former Mallinckrodt workers. Under legislation passed in 2000, the government has been compensating former energy workers exposed to high levels of radioactive materials at facilities across the country. But, Brock said, "Thousands of people haven't gotten anything." While Brock's family has already received a payment, she remains committed to helping other Mallinckrodt families through the process. "My Mom has been taken care of, but I'm continuing with this. This is a disgrace," Brock said. Brock filed a petition in July to ask the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to grant Mallinckrodt workers from two sites - one in St. Louis and one in the suburb of Weldon Spring - a special status to expedite compensation to assist workers or their families in paying medical costs linked to factory-related illnesses. An advisory board for the institute is expected to recommend a decision relating to the downtown St. Louis site next week, Brock and Bond said. A spokesman for NIOSH, Fred Blosser, said the agency recognizes some who made claims are frustrated and feel the process is too long. He encouraged people to contact NIOSH if they have questions about the status of their application. "We have to go searching for any data we can use to make our recommendation," he said. He said the Department of Labor has referred 17,908 cases nationwide to the institute for dose reconstruction since 2001. He said about 6,600 of those have been completed and sent to the Department of Labor. Mallinckrodt is now a subsidiary of Mansfield, Mass.-based Tyco Healthcare and is cooperating with the government and former workers to verify their work history, said Tyco spokesman David Young. "Our company will continue to do everything possible to cooperate to the fullest extent," he said. Schneider believes she was exposed to radiation and other carcinogens when Mallinckrodt was a government contractor and she worked in Weldon Spring. After eight tumor-related surgeries, she applied for a $150,000 government payment last year. She said the process to receive funds is too cumbersome and time-consuming, especially when many are already sick or dead. And payment isn't guaranteed. Plus, she noted, "Whatever dollar amount I get won't guarantee no more tumors, no more cancers, and that I won't die from it." ***************************************************************** 32 [NukeNet] Nuclear Backers Modify Stance On Yucca,Waste Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 15:44:00 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/politics/31yucca.html Nuclear Backers Modify Stance on Waste By MATTHEW L. WALD Published: January 31, 2005 ASHINGTON, Jan. 30 - Nuclear energy advocates who have said a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada must be opened before a new power reactor can be ordered are now backing away from that position, as completion of the repository looks later and less certain and the prospect for new reactors improves. Advertisement The Energy Department describes the Yucca project as essential to the future of nuclear energy, but private sector advocates are trying to decouple the future of the industry from the government's success there. Some nuclear supporters say the industry has made a strategic error by tying its future to the repository, which was once supposed to open in 1998, and is now scheduled for 2010. The departing energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, said earlier this month that the opening would be even further off than that. In the meantime, as pools for spent fuel fill up, utility companies are building giant concrete-and-steel casks near their reactors designed to hold waste for many decades. "The problem we now face is largely a product of industry's own making," said James Muckerheide, the state nuclear engineer in Massachusetts, who monitors federal safety regulation of reactors there. "If the industry simply shut up about Yucca Mountain, instead of dishonestly claiming that on-site spent fuel storage is an unacceptable hazard, the issue could have been largely defused," Mr. Muckerheide wrote in a recent e-mail message to colleagues. The industry has long assumed that opening the waste repository would change the politics and make a new plant more palatable for communities. Top industry executives are more circumspect, partly because they do not want to appear to be dropping support for the project at Yucca, a volcanic mountain 100 miles north of Las Vegas where the Energy Department has already spent several billion dollars. Among other considerations, they must, as a condition of their plant licenses, have a plan for the waste, and for now, the Yucca site is it. But lately they have raised the idea that new reactors, which may soon be financially practical, need not wait for the Yucca project to be completed. John W. Rowe, the chairman and chief executive of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear utility, said that building new reactors would rely on definitive progress on a waste disposal site. While Yucca is the Energy Department's only candidate for a burial site, there could be other options, Mr. Rowe said, if the government took over the ultimate ownership and had responsibility of nuclear waste. That is what the federal government was supposed to do by 1998, under contracts signed with the utilities in the early 1980's. One alternative to the Yucca project could be the Private Fuel Storage project, in which a consortium of eight utilities has negotiated with an Indian tribe to store fuel on their reservation, west of Salt Lake City, in dry casks for the next few decades. "My sense is that actual operation of a geologic repository is not a precondition for an order for a new nuclear power plant in this country," said James K. Asselstine, a utility research analyst at Lehman Brothers who was a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1982 to 1987. "I think that the industry and the financial community will want to see sufficient progress in the waste program, either with Yucca Mountain or some other viable alternative." At the Senate Energy Committee, which has historically provided strong support for nuclear power, Alex Flint, the staff director, said that the companies might be ready to order new reactors much sooner than the Energy Department would be ready to accept waste at the Yucca site, "causing some in the industry to think about other alternatives." The Energy Department is not backing away from the Yucca project. Kyle E. McSlarrow, who was the deputy secretary of energy for the last two years of