*****************************************************************
03/09/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.54
*****************************************************************
   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 Daily Targum: Veterans decry Iraqi, Iranian foreign policy - 
2 YWS: S. Korean, U.S. Nuclear Negotiators to Leave for Talks on N. Ko
3 Japan Times: How diplomacy can defuse the North Korean crisis
4 Korea Times: Hill Negative on NK Demand Outside Nuke Talks 
5 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nuke battle: Utahns reload Hatch, Bennett to
6 US: LVCL: Anti-nuke activist Harvey Wasserman says the answer is blo
7 [NukeNet] 35th Anniversary Of NPT Treaty And The World Still
8 FT.com: Nuclear arms to lead Rice's Asian tour
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
9 US: maine today: Nuclear power is safe power 
10 US: Biz Journals: Duke mulls building nuclear plant - 
11 US: NRC: Regulatory Information Conference
12 US: TheDay.com: Millstone Passes NRC Review For Safety And Industry 
13 The Telegraph - Calcutta : Tsunami pushes up nuclear reactor
14 US: NRC: Comment Request
15 US: NRC: Duke Energy Corporation, et al.; Catawba Nuclear Station, U
16 US: NRC: Duke Energy Corporation, North Carolina Electric Membership
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
17 [du-list] After the War Comes Cancer
18 [du-list] Australian troops may be exposed to uranium
19 US: US  DOE has received the warning
20 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Consider the risks 
21 Montreal Gazette: Poisoned workers left out in cold 
22 Deutsche Welle: After the War Comes Cancer | Germany | 
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
23 US: deseret news: Utah nuclear fuel fight going to White House 
24 US: Bradenton Herald: Senator backs notification bill
25 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Court rules against Nevada 
26 Las Vegas SUN: New timeline being prepared for Yucca project
27 RGJ: Nevada loses ruling on funds to fight Yucca Mountain nuclear du
28 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Giving us pause 
29 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Opinion Rules were broken 
30 US: Vermont Guardian: Nuclear storage talks heat up
31 US: Brattleboro Reformer: WRC weighs in on dry cask fray
32 US: NRC: Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, Idaho Spent Fuel
 
                         NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 
33 35th Anniversary Of NPT Treaty And The World Still Faces Accidental 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
34 New Mexican: Rumors of Bechtel-UC lab venture has bidders’ attention
35 Tri-City Herald: Hanford lab dispute ends, operator can resume work 
36 DenverPost.com: Lawmakers urge compensation for ill Rocky Flats work
37 Salt Lake Tribune: Cannon backs nuclear weapons tests in Nevada 
38 RadioActivist Campaign: a scientific campaign of the Tides Center
39 KTVB: INL plans for more waste removal 
40 DOE: AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
                          OTHER NUCLEAR
 
41 [du-list] DU in the news - 10th March 05
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Daily Targum: Veterans decry Iraqi, Iranian foreign policy - 

- University
 
/www.dailytargum.com

 [Former Marines, Michael Huffman, left, and Mike Leff speak out 
Monday against the War in Iraq on the College Avenue campus.] 
Media Credit: Onnie Koski/Photography EditorFormer Marines, 
Michael Huffman, left, and Mike Leff speak out Monday against the 
War in Iraq on the College Avenue campus.

When war veterans go home, sometimes they just "don't know where
to go," said Michael Hoffman, a veteran who served in the 1st
Marine Division and was stationed in Iraq as an artilleryman.
 
Hoffman offered this analysis Monday at the Graduate Student
Lounge in the College Avenue Student Center. The discussion was
the first major event for the newly recognized group, Rutgers
Against the War.
 
Hoffman founded Iraq Veterans Against the War, which consists of
veterans who served in Operation Enduring Freedom and Operation
Iraqi Freedom. According to the group's Web site, one of its
major objectives is a full military withdrawal from Iraq.
 
"Nobody was talking about immediate withdrawal," he said. "We
can't do it because no one's talking about it. The longer we
stay, the uglier and more volatile it will be when we pull out."
 
Hoffman said troubles with paperwork prevented him from
receiving compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder. He
said depleted uranium - which is radioactive and is used to more
effectively pierce armor - was found in a member of his unit and
said he fears for the health of his children. 

Hoffman described the uranium as "long-term, low-dose radiation
poisoning for the rest of your life."
 
He also outlined part of an artilleryman's job description. "We
don't line up sights. [We] just shoot at a number on a grid,"
using a ton of explosives for one target, Hoffman said. As for
soldiers, Hoffman said it's tough getting by from day to day,
let alone doing the job. 

"They're going over there and can barely keep themselves alive,"
he said. "We went over there to fix something. Those hopes were
destroyed for all of us."
 
Hoffman frequently drew parallels between the situation in
Vietnam and the current situation in Iraq. 

"[It makes veterans] sick that people have forgotten what
happened in Vietnam," he said.
 
He also addressed the instability in Iraq and the role of the
Kurds in Iraqi politics.
 
"I view it as the big question mark in this whole process," he
said, adding he feels the Kurds are overrepresented, while the
Shiites are fairly represented, and the Sunnis are
underrepresented.
 
Rutgers College sophomore Dan Rosenblum - a member of Rutgers
Against the War - thought Hoffman's presentation was impressive.
 
"He seemed like he knew where he was coming from," Rosenblum
said. "Those on the fence really got a good handle on what's
going on there and here as a result." 

ww.dailytargum.com]  		   	 

      ©2004 Targum Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
 2 YWS: S. Korean, U.S. Nuclear Negotiators to Leave for Talks on N. Korea

YONHAPNEWS WORLD SERVICE::ENGLISH NEWS
 
[http://www.yonhapnews.co.kr/] ..   

  2005/03/09 10:44 KST   

 By Chang Jae-soon

 SEOUL, March 9 (Yonhap) -- The United States is prepared to make 
a "give-and take" deal with North Korea to resolve the ongoing 
tension over the communist country's nuclear weapons program, 
Washington's new nuclear envoy said Wednesday.

 The new U.S. envoy, Christopher Hill, said that although 
multilateral efforts to resolve the row has been stalled, the 
dispute can still be brought to an amicable settlement through 
dialogue.

 
				   


*****************************************************************
 3 Japan Times: How diplomacy can defuse the North Korean crisis

  Wednesday, March 9, 2005   

 By EUGENE B. KOGAN Special to The Japan Times

 WASHINGTON -- "The sure way to miss success is to miss the
opportunity," a wise man once observed. Foreign Minister
Nobutaka Machimura asked U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice to visit Japan "at the earliest possible opportunity"
during a bilateral security meeting in Washington on Feb. 19.
When that visit takes place, Machimura must urge Rice to take
the above maxim to heart if the United States, Japan and their
regional allies are to be successful in bringing North Korea
back to the six-party negotiating table.

 Pyongyang's Feb. 10 proclamation that it has manufactured
nuclear weapons was an undisguised demand for the U.S. to take
the Korean nuclear crisis off the diplomatic back burner. In
early January, the director general of the International Atomic
Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei, called North Korea the "No. 1"
proliferation threat in the world.

 Yet, in step with his administration's long-standing hands-off
policy toward the Korean Peninsula nuclear standoff, U.S.
President George W. Bush only mentioned North Korea in passing
in his State of the Union Address, saying that he and allies
were working "to convince North Korea to abandon its nuclear
ambitions."

 Brinkmanship is nothing new in Pyongyang's diplomatic approach.
However bellicose its rhetoric, North Korea does not seek direct
confrontation, which would result in the regime's annihilation.
According to its news agency, North Korea's intention is "to
solve the issue through dialogue and negotiations." Military is
also the worst option for the U.S., especially when its forces
are already overextended in Afghanistan and Iraq.

 Regrettably, Washington's initial response to North Korea's
nuclear declaration was simply to put the onus back on
Pyongyang, saying the statement only deepened the regime's
isolation. On Feb. 10, the U.S. State Department flatly rejected
the need to review the current U.S. policy toward North Korea,
which includes the refusal to negotiate directly with Pyongyang.
This "business as usual" approach is dangerously misguided.

 North Korea is blackmailing the U.S. With time, the conditions
of blackmail are bound to get worse, and the diplomatic options
for dealing with them will become scarcer. The next act of
brinkmanship may come in the form of a nuclear test.

 Thus it is not enough to simply urge Pyongyang to return to
negotiations "expeditiously and without preconditions," as the
U.S.-Japan Security Consultative Committee did in a statement
after the recent meeting in Washington. Machimura must encourage
his American counterpart to have the U.S. urgently and actively
engaged in seeking a diplomatic solution to the nuclear
standoff. 

The bad news is that North Korean leader Kim Jong Il sees Bush's
postelection push to end tyranny as an overt threat to his
regime. Rice's reference to North Korea as an "outpost of
tyranny" also caused consternation in Pyongyang. Taken together,
this moralistic rhetoric seriously jeopardizes the possibility
of a negotiated disarmament of North Korea's nuclear arsenal.

 The good news is that Rice believes that "the time for
diplomacy is now." Furthermore, during recent talks with a
visiting Chinese envoy, Kim indicated Pyongyang's openness to
returning to six-party talks on the condition that the U.S. show
"trustworthy sincerity and move."

 To renew diplomacy with North Korea, Rice must take two initial
steps. First, an accomplished realist theoretician, she must put
her academic training into action by approaching North Korea
with exquisite realism, while carefully distancing herself from
Bush's moralism. Rice must continue emphasizing to North Korea
that the U.S. seeks a negotiated disarmament, not regime change.
However distasteful to Bush, this message is critical for
regaining the fragile confidence of Pyongyang's paranoid regime.
This confidence-building process will take time, but it will lay
the vital groundwork for renewed negotiations.

 Second, Rice must recommend that Bush appoint a new high-level
envoy to the peninsula. To have an effective policy on North
Korea, a senior official has to be responsible and accountable
for carrying it out. One good candidate for the job is former
Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who was the
highest-ranking U.S. government official to meet with Kim. 

Washington must also remember that Iran is watching how it
handles North Korea. America's apparent unwillingness and
impotence in dealing with a belligerent and nuclear-armed North
Korea signals to nuclear aspirants, like Iran, that an atomic
weapon is a magic wand that can keep a superpower at bay. The
best antidote to this message is a negotiated disarmament of
Pyongyang's nuclear arsenal. If America demonstrates diplomatic
adroitness with North Korea, resulting in the regime's
disarmament, a peaceful resolution of Tehran's nuclear ambitions
will also be within reach.

 In declaring itself a nuclear power, North Korea has cried out
for Washington's attention. If the U.S. uses this opportunity to
defuse the crisis diplomatically, it can bring the region a step
closer to success. If it misses this opportunity, it will bring
the peninsula closer to disaster.

 Eugene B. Kogan is a senior political analyst at Americans for
Informed Democracy in Washington. 

The Japan Times: March 9, 2005
*****************************************************************
 4 Korea Times: Hill Negative on NK Demand Outside Nuke Talks 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

By Ryu Jin Staff Reporter

 U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Christopher Hill reiterated
yesterday that Washington has little intention to comply with
North Korea¡¯s demands outside the negotiations on its nuclear
weapons program.

 But the ambassador, who heads his country¡¯s delegation to the
six-party talks, added that the U.S. would discuss the North¡¯s
concerns ``with passion and creativity¡¯¡¯ once it returns to
the multilateral dialogue.

 ``We believe diplomatic negotiation is the best way to address
the problem of North Korean nuclear weapons programs,¡¯¡¯ he
said during a breakfast forum hosted by the National Strategy
Institute in Seoul.

 ``We'll approach these negotiations in a spirit of optimism, in
a spirit of getting it done and in a very energetic way,
bringing imagination to the table,'' he said. ``We will do a
lot, but we will do it at the table, not through press
releases.''

 Since it declared an indefinite suspension of the disarmament
talks about a month ago, North Korea has demanded that top
American officials apologize for Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice¡¯s labeling of it as one of the ``outposts of tyranny.¡¯¡¯

 Defending Rice¡¯s position, Hill said ``it¡¯s a little strange
to ask us to make accommodating statements,¡¯¡¯ in which the
North not only boycotted the talks but also proudly announced
its ability to attack other nations with nuclear weapons.

 His remarks followed a White House statement on Monday in which
U.S. President George W. Bush raised concerns about the nuclear
``rogue states,¡¯¡¯ apparently directed at North Korea and Iran.

 Hill, who flew to Tokyo later in the day, stressed that the
North stands at a crossroads where it should make a strategic
choice between even deeper isolation with nuclear arms in hand
or economic rebuilding without them. ``There is no middle road
here.¡¯¡¯

 The veteran negotiator, who has wide experience in conflicts of
European countries, emphasized multilateralism, which he hoped
will remain useful in Northeast Asia after the resolution of the
nuclear standoff.

 Hill, who faces a Senate confirmation hearing to become the
assistant secretary of state on Asia-Pacific affairs, will make
a week-long visit to Washington by way of Tokyo, where he will
meet Japanese counterpart Sasae Kenichiro. 

jinryu@koreatimes.co.kr 03-09-2005 21:06         
  
*****************************************************************
 5 Salt Lake Tribune: Nuke battle: Utahns reload Hatch, Bennett to
meet today with top White House aides 

Article Last Updated: 03/09/2005 02:54:08 AM 

By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 

WASHINGTON - Utah leaders are regrouping and maneuvering to 
try to kill a plan to store high-level nuclear waste in the 
state's west desert after a recent decision by a federal 
licensing board dealt a setback to Utah's opposi- tion. 

State attorneys say the threat of an F-16 military jet 
smashing into the nuclear storage facility poses an unacceptable 
risk, and they want the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to 
reconsider its recent ruling in favor of Private Fuel Storage 
(PFS), the consortium of utilities proposing to store the waste 
in Utah until a permanent dump can be built at Yucca Mountain, 
Nev. 

This afternoon, Utah Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett are 
scheduled to meet with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card 
and Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove to make the case against the 
PFS plan to store 40,000 tons of nuclear waste on concrete pads 
on the desert reservation southwest of Salt Lake City. 

"We want to remind them of the commitment they made to stand 
firm with us in doing everything we can to prevent it from 
happening," Bennett said Tuesday. "The administration's policy 
with respect to nuclear waste storage is straight to Yucca, and 
if this goes forward in Utah, if we have interim stops on the 
road to Yucca, that's a repudiation of administration policy." 

Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. will be in Washington early 
next week meeting with Bush administration officials about 
several issues, including the state's opposition to the PFS plan.

The full-court press comes after the Atomic Safety and 
Licensing Board rejected the state's contention that there was 
an unacceptable risk that a fighter jet could crash into the PFS 
site and release radioactive material. 

The bid to have the board reconsider its Feb. 24 ruling is 
the state's last chance to persuade the board to reject the PFS 
plan. If the effort fails, the matter will go to the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, which will decide whether to license the 
facility. The state also could take its fight to federal court. 

The state's motion is sealed in order to protect security 
details, but Dianne Nielson, director of the Utah Department of 
Environmental Quality, said generally Utah is asking the board 
to revisit issues raised in the dissenting opinion by Judge 
Peter Lam. 

"The other two judges should have taken into consideration 
the issues that Judge Lam looked at a little more closely - the 
number and types of accidents that were looked at, the issue of 
how they dealt with technical numbers," said Nielson. "Judge Lam 
was right on, and I think he got it." 

Hatch's and Bennett's trip to the White House today is 
similar to their meeting in July 2002 with Card and then-Energy 
Secretary Spencer Abraham, at which the senators were promised 
no federal funds for the PFS site if the senators supported 
Yucca Mountain. 

PFS says it never expected to get federal funding. 

Bennett said Tuesday that, because PFS is a private venture 
seeking a license under existing law, the Bush administration 
does not have direct influence over the fate of the project. 

"That is the problem - this is not a government entity, so 
there is nothing the White House can lean on directly," he 
said. But "if the White House would send a signal that they 
thought this was somehow a good idea, it would make things 
extremely difficult for us." 

--- 

Tribune reporter Christopher Smith contributed to this 
story. 

Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 6 LVCL: Anti-nuke activist Harvey Wasserman says the answer is blowin' in the wind

Las Vegas City Life
 
Wednesday, March 09, 2005        

Free-market rebel

BY JARRET KEENE

It's always a pleasure to hear a serious discussion about U.S. 
energy policy in which the participants don't mispronounce the 
word "nuclear."
  
Activist Harvey Wasserman  

Fox News may consider Karl Rove a genius, but he's yet to train
Cowboy Bush to speak properly. Perhaps the prez is just too busy
playing around on the "Internets."

In any case, longtime anti-nuke activist Harvey Wasserman was in
town on March 2, rallying a small gathering of 20 folks to take
heart: The free market is gonna pull our asses out of the
deepening morass of Dubya's dumbheaded environmental policies,
which are obsessed with nuclear power.