President Bush's first term, said in testimony before the Senate Energy Committee in July, in a discussion of new reactors, that "continued progress toward establishing a high-level waste repository at the Yucca Mountain site is absolutely essential." In March, at a subcommittee hearing, Senator Pete V. Domenici, Republican of New Mexico, who is one of the most prominent supporters of nuclear energy, said, "what holds America at bay now is we don't know what to do with the waste disposal from the nuclear power plants." A spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying group, Steven Kerekes, said, "We believe it's the government's job to find a solution, whether that be Yucca Mountain or somewhere else." But, he added, the government is making progress at Yucca Mountain, and that progress, as opposed to actual opening of the site, is what Wall Street and other important participants required. For years the lack of progress at Yucca Mountain made little difference because unfavorable financial conditions kept operators from placing orders for new reactors. But with higher prices for natural gas, which is an important competitor of nuclear power, and talk of some federal financial incentives for generators that do not produce greenhouse gases, industry executives hope to break ground on a new reactor by 2010. Optimists think the Yucca site could open in 2015, but most estimates are later. Last July, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit guaranteed a major additional delay for the Yucca project by throwing out the rules that the Environmental Protection Agency had established for maximum allowable leakage at the site. If the Yucca site is to open, Congress may have to vote at least once more, and Yucca Mountain's most powerful opponent, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, just became Senate minority leader. Another difficulty for the Yucca project is that above-ground storage may be cheaper, at least for the foreseeable future. Brian J. O'Connell, the director of the Nuclear Waste Project Office at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, an association of state officials, said that a case could be made that a centralized cask storage area "could be a cost-saver for the Department of Energy," especially compared with the emerging solution of placing cask fields at about 72 different sites. Burial expenses, and the complexity of burial, would be reduced after several hundred years, when some of the radioactivity has died, some experts said. _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 33 Las Vegas SUN: Nuclear power advocates modify stance on waste Nuke advocates: New reactors can be built before Yucca opens By Matthew L. Wald NEW YORK TIMES NEWS SERVICE WASHINGTON -- Nuclear energy advocates who have said that a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada must be opened before a new power reactor can be ordered are now backing away from that position. That shift comes as completion of the repository looks later and less certain and the prospect for new reactors improves. The Energy Department describes the Yucca project as essential to the future of nuclear energy, but private sector advocates are trying to decouple the future of the industry from the government's success there. Some nuclear power supporters say the industry has made a strategic error by tying its future to the repository, which was once supposed to open in 1998, and is now scheduled for 2010. The departing energy secretary, Spencer Abraham, said earlier this month that the opening would be even further off than that. In the meantime, as pools for spent fuel fill up, utility companies are building giant concrete-and-steel casks near their reactors designed to hold waste for many decades. "The problem we now face is largely a product of industry's own making," said James Muckerheide, the state nuclear engineer in Massachusetts, who monitors federal safety regulation of reactors there. "If the industry simply shut up about Yucca Mountain, instead of dishonestly claiming that on-site spent fuel storage is an unacceptable hazard, the issue could have been largely defused," Muckerheide wrote in a recent e-mail message to colleagues. The industry has long assumed that opening the waste repository would change the politics and make a new plant more palatable for communities. Industry executives are more circumspect, partly because they do not want to appear to be dropping support for the project at Yucca, a mountain 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas where the Energy Department has already spent several billion dollars. Among other considerations, they must, as a condition of their plant licenses, have a plan for the waste, and for now, the Yucca site is it. But lately they have raised the idea that new reactors, which may soon be financially practical, need not wait for the Yucca project to be completed. John W. Rowe, the chairman and chief executive of Exelon, the nation's largest nuclear utility, said that building new reactors would rely on definitive progress on a waste disposal site. While Yucca is the Energy Department's only candidate for a burial site, there could be other options, Rowe said, if the government took over the ultimate ownership and had responsibility of nuclear waste. That is what the federal government was supposed to do by 1998, under contracts signed with the utilities in the early 1980s. One alternative to the Yucca project could be the Private Fuel Storage project, in which a consortium of eight utilities has negotiated with an Indian tribe to store fuel on their reservation, west of Salt Lake City, in dry casks for the next few decades. "My sense is that actual operation of a geologic repository is not a precondition for an order for a new nuclear power plant in this country," said James K. Asselstine, a utility research analyst at Lehman Brothers who was a member of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission from 1982 to 1987. "I think that the industry and the financial community will want to see sufficient progress in the waste program, either with Yucca Mountain or some other viable alternative." At the Senate Energy Committee, which has historically provided strong support for nuclear power, Alex Flint, the staff director, said that the companies might be ready to order new reactors much sooner than the Energy Department would be ready to accept waste at the Yucca site, "causing some in the industry to think about other alternatives." The Energy Department is not backing away from the Yucca project. Kyle