Senior editor of The Free Press, Wasserman basically elaborated
on an essay he and wind-power pioneer Dan Juhl had published in
a recent issue of Solar Today, a publication put out by the
American Solar Energy Society. In it, Wasserman (who was in Las
Vegas to participate in last week's Power-Gen Renewable
Conference at the Hilton) contends that the cost-efficiency of
wind and solar power outstrips the fossil-nuke industry, once we
take into account all the associated costs. For instance, he
argues that the risks and costs in storing radioactive waste
alone is enough reason to switch to renewable energy.

Wasserman broke down how the Yucca Mountain battle originated in
Minnesota, home of three nuke plants. He also explained how the
federal government's effort to push waste into Nevada had a
positive effect: a state mandate came down forcing the
nuclear-power companies to buy more megawatts of wind power in
exchange for being able to fall back on on-site dry-cast storage.

Wind-farming is now a very profitable option for people in the
Midwest who used to make money off of corn and soy -- and by
Wasserman's estimate, there's $70 million worth of windmills in
southwestern Minnesota, owned by farmers. In short, the fact
that Nevada activists have held the line on Yucca Mountain has
helped push fossil-nuke-based corporations toward viable
alternatives.

Why risk creating targets for terrorists and irradiating the
countryside when the price of renewable energy has plummeted?
Why not adhere to a free-market approach to energy?

"As soon as we get these lunatics out of the White House," said
Wasserman, "we might move ahead with that."

He added that the idea of using nuclear plants to make hydrogen
is over-hyped, unrealistic and insane.

"There will be some place for hydrogen in the future economy,"
Wasserman said. "But as a major player, hydrogen is highly
unlikely. If you're gonna use hydrogen to power cars, why not
just use electric cars and eliminate the middle man?

"It's not economical to build nuclear power plants to power
automobiles," Wasserman continued. "The idea is psychotic; it
makes no sense at all, which is why the Bush administration is
for it. It's a faith-based initiative."

The only thing that's providing an obstacle against the push for
renewable energy? The deficit, which makes buying steel from,
say, China an exorbitant task, what with the falling dollar and
all.

After giving the audience hope that the free-market economy will
save us from Chernobylizing ourselves, Wasserman discussed the
2004 presidential election. As a resident of Ohio, he offered a
first-hand account of the discrepancies, fuck-ups and illegal
activities that marred the poll results -- all of which can be
traced to the door-steps of Republican state leadership and the
right-wing makers of Diebold election systems.

"What you have to remember," Wasserman said, "is that Bush is
not popular. He has the lowest approval rating of any president
in years."

Jarret Keene is CityLife's A&E editor. He can be reached at
702-871-6780 ext. 347 or keene@lvpress.com [keene@lvpress.com] . 

  Copyright © 2005 Las Vegas City Life   
*****************************************************************
 7 [NukeNet] 35th Anniversary Of NPT Treaty And The World Still
 
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:29:39 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)



     This past Saturday, March 5, 2005 marked the
35th anniversary of the NPT Treaty going into
effect, including, of course, it's Article VI
calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. 35
years is a very, very long period of time. Many
reading this weren't even born then or were small
children. Lastly, Russia's inability to monitor
incoming "stuff" renders the possibility of an
accidental nuclear war MUCH more likely as we
drift towards unparalled catastrophes:

Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to
pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms
race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.
and on a treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective
international control.


   NPT Treaty:
http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/docs.html

Desiring to further the easing of international
tension and the strengthening of trust between the
States in order to facilitate the cessation of the
manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of
all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination
from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the
means of their delivery pursuant to a treaty on
general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control,

Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of
the United Nations, States must refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any State, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations, and that the establishment and
maintenance of international peace and security
are to be promoted with the least diversion for
armaments of the world's human and economic
resources,

Have agreed as follows:



   Text of the NPT



Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Signed at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1,
1968
Ratification advised by U.S. Senate March 13, 1969
U.S. ratification deposited at Washington, London,
and Moscow March 5, 1970
Proclaimed by U.S. President March 5, 1970
Entered into force March 5, 1970

The States concluding this Treaty, hereinafter
referred to as the "Parties to the Treaty",

Considering the devastation that would be visited
upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the
consequent need to make every effort to avert the
danger of such a war and to take measures to
safeguard the security of peoples,

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear
weapons would seriously enhance the danger of
nuclear war,

In conformity with resolutions of the United
Nations General Assembly calling for the
conclusion of an agreement on the prevention of
wider dissemination of nuclear weapons,

Undertaking to coöperate in facilitating the
application of International Atomic Energy Agency
safeguards on peaceful nuclear activities,

Expressing their support for research, development
and other efforts to further the application,
within the framework of the International Atomic
Energy Agency safeguards system, of the principle
of safeguarding effectively the flow of source and
special fissionable materials by use of
instruments and other techniques at certain
strategic points,

Affirming the principle that the benefits of
peaceful applications of nuclear technology,
including any technological by-products which may
be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the
development of nuclear explosive devices, should
be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties
of the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or
non-nuclear weapon States,

Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle,
all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to
participate in the fullest possible exchange of
scientific information for, and to contribute
alone or in coöperation with other States to, the
further development of the applications of atomic
energy for peaceful purposes,

Declaring their intention to achieve at the
earliest possible date the cessation of the
nuclear arms race and to undertake effective
measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament,

Urging the coöperation of all States in the
attainment of this objective,

Recalling the determination expressed by the
Parties to the 1963 Treaty banning nuclear weapons
tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under
water in its Preamble to seek to achieve the
discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear
weapons for all time and to continue negotiations
to this end,

Desiring to further the easing of international
tension and the strengthening of trust between the
States in order to facilitate the cessation of the
manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of
all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination
from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the
means of their delivery pursuant to a treaty on
general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control,

Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of
the United Nations, States must refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any State, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations, and that the establishment and
maintenance of international peace and security
are to be promoted with the least diversion for
armaments of the world's human and economic
resources,

Have agreed as follows:


Article I
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty
undertakes not to transfer to any recipient
whatsoever nuclear weapons or other explosive
devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any
way assist, encourage. or induce any non-nuclear-
weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire
nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices, or control over such weapons or explosive
devices.


Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty
undertakes not to receive the transfer from any
transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other
explosive devices or of control over such weapons
or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not
to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and
not to seek or receive any assistance in the
manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices.


Article III
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the
Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set
forth in an agreement to be negotiated and
concluded with the International Atomic Energy
Agency in accordance with the Statute of the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the
Agency's safeguards system for the exclusive
purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its
obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view
to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from
peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards
required by this article shall be followed with
respect to source or special fissionable material
whether it is being produced, processed or used in
any principal nuclear facility or is outside any
such facility. The safeguards required by this
article shall be applied to all source or special
fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear
activities within the territory of such State,
under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its
control any here.

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not
to provide: (a) source or special fissionable
material, or (b) equipment or material especially
designed or prepared for the processing, use or
production of special fissionable material. to any
non- nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes,
unless the source or special fissionable material
shall be subject to the safeguards required by
this article.

3. The safeguards required by this article shall
be implemented in a manner designed to comply with
the article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid
hampering the economic or technological
development of the Parties or international
coöperation in the field of peaceful nuclear
activities, including the international exchange
of nuclear material for the processing. use or
production of nuclear material for peaceful
purposes in accordance with the provisions of this
article and the principle of safeguarding set
forth in the Preamble of the Treaty.

4. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty
shall conclude agreements with the International
Atomic Energy Agency to meet the requirements of
this article either individually or together with
other States in accordance with the Statute of the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Negotiation of
such agreements shall commence within 180 days
from the original entry into force of this Treaty.
For States depositing their instruments of
ratification or accession after the 180-day
period, negotiation of such agreements shall
commence not later than the date of such deposit.
Such agreements shall enter into force not later
than eighteen months after the date of initiation
of negotiations.


Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as
affecting the inalienable right of all Parties to
the Treaty to develop research, production and use
of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without
discrimination and in conformity with articles I
and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to
facilitate, and have the right to participate in,
the fullest possible exchange of equipment,
materials and scientific and technological
information for the peaceful uses of nuclear
energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do
so shall also coöperate in contributing alone or
together with other States or in international
organizations to the further development of the
applications of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes, especially in the territories of
non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty,
with due consideration for the needs of the
developing areas of the world.