E. McSlarrow, who was the deputy secretary of energy for the last two years of President Bush's first term, said in testimony before the Senate Energy Committee in July, in a discussion of new reactors, that "continued progress toward establishing a high-level waste repository at the Yucca Mountain site is absolutely essential." In March, at a subcommittee hearing, Sen. Pete V. Domenici, R-N.M., a prominent supporter of nuclear energy, said, "what holds America at bay now is we don't know what to do with the waste disposal from the nuclear power plants." A spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying group, Steven Kerekes, said, "We believe it's the government's job to find a solution, whether that be Yucca Mountain or somewhere else." But, he added, the government is making progress at Yucca Mountain, and that progress, as opposed to actual opening of the site, is what Wall Street and other important participants required. For years the lack of progress at Yucca Mountain made little difference because unfavorable financial conditions kept operators from placing orders for new reactors. But with higher prices for natural gas, which is an important competitor of nuclear power, and talk of some federal financial incentives for generators that do not produce greenhouse gases, industry executives hope to break ground on a new reactor by 2010. Optimists think the Yucca site could open in 2015, but most estimates are later. Last July, the District of Columbia U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals guaranteed a major additional delay for the Yucca project by throwing out the rules that the Environmental Protection Agency had established for maximum allowable leakage at the site. If the Yucca site is to open, Congress may have to vote at least once more, and Yucca Mountain's most powerful opponent, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., just became Senate minority leader. Another difficulty for the Yucca project is that above-ground storage may be cheaper, at least for some time. Brian J. O'Connell, the director of the Nuclear Waste Project Office at the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, said that a case could be made that a centralized cask storage area "could be a cost-saver for the Department of Energy," especially compared with the emerging solution of placing cask fields at about 72 different sites. ***************************************************************** 34 VG: Cask cow: Could nuclear waste storage help fund renewable energy? [http://www.vermontguardian.com By James Pentland | Special to the Vermont Guardian BRATTLEBORO They may not agree on many things, but one opinion shared by proponents and opponents of nuclear power is that the pending debate over spent-fuel storage at Vermont Yankee is really about Vermonts energy future. For plant owner Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee, its an opportunity to underline the importance of the Vernon reactor, which produces one-third of the power used in the state, as a reliable generator of power at guaranteed low rates, at least until its license expires in 2012. For critics, Vermont Yankees need for a new place to put its highly radioactive used fuel is a chance for the state to take some steps to secure a different energy future, in which renewable sources such as wind and biomass figure more prominently. And, they say, the state should make Entergy start paying for it. Vermont Yankee is running out of room to store used nuclear fuel in its spent fuel pool. By 2008, or 2007 if its allowed to increase its power output, the company says it will need to begin transferring spent fuel assemblies to large waste canisters, known as dry casks, that would be situated outside the plant on a concrete pad. There is little opposition to this change nuclear watchdogs think dry casks are generally safer than a pool of water several stories above ground but the approval process is shaping up to be contentious. Entergy hopes to bypass legislative approval and get a go-ahead from the Vermont Public Service Board and the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But first, it must get the Legislature to make a small but significant change in the law giving the General Assembly authority over the construction of nuclear waste storage facilities in Vermont. A 1979 addition specifically exempted the plants former owner, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. not the plant itself from the law. Wed like to see that law amended to exempt whoever owns the plant, said Entergy spokesman Rob Williams. It would take one word, changing corporation to station. Others, however, doubt that its that simple. We have to look at the intent of the law, said Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Dummerston, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee who said he looks forward to working on the issue. The committee is waiting for the Department of Public Service to reintroduce its 20-year energy plan, Darrow said, and that provides an opportunity to look at dry cask storage in the context of the states energy future. Its an opportunity for Entergy to share its long-term plans, he said. Senate Finance Committee Chairwoman Ann Cummings, D-Washington, said an expansion of nuclear waste storage does require legislative approval, and she expects that her committee, which regulates utilities, will take it up. When the Legislature reviews dry cask storage, it also is likely to debate whether or not to tax it. The Minnesota Legislature in 1994 created a renewable energy fund by charging the owner of the Prairie Island plant for dry cask storage at the rate of $500,000 per cask per year. That was changed in 2003 to $16 million a year. As a result, owner Xcel, formerly Northern States Power, has developed approximately 425 megawatts of wind power _ almost four-fifths of the power generated by Vermont Yankee and is now required to produce 10 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2015. Mark Sinclair, senior attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation in Montpelier, thinks Vermont should follow Minnesotas example, and is working with a coalition of environmental groups to get lawmakers interested in the idea. Vermont is the only New England state that doesnt have a renewable energy fund, he said, noting that Vermonts main sources of power Vermont Yankee and Hydro-Quebec are both scheduled to go off-line by 2015. If Vermont is going to host a nuclear waste storage facility indefinitely, it ought to be something that benefits all Vermonters. Rep. Tony