Article V
Each Party to the Treaty undertakes to take
appropriate measures to ensure that, in accordance
with this Treaty under appropriate international
observation and through appropriate international
procedures, potential benefits from any peaceful
applications of nuclear explosions will be made
available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to
the Treaty on a nondiscriminatory basis and that
the charge to such Parties for the explosive
devices used will be as low as possible and
exclude an charge for research and development.
Non-nuclear- weapon States Party to the Treaty
shall be able to obtain such benefits, pursuant to
a special international agreement or agreements,
through an appropriate international body with
adequate representation of non-nuclear-weapon
States. Negotiations on this subject shall
commence as soon as possible after the Treaty
enters into force. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party
to the Treaty so desiring may also obtain such
benefits pursuant to bilateral agreements.


Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to
pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms
race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.
and on a treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective
international control.


Article VII
Nothing in this Treaty affects the right of any
group of States to conclude regional treaties in
order to assure the total absence of nuclear
weapons in their respective territories.


Article VIII
l. Any Party to the Treaty may propose amendments
to this Treaty. The text of any proposed amendment
shall be submitted to the Depositary Governments
which shall circulate it to all Parties to the
Treaty. Thereupon, if requested to do so by one-
third or more of the Parties to the Treaty, the
Depositary Governments shall convene a conference,
to which they shall invite all Parties to the
Treaty, to consider such an amendment.

2. Any amendment to this Treaty must be approved
by a majority of the votes of all the Parties to
the Treaty, including the votes of all
non-nuclear- weapon States Party to the Treaty and
all other Parties which, on the date the amendment
is circulated, are members of the Board of
Governors of the International Atomic Energy
Agency. The amendment shall enter into force for
each Party that deposits its instrument of
ratification of the amendment upon the deposit of
such instruments of ratification by a majority of
all the Parties, including the instruments of
ratification of all nuclear-weapon States Party to
the Treaty and all other Parties which, on the
date the amendment is circulated, are members of
the Board of Governors of the International Atomic
Energy Agency. Thereafter, it shall enter into
force for any Party upon deposit of its instrument
of ratification of the amendment.

3. Five years after the entry into force of this
Treaty, a conference of Parties to the Treaty
shall be held in Geneva, Switzerland, in order to
review the operation of this Treaty with a view to
assuring that the purposes of the Preamble and the
provisions of the Treaty are being realized. At
intervals of five years thereafter, a majority of
the Parties to the Treaty may obtain, by
submitting a proposal to this effect to the
Depositary Governments, the convening of further
conferences with the same objective of reviewing
the operation of the Treaty.


Article IX
1. This Treaty shall be open to all States for
signature. Any State which does not sign the
Treaty before its entry into force in accordance
with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it
at any time.

2. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification by
signatory States. Instruments of ratification and
instruments of accession shall be deposited with
the Governments of the United States of America,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, which are hereby designated the
Depositary Governments.

3. This Treaty shall enter into force after its
ratification by the States, the Governments of
which are designated Depositaries of the Treaty,
and forty other States signatory to this Treaty
and the deposit of their instruments of
ratification. For the purposes of this Treaty, a
nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured
and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear
explosive device prior to January 1, 1967.

4. For States whose instruments of ratification or
of accession are deposited subsequent to the entry
into force of this Treaty, it shall enter into
force on the date of the deposit of their
instruments of ratification or accession.

5. The Depositary Governments shall promptly
inform all signatory and acceding States of the
date of each signature, the date of deposit of
each instrument of ratification or of accession,
the date of the entry into force of this Treaty,
and the date of receipt of any requests for
convening a conference or other notices.

6. This Treaty shall be registered by the
Depositary Governments pursuant to article 102 of
the Charter of the United Nations.


Article X
l. Each Party shall in exercising its national
sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the
Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events,
related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have
jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.
It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all
other Parties to the Treaty and to the United
Nations Security Council three months in advance.
Such notice shall include a statement of the
extraordinary events it regards as having
jeopardized it supreme interests.

2. Twenty-five years after the entry into force of
the Treaty, a conference shall be convened to
decide whether the Treaty shall continue in force
indefinitely, or shall be extended for an
additional fixed period or periods. This decision
shall be taken by a majority of the Parties to the
Treaty.


Article XI
This Treaty, the English, Russian, French,
Spanish, and Chinese texts of which are equally
authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of
the Depositary Governments. Duly certified copies
of this Treaty shall be transmitted by the
Depositary Governments to the Governments of the
signatory and acceding States.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, duly
authorized, have signed this Treaty, DONE in
triplicate, at the cities of Washington, London
and Moscow, this first day of July one thousand
nine hundred sixty-eight.



--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
  BACK TO GANA's INDEX OF DOCUMENTS





_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 8 FT.com: Nuclear arms to lead Rice's Asian tour
 
By Guy Dinmore in Washington 
Published: March 9 2005 20:43 | Last updated: March 9 2005 20:43

[Image] Nuclear proliferation and the war on terror are expected 
to top the agenda for Condoleezza Rice when she visits six Asian 
nations next week on her first tour of the region as US secretary 
of state.

 The state department announced on Tuesday that Ms Rice would
visit India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Japan, Korea, and China from
March 14-21. Her visit comes at a sensitive juncture in efforts
to persuade North Korea to rejoin six-party talks on dismantling
its nuclear programme. Senior US officials recently voiced
frustration that China, the host and mediator, has not put more
pressure on North Korea. 

Pyongyang has refused to rejoin the negotiations that last took
place nine months ago. Ms Rice would review diplomatic efforts
to convene the next round, the state department said.

 Ning Fukui, China's special envoy to the negotiations, is due
to meet Chris Hill, the head of the US delegation, and other US
officials in Washington today.

 While the US officials emphasise what they see as the overall
positive trend in Sino-US relations, there is serious concern
about China's military build-up and an anti-secession law,
directed at Taiwan, that is currently passing through the
National People's Congress. 

The Bush administration says it is pleased with Pakistan's
collection of information on North Korea's and Iran's nuclear
programmes through the revelations of Abdul Qadeer Khan, the
rogue Pakistani scientist, who ran a network of nuclear
smugglers. Pakistan's help in the â€œwar on terrorâ€ is also
touted by the Bush administration for justifying its sizeable
financial assistance to President Pervez Musharraf. 

US efforts to isolate Iran are likely to run into stronger
opposition, however. China, India and Japan are competing for
access to energy sources in the Middle East and oppose sanctions
against Iran.

  [ height=]     Â© Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2005. "FT"
and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times.
*****************************************************************
 9 maine today: Nuclear power is safe power 

Anti-nuclear power activists, like the author of the op-ed "U.S.
must find safe energy sources" (Feb. 27), do not give us the
full story. --> 

[http://www.mainetoday.com]     
[Kennebec Journal and Morning Sentinel] 

  Wednesday, March 9, 2005 

Anti-nuclear power activists, like the author of the op-ed "U.S.
must find safe energy sources" (Feb. 27), do not give us the
full story.

Nuclear power is by far one of the safest of all the energy
technologies we use. It does not emit greenhouse gases or air
pollutants, and we know the pollution from fossil fuel burning
shortens the lives of hundreds of thousands of people each year.

The minor radioactive emissions from these plants have never
harmed the public. In fact, the American Cancer Institute
published a massive study a few years ago, one of many, of
mortality near nuclear plants as compared to areas with no
nuclear plants. The solid answer was that nuclear power plants
do not cause health effects in people.

Nuclear power plants in the United States and the rest of the
Western world have been quietly producing cost-effective power
safely and efficiently for the last few decades.

This is an energy source that is safe and that our state and
this nation truly need.

Donald A. Grant
R. C. Hill Professor and Chairman, Mechanical Engineering 
Department University of Maine Orono   

  Copyright © Blethen Maine Newspapers Inc.  
*****************************************************************
 10 Biz Journals: Duke mulls building nuclear plant - 

2005-03-09
 
   [http://www.bizjournals.com/]   »  Charlotte  »

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with 
[http://www.bizjournals.com/search/bin/search?q=Duke%20Power%20Co 
] officials Monday to discuss Duke's possible application for a 
construction and operating license for a nuclear power plant. 

The process incorporates inspections and tests during
construction to provide information necessary to demonstrate
that the reactor could operate safely when built. 

Duke Power, a division of Charlotte-based , operates three 
nuclear plants in the Carolinas. 

Three other nuclear plant operators have applied for combined 
licenses -- Virginia-based, New Orleans-based and Chicago-based, 
Reuters reports. 

The companies have not decided whether to build a nuclear plant. 

That depends on factors that include the cost of alternative
fuels such as oil and natural gas, demand for more electricity
and federal and state regulations among other things. 

The last nuclear plant built in the country started operations
in 1996. 

Duke owns and operates about 30,000 megawatts of generating
capacity in North America, including 7,000 megawatts of nuclear
power, Reuters says. One megawatt can power about 1,000 homes. 

© 2005 American City Business Journals Inc.

*****************************************************************
 11 NRC: Regulatory Information Conference
 
Home > Public Involvement > Conferences and Symposia >
Regulatory Information Conference 
  
RIC Notices 

Pre-Registration is now closed. If you still plan to attend the
RIC but have not registered, please print a copy of the
registration form, complete the form, and bring it with you to
the conference registration booth at the hotel. 

Register for NEI
            Luncheon
[http://register.nei.org/Public/RIC05RegistrationForm.asp] on
March 9, 2005! 

Make your hotel room reservations now! 

View the conference program!   

Regulatory Information Conference (RIC)
 
  [Logo for Regulatory Information Conference 2002]     Welcome
to the NRCs Regulatory Information Conference (RIC) Web page.
This page will provide planning information and updates about
the next conference, as well as information about past
conferences.
   
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold its 17th
annual Regulatory Information Conference (RIC) Tuesday, March 8,
Wednesday, March 9, and Thursday, March 10, 2005, at the
Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center.
Construction on the new Marriott was just completed in November
2004. The hotel [PDF ICON] , at 5701 Marinelli Road, North
Bethesda Maryland, is conveniently located just off Route 355
(Rockville Pike) opposite the Red Line's White Flint Metro
Station, and diagonally across from NRC Headquarters. 

The conference will be open to the public and there is no
conference fee. The RIC program will include presentations by
the NRC Chairman, the NRC Commissioners, the Executive Director
for Operations, and a number of dynamic breakout sessions. The
breakout sessions will address a variety of challenging
technical and regulatory topics, including several typically
discussed at the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research's (RES's)
"Nuclear
      Safety Research Conference (NSRC)
[http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/research/meetings.html]
 ". 

See the following for detailed conference information: 
  + Conference Program 
  + Keynote Speakers 
  + Conference Registration 
  + On-Line Registrant List 
  + NEI
        Luncheon Registration
[http://register.nei.org/Public/RIC05RegistrationForm.asp] 
  + Sponsored Events 
  + Hotel Reservations and Area Information 
  + Travel Information 
  + Past RIC Information 
  + Frequently Asked Questions 
  + Contact Us About RIC 

Throughout the RIC pages, you will see icons. The Exit icon is
placed directly after an external link to let you know that the
link is going to take you away from the NRC pages. For more
information, refer to the Site Disclaimer.   

Last revised Monday, March 07, 2005        
*****************************************************************
 12 TheDay.com: Millstone Passes NRC Review For Safety And Industry Rules

New London, CT
 		 		 		
Wednesday, Mar 9, 2005   								   									 										
												 												 												 										 										
By PATRICIA DADDONA Day Staff Writer, Waterford

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined in an annual 
review that the reactors at Millstone Power Station have been 
operating safely and meet industry rules and objectives. 

Millstone 2 and 3 generate nearly half the state's electricity,
according to owner Dominion Nuclear Connecticut. A third
Millstone reactor is shut down.

 The NRC reviews the nation's reactors once a year to make sure
they are meeting expectations, said NRC spokesman Neil
Sheehan. This year, 77 of 102 reactors in the country obtained
positive reviews like Millstone's, Sheehan said. 

Twenty-one will require higher levels of oversight, while three
others have problems that warrant even more intensive reviews.
One plant, the Davis-Bessie Nuclear Power Station in Ohio, is
being treated separately from the normal review process because
of the magnitude of troubles there, Sheehan said.

[The Day Publishing Co.]                                                              
 		   	 	
Privacy Policy  |  Contact Us at 1 (860) 442-2200  |  Â© 
1998-2005 The Day Publishing Co.                
*****************************************************************
 13 The Telegraph - Calcutta : Tsunami pushes up nuclear reactor
 
  M.R. VENKATESH   			 
								 																								
Chennai, March 9: The waves rose, so will the nuclear reactor.
																						 														 				 								
The 500-mw prototype fast breeder reactor coming up at
Kalpakkam, about 60 km from here, will be slightly taller than
planned — a modification prompted by the tsunami.
																								
Water had surged into the reactor’s foundation pit when the
December 26 tsunami devastated coastal stretches of Tamil Nadu.
																								
The huge foundation pit, close to the Madras Atomic Power
Station, was filled with over six metres of seawater and chunks
of silt and sludge, prompting the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board
to take a fresh look at the entire plinth area and suggest
modifications. 																						 														 				
								 																								
Baldev Raj, director of the Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic
Research that has designed the nuclear power plant to be built
at a cost of Rs 3,492 crore, told a news conference today the
salt water had partly “infected” the concrete basement. So they
would go in for an extra concrete tier at the bottom which would
eventually raise the core height of the reactor by 1.2 meters
over its initial design of 10 meters. 																						
														 				 								 																								
Prabhat Kumar, project director of Bhavaini, the company formed
to execute the project, explained that 10 mm of the “top layer”
of the “concreting work” at the bottom has been chipped off. The
basement that had already come up to a height of 1.2 metres will
now be used as a buffer and the overall height would
correspondingly go up, increasing the reactor’s height, Kumar
said. 																						 														 				 								
																								
The scientists said the safety measures could raise the overall
project cost to Rs 5 crore. Though work on the reactor has
resumed after a delay of about two months, they said “we hope to
still complete the project in time by 2010”.
																						 														 				 								
																								
Raj said a high-level panel, including experts from the
Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai, Indian
Meteorological Department, Delhi, Central Water and Power
Research Station, Pune, and the National Institute of
Oceanography, Goa, deliberated on ways to protect the
installation against all possible natural disasters.
																						 														 				 								
																								
The new height proposed for the reactor will give it a maximum
level of 9.4 metres from the mean sea level at Kalpakkam, which
the committee, he said, found to be a “safe margin”. The maximum
water level rise in Kalpakkam during the December 26 tsunami was
4.7 metres, the scientist added. 																						
														 				 								 																								
The panel also suggested “additional features” for the atomic
power station which will be carried out, Raj said, adding that
another 3.5-metre-high concrete wall was being built near the
reactor site to check future seawater intrusion into the
foundation pit. 																						 														 				
								 																								
Among the long-term measures being taken up to protect the
nuclear facilities and the Kalpakkam Township is the
construction of a reinforced concrete peripheral
security-cum-boundary wall. Work on the 4-km-long wall has
already started, Raj said. Installation of a local area warning
system in the coastal stretch and a new wireless communication
system powered by solar energy are among the other safety
measures being initiated, he added. 																						
														 				 								 																								
Raj said a memorial for tsunami victims would also be put up at
Kalpakkam, which lost 37 people, including four employees of the
atomic energy department. 																						 											
					   											 			 
   Copyright © 2005 The Telegraph. All rights reserved.    
*****************************************************************
 14 NRC: Comment Request
 
                         FR Doc 05-4546 
[Federal Register: March 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 45)] 
[Notices] [Page 11711] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09mr05-129]
 
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
 
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information
collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of 
continued approval of information collections under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be 
submitted: 1. The Title of the Information Collection: NRC Form 
64, Travel Voucher (Part 1); NRC Form 64A, Travel Voucher (Part 
2), Schedule of Expenses and Amount Claimed; and NRC Form 64B, 
Optional Travel Voucher (Part 2), Expense Report.
 
2. Current OMB Approval Number: 3150-0192. 3. How Often the 
Collection Is Required: On occasion. 4. Who Is Required or Asked 
To Report: Contractors, consultants and invited NRC travelers who 
travel in the course of conducting business for the NRC.
 
5. The Number of Annual Respondents: 100. 6. The Number of Hours 
Needed Annually To Complete the Requirement or Request: 100 hours 
(1 hour per response).
 
7. Abstract: As a part of completing the travel process, the 
traveler must file travel reimbursement vouchers and trip 
reports. The respondent universe for the above forms include 
consultants and contractors and those who are invited by the NRC 
to travel, e.g., prospective employees. Travel expenses that are 
reimbursed are confined to those expenses essential to the 
transaction of official business for an approved trip.
 
Submit, by May 9, 2005, comments that address the following 
questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary 
for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the 
information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate 
accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden 
of the information collection be minimized, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be 
viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 
20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide 
Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comm 
ent/omb/index.html] . The document will be available on the NRC 
home page site for 60 days after the signature date of this 
notice.
 