Klein, D-Middlesex, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, is interested in the idea. Dry cask storage should be permitted at Vermont Yankee _with limits on duration and quantity, _ but the state should get something in return for accepting that risk, he said. I call it a rental fee, he said. We should dedicate it to securing a reliable, sustainable energy future. Although dry casks, which are already in use at 32 nuclear sites around the country, are intended as temporary storage, it is not known how long they will be needed. The U.S. Department of Energy is legally responsible for disposal of all the nations high-level nuclear waste, but it has nowhere to put it until, and unless, the federal repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada opens for business. The DOE maintains that it will be able to begin taking spent fuel from nuclear reactors in 2010, a scenario most regard as unrealistic. Even so, it will take many years until 2038, according to Raymond Shadis, technical adviser to the watchdog New England Coalition for all the fuel produced to date at Vermont Yankee to be removed. There remains the likelihood that Entergy, if it gets approval for a 20-percent power increase and dry cask storage, will then pursue a 20-year extension on its license. The question revolves around the value of establishing a high-level nuclear waste site, Shadis said. There are valid reasons to look at taxes or user fees. Yankee Rowe, in Rowe, MA, which shut down in 1992, began using dry casks in June 2003, spokeswoman Kelly Smith said. The plant, along with two other mothballed New England reactors, Connecticut Yankee and Maine Yankee, sued the DOE for breach of contract over the waste issue. The utilities won the case, and a determination of damages is expected soon. Fuel storage costs increased significantly following the 2001 terror attacks, which necessitated more stringent security measures, Smith said. It will cost owner Yankee Atomic Electric Co. between $5 million and $6 million annually to maintain its 16 casks, she said. The company estimates that all the fuel will be removed by 2023. Although its a pressing issue, Entergy so far has not submitted a petition for dry cask storage to the Legislature, and neither has it formally petitioned for a change in the law. But, according to Darrow, the company is looking for a blank check from the state, with no limitations on time or quantity, which he opposes. I want a sure date that the waste will be out of there, he said. He added that a renewable energy fund will certainly come up for discussion, and hearings may be held. Williams said the power-purchase agreement between Entergy and the plants former owners, which included majority shareholders Central Vermont Public Service and Green Mountain Power, has saved New England ratepayers many millions of dollars, and he wants to be sure the lawmakers understand that value. But, he said, if the company has to seek legislative approval for dry casks, it will do so. We would abide by what the Legislature decides, he said. Posted January 31, 2005 2004-2005 Vermont Guardian | info@vermontguardian.com [info@vermontguardian.com] ***************************************************************** 35 American Online: LES markets uranium enrichment facility [http://www.oaoa.com] Monday, 31 January 2005 c /o Odessa American 222 E. 4th Street P.O. Box 2952 Odessa, TX 79760 Louisiana Energy Services sending officials to see plant in Netherlands By Ruth Campbell Odessa American Although cities in Eastern New Mexico and West Texas are firmly behind Louisiana Energy Services building a uranium enrichment facility near Eunice, N.M., the company is still marketing the idea to area officials. The company is paying to send area officials to Almelo, Netherlands, where a similar plant exists. DeeDee Wallace, business development manager for the Andrews Industrial Foundation, was with a group of 16 area officials on her week-long trip to the Netherlands in December. LES spokeswoman April Wade said LES has taken several dozen officials from Eastern New Mexico and West Texas on trips to the Netherlands facility, owned by LES partner Urenco, since August 2003. Because the project is complex, we want to show people what will be built in Lea County. We want to show them the area and what the facility will be like, Wade said. Its always helpful to show whats going to be out there and see its a safe and well kept facility, Wade added. DeeDee Wallace was impressed by what she saw. It was awesome, Wallace said of the Netherland plant. I had such a curiosity about it having studied as much as Ive studied. Wallace said shes attended Nuclear Regulatory Commission hearings and meetings on the project, seen drawings of the site and visited it. But visiting an actual facility took away her fear of the unknown. To actually see whats going to be here, it takes the mystery away, Wallace said. The Netherlands plant is located close to the city Almelo, water sources and farmland. What was so intriguing to me is this technology has been working almost three decades there, she said. The $1.2 billion LES plant, to be called the National Enrichment Facility, would use gas centrifuge technology. This is when uranium hexafluoride gas is whirled inside complexrotor assemblies and centrifugal force pushes molecules containing the heavier isotope to the outside, according to the globalsecurity.org Web site. For me, the most important piece of the trip was seeing how we can plug people in Andrews into those projects, Wallace said. ***************************************************************** 36 ABQjournal: Blog a Forum for LANL Workers Albuquerque Journal newspaper. Monday, January 31, 2005 Albuquerque Journal--> By Adam Rankin Journal Staff Writer They were a hit during the 2004 presidential campaign season and now are becoming popular in the build-up to the Los Alamos National Laboratory contract competition of 2005. Web logs, or "blogs," as they are known in Internet parlance, transformed unknown political junkies opining from their home computers into popular, albeit short-lived, national commentators on mainstream news channels. Now workers at the nation's first nuclear weapons research facility, dissatisfied with the mainstream alternatives for voicing their opinions, have a blog, too: http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com [http://lanl-the-real-story.blogspot.com/] . Created earlier this month by 20-year LANL computer scientist Doug Roberts, the blog's purpose "is to provide an uncensored forum where those concerned about