Comments and questions about the information collection 
requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda 
Jo.
 
Shelton (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301) 415-7233, or by 
Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV 
[INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd 
day of March 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 
Services.
 
[FR Doc. 05-4546 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 15 NRC: Duke Energy Corporation, et al.; Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1
 
                         FR Doc 05-4547 
[Federal Register: March 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 45)] 
[Notices] [Page 11711-11712] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09mr05-130]
 
and 2; Notice of Issuance of Amendment to Facility Operating 
License and Final Determination of No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and 
NPF-52, Amendment Nos. 220 and 215 The Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) has issued Amendment No. 220 to Renewed 
Facility Operating License No. NPF-35 and Amendment No. 215 to 
Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-52, issued to Duke 
Energy Corporation, et al. (Duke, the licensee), which revised 
the Technical Specifications (TS) for operation of the Catawba 
Nuclear Station (Catawba), Units 1 and 2, located in York County, 
South Carolina. The amendment is effective as of the date of 
issuance. The amendment modifies the TS to permit the usage of up 
to four mixed oxide (MOX) lead test assemblies (LTAs). 
Specifically, the amendment consists of: (1) A revision to TS 
3.7.16 to permit storage of the MOX LTAs in the spent fuel pool; 
(2) a revision to TS 4.2, ``Reactor Core'' to include the four 
MOX LTAs using M5 fuel rod cladding; (3) TS 4.3, ``Fuel 
Storage,'' to reflect the enrichment of the MOX LTAs; and (4) a 
revision to TS 5.6.5 to add two supporting methodologies for the 
MOX LTAs. The application for the amendment complies with the 
standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as 
amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. 
The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the 
Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter 
I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
 
A Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility 
Operating License and Opportunity for a Hearing in connection 
with this action was published in the Federal Register on
 
[[Page 11712]] July 25, 2003 (68 FR 44107). A request for a 
hearing was filed on August 21 and 25, 2003, by the Nuclear 
Information and Resources Service (NIRS) and the Blue Ridge 
Environmental Defense League (BREDL), respectively. A Notice of 
Opportunity to Comment and Proposed No Significant Hazards 
Consideration Determination in connection with this action was 
published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2004 (69 FR 41852).
 
On July 14 and 15, 2004, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
(ASLB) held a hearing on a single admitted safety-related 
contention by BREDL. All of NIRS's contentions were rejected and 
NIRS was not admitted as a party to the proceeding. The admitted 
contention was related to the adequacy of the loss-of-coolant 
accident analyses performed to support the use of the MOX LTAs. 
On December 22, 2004, the ASLB issued a Partial Initial Decision 
with respect to this matter finding that there is reasonable 
assurance that operation of Catawba with the four MOX LTAs will 
not endanger the health and safety of the public.
 
BREDL submitted its security-related safety contentions on March 
3, 2004. An ASLB hearing on a single physical security-related 
contention, as admitted by the ASLB, was held January 11-14, 
2005. This contention was related to the adequacy of the 
provisions undertaken by Duke to provide protection of the MOX 
LTAs. Findings and reply findings of fact and conclusions of law 
were filed in February 2005. An ASLB decision on the security 
contention is pending.
 
Under its regulations, the Commission may issue and make an 
amendment immediately effective, notwithstanding the pendency 
before it of a request for a hearing from any person, in advance 
of the holding or completion of any required hearing, where it 
has determined that no significant hazards considerations are 
involved.
 
The Commission has applied the standards of Title 10 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations, Section 50.92 and has made a final 
determination that the amendment involves no significant hazards 
considerations. The basis for this determination is contained in 
a Safety Evaluation and three Supplements to that Safety 
Evaluation related to this action.
 
Accordingly, as described above, the amendment has been issued 
and made immediately effective and any further hearing will be 
held after issuance.
 
The Commission has prepared an Environmental Assessment and one 
Supplement to the Environmental Assessment related to the action 
and has determined not to prepare an environmental impact 
statement.
 
Based upon the environmental assessment and its supplement, the 
Commission has concluded that the issuance of the amendment will 
not have a significant effect on the quality of the human 
environment (69 FR 51112 and 70 FR 8849).
 
For further details with respect to the action see (1) the 
application for amendment dated February 27, 2003, as 
supplemented by letters dated September 15, September 23, October 
1 (two letters), October 3 (two letters), November 3, November 4, 
December 10, 2003, and February 2, (two letters), March 1 (three 
letters), March 9 (two letters), March 16 (two letters), March 
26, March 31, April 13, April 16, May 13, June 17, August 31, 
September 20, October 4, October 29 and December 10, 2004, (2) 
Amendment Nos. 220 and 215 to License Nos. NPF- 35 and NPF-52, 
respectively, (3) the Commission's related Safety Evaluation and 
its three Supplements dated April 5, May 5, July 27, 2004, and 
March 3, 2005, respectively, and (4) the Commission's 
Environmental Assessment and its supplement (69 FR 51112 and 70 
FR 8849, respectively). All of these items are available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, 
located at One White Flint North, File Public Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public 
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html 
[http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving 
FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] 
. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter 
problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should 
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 
1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to

 
pdr@nrc.gov [ pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 
3rd day of March 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
John A. Nakoski, Chief, Section 1, Project Directorate II, 
Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 05-4547 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 16 NRC: Duke Energy Corporation, North Carolina Electric Membership
 
                         FR Doc 05-4548 
[Federal Register: March 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 45)] 
[Notices] [Page 11712-11715] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09mr05-131]
 
Corporation, Saluda River Electric Cooperative, Inc., North 
Carolina Municipal Power Agency No. 1, Piedmont Municipal Power 
Agency, Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2; Exemption 1.0 
Background Duke Energy Corporation, (the licensee) is the holder 
of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-35 and NPF-52, which 
authorize operation of the Catawba Nuclear Station (Catawba), 
Units 1 and 2. The licenses provide, among other things, that the 
facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or 
hereafter in effect.
 
The facility consists of two pressurized water reactors located 
in York County, South Carolina.
 
2.0 Request/Action Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) part 50, Sec.
 
50.46, ``Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems 
[ECCS] for light-water nuclear power reactors,'' and Appendix K, 
``ECCS Evaluation Models,'' identify requirements for calculating 
ECCS performance for reactors containing fuel with Zircaloy or 
ZIRLO cladding, and uranium oxide fuel. Part 11 of 10 CFR, 
``Criteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access 
to or Control Over Special Nuclear Material [SNM],'' and 10 CFR 
part 73, ``Physical Protection of Plants and Materials,'' 
identify requirements that are usually applicable to fuel 
fabrication facilities for the protection of formula quantities 
of strategic special nuclear material (SSNM).
 
By letter dated February 27, 2003, as supplemented by letters 
dated September 15, September 23, October 1 (two letters), 
October 3 (two letters), November 3, November 4, December 10, 
2003, and February 2 (two letters), March 1 (three letters), 
March 9 (two letters), March 16 (two letters), March 26, March 
31, April 13, April 16, May 13, June 17, August 31, September 20, 
October 4, October 29, and December 10, 2004, the licensee 
requested exemptions from 10 CFR 50.46, Appendix K to 10 CFR part 
50, and from certain physical security requirements of 10 CFR 
11.11(a)(1)-(a)(2), 11.11(b), 10 CFR 73.45(d)(1)(iv), 73.46 
(c)(1), 73.46(h)(3), 73.46(b)(3)-(b)(12),
 
[[Page 11713]] 73.46(d)(9), and 73.46(e)(3). These exemptions 
would allow Catawba to operate with up to four lead test 
assemblies (LTAs) that would use M5TM (M5) type fuel rod cladding 
and fuel rods containing mixed uranium and plutonium (Pu) oxide 
(MOX) fuel in non-limiting core locations. The purpose of the LTA 
effort at Catawba is to confirm that the MOX fuel performs as 
expected in a nuclear power reactor.
 
This effort is part of the Department of Energy (DOE) Surplus 
Plutonium Disposition Project, an ongoing Pu disposition program 
of the United States and the Russian Federation. The goal of this 
non-proliferation program is to dispose of surplus Pu from 
nuclear weapons by converting the material into MOX fuel and 
using that fuel in nuclear power reactors.
 
3.0 Discussion of Part 50 Exemptions for M5 Cladding and MOX Fuel 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, ``Specific exemptions,'' the Commission 
may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own 
initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 
50, when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not 
present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are 
consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when 
special circumstances are present. Under Section 50.12(a)(2), 
special circumstances include, among other things, when the 
application of the regulation would not serve, or is not 
necessary to achieve, the underlying purpose of the rule.
 
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix K to 10 CFR 
part 50, is to establish requirements for the calculation of ECCS 
performance, and acceptance criteria for that performance, in 
order to assure that the ECCS functions to transfer heat from the 
reactor core following a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA), such 
that (1) fuel and clad damage that could interfere with continued 
effective core cooling is prevented, and (2) clad metal-water 
reaction is limited to specified amounts.
 
Cladding Exemption The regulation in 10 CFR 50.46 contains 
acceptance criteria for ECCSs for reactors fueled with Zircaloy 
or ZIRLO cladding. In addition, paragraph I.A.5, ``Metal-Water 
Reaction Rate,'' of Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50, requires that 
the Baker-Just equation be used to predict the rates of energy 
release, hydrogen generation, and cladding oxidation from the 
metal-water reaction. However, the Baker-Just equation assumes 
the use of Zircaloy clad fuel. Thus, an exemption from the 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, and Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 is 
needed for Duke to irradiate the LTAs that include fuel rods clad 
with M5 material.
 
The licensee has performed evaluations of the fuel rod mechanical 
design using approved methods. No new or altered design limits 
need to be applied, nor are any required for this program for the 
purposes of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, ``General Design Criteria 
for Nuclear Power Plants,'' Criterion 10, ``Reactor Design.'' The 
licensee has evaluated the areas of the mechanical design that 
could potentially be impacted by M5 cladding, namely, material 
properties, corrosion, internal rod pressures, fatigue, growth, 
rod bow, and thermal creep. The material properties of M5 
cladding are similar in many respects to those of approved 
Zircaloy type cladding; those properties that differ have been 
evaluated by the NRC staff and found to be acceptable. The 
licensee determined that the M5 cladding had better corrosion 
performance than the Zircaloy-4 cladding, and compatible thermal 
creep. On this basis, the NRC staff finds that the use of M5 
cladding for the mechanical design of the LTAs is acceptable, 
subject to appropriate implementation of the NRC staff-approved 
analysis methodology.
 
The licensee has performed evaluations of the nuclear design for 
a core using MOX LTAs. The licensee states that the MOX LTAs will 
not be positioned in the highest power locations. The licensee 
determined that the MOX LTA design features will not have a 
significant impact on the overall core nuclear design. In 
accordance with approved core reload analysis methodology, the 
licensee will confirm this conclusion for each reload. M5 
cladding is very similar to Zircaloy-4 materials in chemical 
composition and neutronic properties; differences in these 
properties have previously been evaluated by the NRC staff.
 
Approved licensee reload methodologies can be used to model the 
LTAs since the features of the LTAs do not challenge the validity 
of the standard methodologies. Given the limited number of LTAs 
to be installed, the installation in non-limiting locations, and 
the results of analyses using approved methodology, the NRC staff 
concludes that the LTA core nuclear design is acceptable for use 
at Catawba.
 
The licensee has performed evaluations of the core thermal- 
hydraulic design using approved methods. The design analyses 
covered the MOX LTA impact on the resident fuel (fuel in the core 
other than of the MOX design), including departure from nucleate 
boiling, pressure drop, assembly lift, and lateral flow. The 
results show that the resident fuel analyses will bound the MOX 
LTA performance. Thus, the licensee assures that the 
thermal-hydraulic design of a reactor core containing the 
resident Westinghouse fuel designs and the MOX LTA design will 
meet applicable requirements. The licensee has shown that MOX 
fuel heat transfer properties are very similar to low-enriched 
uranium (LEU) fuel properties and are capable of being modeled 
with currently approved codes. The NRC staff has confirmed that 
the licensee has evaluated the nuclear heat transfer properties 
and cooling requirements for the four MOX LTAs using approved 
codes and concludes that sufficient capability exists at Catawba 
to provide adequate core cooling. Based on the approved 
methodology and conservative analyses, the NRC staff concludes 
that the LTA thermal-hydraulic design has been adequately 
evaluated and is acceptable.
 
The licensee has performed a LOCA safety analysis using the 
approved methodology for LTAs with M5 cladding. Section 50.46 
identifies acceptance criteria for ECCS performance at nuclear 
power plants. The material properties of M5 cladding are very 
similar to those of Zircaloy-4 materials. Because the current 
analyses are done with material properties that approximate 
Zircaloy-4 properties, the current ECCS analysis remains 
applicable and unchanged for the LTAs.
 
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the ECCS performance at 
Catawba will not be adversely affected by the insertion of MOX 
LTAs. As such, the licensee has achieved the underlying purpose 
of 10 CFR 50.46. Therefore, special circumstances exist to grant 
an exemption from 10 CFR 50.46 to allow the use of M5 cladding. 
Paragraph I.A.5 of Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 states that the 
rates of energy release, hydrogen generation, and cladding 
oxidation from the metal-water reaction shall be calculated using 
the Baker-Just equation. Since the Baker-Just equation assumes 
the use of Zircaloy-4 clad fuel, strict application of the rule 
would not permit use of the equation with M5 cladding for 
determining acceptable fuel performance.
 
The underlying intent of paragraph I.A.5 of Appendix K to 10 CFR 
part 50, however, is to ensure that analysis of fuel response to 
LOCAs is conservatively calculated. As previously evaluated by 
the NRC staff in its approval of the M5 topical report, the 
application of the Baker- Just equation in the analysis of M5 
clad fuel will
 
[[Page 11714]] conservatively bound all post-LOCA scenarios. 
Thus, the underlying purpose of the rule will be met. Therefore, 
special circumstances exist to grant an exemption from Appendix K 
to 10 CFR part 50 that would allow the licensee to apply the 
Baker-Just equation to M5 cladding.
 
The NRC staff examined the licensee's rationale to support the 
exemption request and, for the reasons set forth above, concludes 
that MOX LTAs using M5 cladding will meet the underlying purpose 
of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50. Further, the 
NRC staff has determined that the use of M5 cladding will have no 
significant effect on current assessments of a metal-water 
reaction, and that the mechanical design of the LTAs would 
perform satisfactorily.
 
Therefore, ECCS performance will not be adversely affected and 
complete application of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR 
part 50 is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose. Based 
upon the considerations above, the NRC staff concludes that, 
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2), the granting of an exemption to 
allow the use of M5 cladding is acceptable.
 
Fuel Exemption With respect to the use of MOX fuel, the 
regulation in 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(I) contains acceptance criteria 
for ECCSs for reactors ``fueled with uranium oxide pellets.'' In 
addition, Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 contains several 
references, including paragraph I.A.1, ``The Initial Stored 
Energy in the Fuel,'' that assume that only uranium dioxide fuel 
pellets are being used. Thus, an exemption from the requirements 
of 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(I) and Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 is 
needed for the licensee to irradiate the LTAs that include fuel 
rods containing MOX fuel pellets. The underlying purpose of 10 
CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50, paragraph I.A.1, is 
to establish acceptance criteria for ECCS performance and to 
ensure that the evaluation model contains provisions for 
conservatively assessing the amount of stored heat in the fuel at 
the onset of a postulated LOCA by adequately modeling the thermal 
conductivity of the fuel material and the fuel-to-cladding gap 
conductance. The thermal and material properties of MOX fuel have 
been evaluated using NRC staff-approved methods. The licensee has 
demonstrated that the MOX fuel properties are very similar to 
those of LEU fuel such that the differences in the Catawba ECCS 
performance arising from the MOX thermal and material properties 
are negligible. Therefore, the underlying purposes of Section 
50.46 and paragraph I.A.1 of Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 are 
achieved with the use of MOX fuel.
 
The licensee states that for each reload, it will perform reload 
analyses to confirm adequate ECCS performance, and show that the 
LTAs do not have a significant impact upon the analysis at 
Catawba.
 
Because the LTAs contribute to the ECCS requirements in a very 
minor way, the current analyses will remain bounding for them. 
The MOX LTAs will be placed in core locations that will not 
experience the most limiting power peaking during any operating 
cycle. In each reload analysis, the licensee will verify that the 
peak cladding temperature (PCT) of the MOX LTAs is not the 
limiting PCT. Using the Baker-Just equation, the licensee will 
confirm that the local cladding oxidation of the LTAs will be 
conservatively predicted. In addition, the licensee will confirm 
that the maximum hydrogen generation will be unchanged with the 
inclusion of the LTAs. Therefore, a coolable geometry will be 
maintained following a LOCA. The MOX LTAs meet the same design 
requirements as the resident fuel for Catawba. No safety limits 
or setpoints have been altered as a result of the use of the 
LTAs.
 