the future of LANL may express their views," according to the blog's mission statement. "It all began with the shutdown," Roberts said about his decision to start the blog, where anyone can submit anonymous comments on articles posted by Roberts. "We noticed that letters sent to the LANL Newsbulletin newspaper simply weren't getting through. The Reader's Forum completely dried up," he said. LANL director Pete Nanos called a halt to all work at the top-secret laboratory in July, putting about 12,000 employees in limbo following a series of safety and security infractions that Nanos said left him with no confidence in the lab's day-to-day operations. Laboratory employees spent their days reviewing safety and security procedures until a review board and Nanos were satisfied each division could run smoothly and work was restarted. Six months and at least $100 million later (the exact cost hasn't been released), LANL is still not fully operational. The last few halted programs and projects are scheduled to be back up and running by the first week in February. During the downtime, many employees were frustrated by the way the situation was handled but were not able to effectively air their complaints through LANL's Reader's Forum in its employee newspaper, Roberts said. LANL officials either rejected letters outright or waited as long as six weeks before letting contributors knew whether their letter would be accepted or edited, he said. "There are a lot of really unhappy people here, and, I'll be frank, we feel censored," said LANL employee Janie Enter. "If it is not happy news, they won't publish it." Roberts said the Reader's Forum became unworkable. "I had people contact me, complaining about it, and so one day I said, 'OK, I'll set up a forum,' '' he said. His philosophy, according to his blog site, is that "a process that cannot withstand the rigors that an open venue of discussion produces should perhaps consider the error of its ways, and strive to change itself into one that can." Steve Sandoval, editor of the LANL employee Reader's Forum, acknowledged that people had been upset about the time it took for letters to get posted and said a few employees had asked for their submissions to be withdrawn because delays meant letters were no longer timely. Jim Fallin, director of LANL's office of public affairs which oversees the Reader's Forum, explained that some letters don't get posted if they don't meet the forum's policies for being constructive and nonlibelous. "We are trying to create an opportunity without it becoming a repository for contrarian, malicious attacks," he said. "We have to draw the line when there are libelous statements or attacks on the character of single individuals." The delays in posting letters began when LANL started a new policy of trying to get responses from LANL officials posted at the same time as the original letter, Fallin said. "What we discovered as we were going down the road was holding letters for responses became a little bit of an issue with respect to the time it took," he said. "So we've gone back to posting letters as we get them in the interest of continuing to empower employees to have a voice." LANL employee Barbara Nelson said her first letter had to go through a three-person screening and editing process. She said it still hadn't been printed some six weeks later. "I finally gave up and submitted it to the (Los Alamos) Monitor editor, who published it within a week," she said. Her second letter to the forum was "quashed," she said, because it was determined to be "mean-spirited" and "accusatory." Enter, Roberts and Nelson all said that they have noticed a recent improvement in the timeliness and the types of letters the Reader's Forum will print. Nevertheless, word is spreading about Roberts' blog, which, unconstrained by either policy or legal concerns, imposes neither delays nor edits. In less than three weeks the blog generated about 300 page views from nearly 150 unique visitors. "I believe that it has become as popular as it has, or at least is showing the growth trend, because it provides a communication service that isn't in existence anywhere else," Roberts said. He posts articles from the three area newspapers, letters to the editor from the employees and local papers, pertinent e-mails basically anything that a LANL employee might find insightful. "It's a one-stop place for any and all information," he said. Copyright Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 37 ABQjournal: Comments on Draft LANL Contract Go to Agency the Albuquerque Journal newspaper. January 30, 2005 By Leslie Hoffman The Associated Press Safeguards to guarantee existing benefits for lab workers and retirees, independent evaluation of the lab's science work, and a closer look at oversight of health and safety are among the recommendations sent to the National Nuclear Security Administration by members of Congress, watchdog groups and others to improve a proposed contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory. The contract is going out to bid for the first time in the lab's 60-year-plus history. An NNSA board, which is responsible for evaluating the bids, has received more than 200 pages of questions and comments on a draft request for proposals released last month. "They're analyzing each of the comments. Then they'll decide whether they want to amend the (request for proposals) based on that analysis," said Al Stotts, a spokesman for the Albuquerque NNSA office. Officials are unsure how long that process will take but hope to have a final proposal by mid-February, he said. Some 120 pages of comments deal with pension and retirement issues for lab employees. The impact of a potential switch in lab managers on employee benefits has been a source of major concern both within the lab and among state leaders and the congressional delegation. "I was disappointed to find that the draft request for proposal contained language undermining our expectation that existing pension and post-retirement benefits would be retained in any future contract," Gov. Bill Richardson wrote in a letter Thursday to Energy Secretary-nominee Samuel Bodman. Bodman has said he's committed to maintaining worker benefits. Earlier this month, the NNSA bid evaluation board announced the formation of a benefits advisory panel comprised of Energy Department experts, the DOE actuarial adviser and a law firm that specializes in benefit issues. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., calls the draft proposal's language on benefits for past, present and future employees "insufficient" and contends not enough emphasis has been placed on keeping employees. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said the proposal needs to be amended to include the applicants' benefits packages in the overall scoring system that the board will use to evaluate bids. Both senators sent suggestions this month to NNSA chief Linton Brooks. Bingaman also suggested an independent board to oversee the contractor on science and other issues not related to daily operations and called for oversight to protect the health and safety of workers and the surrounding community. The Washington, D.C.-based Project on Government Oversight, or POGO, is among the watchdog groups that also submitted comments. POGO wants the contractor to be required to pay fines for safety violations and civil fines for security violations at the lab. The University of California has been exempt from paying safety violation fines because it's a nonprofit, and POGO said there are no penalties for security violations. The group also believes the contractor's annual award fee should be considered "a true award for performance and not an assumed payment" and that an independent evaluation of science and a DOE evaluation of contractor management should be done before the contract is awarded. "The draft (request's) promotion of best industry practices' should be tempered with the recognition that those standards are in reality rarely achieved by industry if left to their own devices," the group wrote. "Without external oversight, the incentives for contractors to pursue best industry practices are significantly reduced." The government plans to select a contractor this summer to begin work Oct. 1. The new contract will cover five years, with possible extensions for another 15 years. Los Alamos has been managed by the University of California since the lab's inception as a top-secret World War II project to develop the atomic bomb. However, the Energy Department decided to put the contract up for bid before its September expiration after a series of management failures and security problems. On the Net: Draft request for proposals: www.doeal.gov [http://www.doeal.gov] Copyright Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 38 Inside Bay Area - Argus: Lab closes facility for safety review [http://www.insidebayarea.com/argus/] Last Updated: 01/31/2005 03:46:43 AM Reports find concerns with plutonium building By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER Executives at Lawrence Livermore nuclear-weapons laboratory have shut down work at the lab's plutonium facility so managers can attend to an accumulation of safety problems raised in three recent federal reports. Sizing up those problems for the sprawling, fortresslike facility known as Superblock, and devising millions of dollars in fixes, are expected to halt day-to-day work with plutonium and uranium for several weeks. But the chief of the lab's weapons program said there was little alternative. No accident or government order triggered the shutdown. Rather, the same experienced managers who ensure ordinary plutonium operations are safe are needed for a comprehensive safety review of Superblock, one of only two comprehensive plutonium-handling labs in the nation. "They are establishing the way we need to go. How do you know that until you've done what you're supposed to do?" said Bruce Goodwin, associate lab director for defense and nuclear technologies. "We could have kept working," he said, "but it wasn't the right thing to do." In quick succession, three groups of federal safety officials found multiple safety deficiencies at the 40-year-old Superblock. None suggested the plutonium facility was unsafe. But the number of safety deficiencies gave rise to worries that a large-scale disaster, such as an earthquake, could trigger an unforeseen chain failure and put workers or the public at risk. "They did us a very big favor because they said, 'If you do this and this and this, you'll be good to go,'" Goodwin said. To understand potential risks, Superblock managers are undertaking the fullest review of safety equipment and operations since 2000. Not keeping an eye on the bigger safety picture has been one of the lab's failings, according to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, an independent oversight agency with the power to warn the president if a federal nuclear-defense plant is unsafe. In recent letters, both the chairman of the DNFSB and the Livermore office of the National Nuclear Security Administration raised serious concern about the apparent lack of what the nuclear-safety industry calls a "configuration management program." "The failure to implement an adequate configuration management program would appear to increase the likelihood of future occurrences involving the operation of safety systems," DNFSB chairman John T. Conway wrote federal weapons executives in November. Lab weapons officials since 1999 have made millions of dollars of upgrades to Superblock's 16 safety systems, all tied in one way or another to keeping plutonium locked inside the facility. These upgrades range from new power transformers to backup generators and from backup pressure tanks that drive the facility's sprinkler system to vast, new air-handling systems for the sealed, leaded "hot boxes," where plutonium handlers work with the quirky metal. But Superblock officials made many of those changes piecemeal, without carefully evaluating the impact on the overall safety of the facility. Federal auditors found that some "hot boxes" and pressured-gas pipes that feed Superblock's backup fire-suppression system were not seismically anchored. In theory, a large earthquake could crack a hot box and cause breaks in the primary and backup sprinkler systems, including the misting system that would preserve the facility's air-filtering system in the event of a fire. Small pieces of plutonium ignite in air, and enough hot air could create holes in the filters, allowing plutonium to escape. Small particles of radioactive plutonium dust, if inhaled or ingested, can cause cancer. In a rare interview inside the highly classified Superblock, lab and federal weapons officials also acknowledged that some safety work had been neglected throughout the years as weapons research or other work took higher budget priority. Goodwin said nuclear-safety standards were in flux during the 1980s and 1990s. "And, to be frank, it wasn't clear the facility would continue operating," he said. Richard Mortensen, head of defense programs for NNSA's Livermore office, said, "They were on the list of things to do but they were down the list." The safety study at Superblock will cost millions of dollars in staff time and is expected to generate a costly to-do list. If those upgrades are made, Superblock's working life would be extended by at least 10 years. "This is good news for us," Goodwin said of the federal audits. "It's shined a light on us and made it easier for us to do it." Contact Ian Hoffman at [ihoffman@angnewspapers.com] . ***************************************************************** 39 PRN: Hanford Community Health Project Announces New Health Resource for People Who Grew Up Downwind of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation [http://www.prnewswire.com/] [http://www.hanfordhealth.info] Project's Goal Is to Help Downwinders Make More Informed Health Care Choices SEATTLE, Jan. 31 /PRNewswire/ -- The Hanford Community Health Project (HCHP) announced today that a new resource is available for people who grew up downwind of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and are concerned about exposure to radioactive iodine (I-131). Radioactive iodine was released from Hanford between 1944 and 1972 during plutonium production. HCHP has developed a Community Resource Center available at [http://www.hanfordhealth.info] . The Resource Center offers easily accessible educational materials so concerned individuals can quickly learn about the releases of I-131 and take a simple self-assessment quiz to help them evaluate their potential for exposure. People can also sign up for the HCHP mailing list on the site to receive periodic updates. In addition, HCHP is encouraging those with family and friends who might be concerned about exposure to tell them about the new resource. "We're encouraging anyone concerned about exposure to visit the HCHP Web site and sign up for the project mailing list," said Greg Thomas technical program officer for HCHP. "Our goal is to provide educational materials and tools so downwinders can work with their doctors to make more informed health care choices." From 1944 to 1972, Hanford was a center for plutonium production. About half of all U.S. nuclear weapons were made with plutonium from Hanford. During this time, radiation (radioactive iodine 131) was released from the chemical separation facilities used to produce plutonium. The majority of these releases occurred between 1944 and 1951. It's estimated that children, who were up to five years old and lived in Adams, Benton or Franklin counties in Washington state at the time of the releases, received the highest doses of I-131. Today, these are adults between the ages of 54 and 65. Public health researchers have conducted extensive epidemiological research around the releases of I-131 at Hanford and the potential link to thyroid disease. The Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, published in June 2002, did not show any association between Hanford's I-131 releases and the occurrence of thyroid disease. Other epidemiological studies, including investigations at Chernobyl and the Marshall Islands, have shown that exposure to radioactive iodine is associated with an increased risk of developing thyroid cancer and other thyroid related diseases. Despite the findings of the Hanford Thyroid Disease Study, downwinders remain concerned about the releases and there is a demonstrated need in the community for more educational resources. Those who would like to learn more about the releases at Hanford or exposure to I-131 should visit [http://www.hanfordhealth.info] . Concerned individuals can also call toll-free, 1-800-207-3996, to request information and sign up for the project mailing list. About the Hanford Community Health Project The Hanford Community Health Project (HCHP) is an outreach and education initiative sponsored by ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). The project provides educational resources to individuals, and their health care providers, who were exposed as young children to radioactive iodine (I-131) released from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in south central Washington state. The focus is on releases of I-131 that took place between 1944 and 1951. The project's goal is to assist concerned individuals and their health care providers in making informed health care choices concerning these exposures. For more information visit [http://www.hanfordhealth.info] . About ATSDR The mission of the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), as an agency of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is to serve the public by using the best science, taking responsive public health actions, and providing trusted health information to prevent harmful exposures and disease related to toxic substances. For more information visit [http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov] . CONTACT: Moka Pantages, +1-206-770-7075, for HCHP. SOURCE The Hanford Community Health Project Web Site: [http://www.hanfordhealth.info] Copyright 1996-2004 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights ***************************************************************** 40 CMU: Udall Continues Fight to Speed Up Compensation Care For Sick Rocky Flats Workers Congressman Mark Udall - 01/27/05 (Washington, D.C.) -- Congressman Mark Udall (D-CO) re-introduced legislation today which would help current and former Rocky Flats employees get compensation and care under a government program for cancers they contracted from on-the-job exposure to radiation. H.R. 428, “The Rocky Flats Special Exposure Cohort Act,” would amend the Energy Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Act (EEOICA) to extend special exposure cohort status to Department of Energy (DOE) employees, contractor employees or atomic weapons employees who have worked at Rocky Flats for at least 250 days or will have worked there that long by January 1, 2006. The EEOICA provides a lump sum payment of $150,000 and medical coverage to DOE contract workers who are ill because of exposure to beryllium or radiation. In addition, the Act provides other benefits to those who were exposed to radiation and hazardous chemicals and materials at DOE nuclear facilities. At certain sites throughout the country, there were serious administrative shortcomings in the way workers’ exposure to radiation was monitored and documented, so the law includes a “special exposure cohort” provision that cuts red tape for those individuals who are attempting to receive compensation and care. Under Udall’s bill, Rocky Flats workers who qualify would receive this special cohort status. “Some Rocky Flats workers, despite having worked with tons of plutonium and having known exposures leading to serious health problems, have been denied compensation under the law because of bureaucratic red-tape, missing records, and inaccurate methods for linking employment and exposure. We must make good on promises of a fairer deal for these workers who helped America win the Cold War,” said Udall. “There is a real risk that a significant number of Rocky Flats workers will not obtain compensation and care in a timely manner or will be denied these benefits entirely. My bill would prevent this miscarriage of justice and will level the playing field, by recognizing that Rocky Flats workers have been plagued by the same kinds of administrative problems that entangled workers at some other locations. We in Congress need to take care of them and the others who worked there in the past,” said Udall. Westminster Office 8601 Turnpike Drive #206 Westminster, CO 80031 Phone: (303) 650-7820 Fax: (303) 650-7827 West Slope Office 291 Main St. P.O. Box 325 Minturn, CO 81645 Phone: (970) 827-4154 Fax: (970) 827-4138 Washington D.C. Office 240 Cannon House Office Building Washington, D.C. 20515 Phone: (202) 225-2161 Fax: (202) 226-7840 ***************************************************************** 41 ESR: Manhattan book review | January 31, 2005 | The day that changed the world - A review of The Fly in the Cathedral: How A Small Group of Cambridge Scientists Won The Race to Split the Atom By Brian Cathcart Farrar, Straus and Giroux New York, New York, 2005 HC, 308 pages US$25.00 ISBN: 0-3741-5716-2 The day that changed the world By Steven Martinovich web posted January 31, 2005 [The Fly in the Cathedral: How A Small Group of Cambridge Scientists Won The Race to Split the Atom] History is more than just dates but April 14, 1932 ought to resonate for us like few others. We are in the habit of declaring that certain events changed the world but on that day two scientists at Cambridge University, John Cockcroft and Ernest Walton, did just that. In a lecture hall converted into a laboratory the two men split the atomic nucleus, a feat that eventually ushered in the nuclear era. Their experiment, part of the worldwide race to advance nuclear physics, is recounted in Brian Cathcart's engaging The Fly in the Cathedral: How A Small Group of Cambridge Scientists Won The Race to Split the Atom. Cathcart chronicles a fascinating period in physics when the scene shifted from the small scale with workbench-sized equipment and small teams of scientists to the days of relatively larger experiments and budgets. Although today the structure of the atom is familiar to every high school physics student, in the 1920s the basic building block of the universe was still cloaked in mystery. Scientists like Ernest Lawrence, Niels Bohr, the Curies and Werner Heisenberg, among others, worked feverishly to tease out the atom's secrets. Limiting their efforts was the rudimentary nature of their equipment and conflicting theories of what was to be found. The same research was occurring at Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge under the aegis of Nobel laureate Ernest Rutherford, a pioneer in nuclear physics. Although the Cavendish maintained a relaxed atmosphere -- work rarely began before 10:00am and its scientists were punctual about leaving promptly at 6:00pm -- it also boasted an impressive collection of talent from around the world. Among them were Cockcroft and Walton. It was Rutherford's earlier work that essentially set the scene for Cockcroft and Walton. Two decades previous he had put together a basic model of the atom -- a nucleus surrounded by one or more electrons. The next great challenge -- besides a more accurate model which was eventually constructed by another Cavendish scientist named James Chadwick -- was to break open the nucleus to see what was there. That work fell on Cockcroft and Walton. As Cathcart illustrates, the challenge demanded no small amount of work. Given the rudimentary state of scientific equipment, the pair had to construct what would eventually be the world's first working particle accelerator, often times by trial and error and the use of unconventional materials like plasticine. Complicating their mission was the prevailing belief that millions of volts were necessary to split the atom -- or to be more precise, to smash apart a nucleus with another atomic particle -- beyond the resources available to almost every scientist including those at the Cavendish. Although the pair were restrained in that classically Victorian manner -- Walton's love letters to his fianc were amazingly proper -- their passion for their work shines through in Cathcart's account. With the support of Rutherford, and an admonishment that prompted them to run the experiment that split the atom, the two worked relentlessly towards their goal. Their drive and determination were necessary to overcome the many obstacles that anyone blazing a new trail experiences, particularly in an atom-sized world that could only be observed indirectly at that point in history. And yet, as Cathcart points out, few scientists thought that splitting the atom would change the world. Rutherford brushed aside speculation that the achievement could herald a new source of energy or weapons of unimaginable power. Yet it was one of those rare times when the media understood the ramifications of a scientific event better than the scientists, though one newspaper wondered if the technology could be used to turn lead into gold. The Daily Mirror was more circumspect when it declared, "Let it be split, so long as it does not explode." The Fly in the Cathedral is an engaging effort that deserves praise for explaining nuclear physics in an easily digestible manner and Cathcart's ability to slowly build excitement with material usually reported in a more scholarly manner. Although he spends comparatively little time exploring the people behind the achievement, we nonetheless remain interested in the cast of characters that drove the events of the story. The names of Cockcroft and Walton are unfortunately less well known than many of their peers but hopefully The Fly in the Cathedral will rectify that. Steven Martinovich is a freelance writer in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. Buy The Fly in the Cathedral: How A Small Group of Cambridge Scientists Won The Race to Split the Atom at Amazon.com [http://www.enterstageright.com/static/sitemap.htm] 1996 - 2005, Enter Stage Right and/or its creators. All rights ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************