On these bases, the NRC staff finds that the complete application 
of 10 CFR 50.46 and Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 for MOX fuel is 
not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.
 
Accordingly, the NRC staff concludes that it is acceptable to 
grant an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, and 
Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 for LTAs using MOX fuel at Catawba.
 
4.0 F Conclusion for Part 50 Exemptions for M5 Cladding and MOX 
Fuel For the reasons set forth above, the Commission has 
determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is 
authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public 
health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and 
security. Also, special circumstances, as described above, are 
present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Duke Energy 
Corporation an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
50.46(a)(1)(I), and Appendix K to 10 CFR part 50, with respect to 
the use of M5 cladding and MOX fuel at Catawba.
 
5.0 Discussion of Part 11 and Part 73 Exemptions Pursuant to 10 
CFR 11.9, ``Specific exemptions,'' the Commission may, upon 
application by any interested party, grant exemptions from the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 11, ``Criteria and Procedures for 
Determining Eligibility for Access to or Control Over Special 
Nuclear Material,'' when the exemptions are authorized by law and 
will not constitute an undue risk to the common defense and 
security.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 73.5, ``Specific exemptions,'' the Commission 
may, upon application by any interested person or on its own 
initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 
73, ``Physical Protection of Plants and Materials,'' when the 
exemptions are authorized by law and will not endanger life or 
property or the common defense and security, and are otherwise in 
the public interest.
 
Duke Energy has requested relief from certain regulations in 10 
CFR part 11 and 10 CFR part 73. The licensee request for 
exemptions from part 11 was evaluated against the standard 
specified in 10 CFR 11.9, while the request for exemptions from 
part 73 was evaluated against the standard specified in 10 CFR 
73.5. The NRC staff reviewed the proposed exemptions using the 
information provided in the Duke Energy Corporation license 
amendment request; Revision 16 of the Duke Power Company Nuclear 
Security and Contingency Plan (Physical Security Plan (PSP)), 
Section 13.3; and the Duke responses to NRC staff requests for 
additional information (RAI).
 
To determine whether the specific exemptions should be granted, 
the NRC staff utilized the criteria specified in the Review Plan 
for Evaluating the Physical Security Protection Measures Needed 
for Mixed Oxide Fuel and Its Use in Commercial Nuclear Power 
Reactors, dated January 29, 2004. The NRC staff review was 
consistent with the Commission Memorandum and Order, CLI-04-06, 
dated February 18, 2004. The NRC staff assumed as a baseline that 
the Catawba facility will comply with all applicable general 
security requirements, both those prescribed in NRC rules and 
those prescribed by NRC order. Specifically, the NRC staff 
reviewed the appropriate heightening of security measures 
necessitated by the proposed presence of MOX LTAs at the Catawba 
Nuclear Power Station.
 
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 11 is to establish the 
requirement for access authorization. Part 11 requires licensees 
possessing a formula quantity of SNM that is subject to the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 73 to identify personnel requiring 
NRC-U or NRC-R access authorizations. A formula quantity of SSNM, 
as defined in 10 CFR part 73, includes MOX LTA fuel. An
 
[[Page 11715]] exemption is provided by 10 CFR 73.6, in part, 
from Sections 73.45 and 73.46 for the categories of material 
defined therein, which include conventional LEU fuel (enriched to 
less than 20 percent in U-235).
 
Accordingly, the licensee is not subject to the requirements of 
10 CFR 11.11 for the use of LEU fuel. However, since there is no 
comparable exclusion in Section 73.6 for fuel initially 
containing a small concentration of plutonium, the requirements 
of 10 CFR 11.11 become applicable to the licensee for the use of 
MOX, unless an exemption is granted pursuant to 10 CFR 11.9. The 
NRC staff has found that the MOX material, while technically 
meeting the criteria of a formula quantity, is not attractive to 
potential adversaries from a proliferation standpoint due to its 
low Pu concentration, composition, and form (size and weight). 
The MOX fuel consists of Pu oxide particles dispersed in a 
ceramic matrix of depleted uranium oxide with a Pu concentration 
of less than six weight percent. The MOX LTAs will consist of 
conventional fuel assemblies designed for a commercial 
light-water power reactor that are over 12 feet long and weigh 
approximately 1500 pounds. On these bases, the NRC staff finds 
that the complete application of 10 CFR 11.11 is not necessary, 
and the exemption is authorized by law and will not constitute an 
undue risk to the common defense and security.
 
Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 11.9, based upon the physical 
characteristics of the MOX LTAs and the proposed additional 
protective measures, the NRC staff concludes that it is 
acceptable to grant an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
11.11(a)(1)-(a)(2), and 11.11(b). The underlying purpose of 10 
CFR part 73 is to prescribe requirements for the establishment 
and maintenance of a physical protection system that will have 
capabilities for the protection of SSNM at fixed sites and in 
transit. As noted above, an exemption is provided by Section 73.6 
for the licensee in its use of conventional LEU fuel enriched to 
less than 20 percent U-235, but not for fresh MOX fuel containing 
Pu. The NRC staff found that the MOX material, while technically 
meeting the criteria of a formula quantity, is not attractive to 
potential adversaries from a proliferation standpoint due to its 
low Pu concentration, composition, and form (size and weight).
 
The MOX fuel consists of Pu oxide particles dispersed in a 
ceramic matrix of depleted uranium oxide with a Pu concentration 
of less than six weight percent. The MOX LTAs will consist of 
conventional fuel assemblies designed for a commercial 
light-water power reactor that are over 12 feet long and weigh 
approximately 1500 pounds. A large quantity of MOX fuel and an 
elaborate extraction process would be required to yield enough 
material for use in an improvised nuclear device or weapon. On 
these bases, the NRC staff finds that the complete application of 
10 CFR 73.45(d)(1)(iv), 73.46(c)(1), 73.46(h)(3), 
73.46(b)(3)-(b)(12), 73.46(d)(9), and 73.46(e)(3) for MOX fuel is 
not necessary and that the exemptions are authorized by law and 
will not endanger life or property or the common defense and 
security and are otherwise in the public interest.
 
Accordingly, based on the physical characteristics of the MOX 
LTAs and the proposed additional protective measures, the NRC 
staff, pursuant to 10 CFR 73.5, concludes that it is acceptable 
to grant an exemption from these portions of 10 CFR part 73.
 
6.0 Conclusion for Part 11 and Part 73 Exemptions For the reasons 
set forth above, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 
10 CFR 11.9, the requested exemptions are authorized by law and 
will not constitute an undue risk to the common defense and 
security. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 73.5, the exemptions 
are authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the 
common defense and security, and are otherwise in the public 
interest.
 
Therefore, the Commission hereby grants Duke Energy Corporation 
the requested exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR 
11.11(a)(1)- (a)(2), 10 CFR 11.11(b), and 10 CFR 73.45(d)(1)(iv), 
73.46(c)(1), 73.46(h)(3), 73.46(b)(3)-(b)(12), 73.46(d)(9), and 
73.46(e)(3). 7.0 Environmental Evaluation Pursuant to 10 CFR 
51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this 
exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of 
the human environment (69 FR 51112 and 70 FR 8849).
 
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of March 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Ledyard B. Marsh, Director, Division of Licensing Project 
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 05-4548 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 17 [du-list] After the War Comes Cancer
 
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:30:27 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
       After the War Comes Cancer

       http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1510710,00.html

      Iraqi women fear for their children's future




      Information collected for a German project investigating the use of 
uranium-charged ammunition in Iraq shows that when Iraqi women fear for 
their children's health, it is with good reason.

             After two wars where oil wells were torched, chemical 
factories bombed and radioactive ammunition fired, the first thing Iraqi 
women ask when giving birth is not if it is a boy or a girl, but if it is 
normal or deformed. The number of cancer cases and children born with 
deformities has skyrocketed after the two Gulf Wars.

             "Since 1991 the number of children born with birth deformities 
has quadrupled," said Dr. Janan Hassan, who runs a children's clinic at a 
hospital in Basra in southern Iraq. "The same is the case for the number of 
children under 15 who are diagnosed with cancer. Mostly, it is leukemia. 
Almost 80 percent of the children die because we neither have medicine nor 
the possibility to give them chemotherapy."

             Doctors have also recorded an extreme rise in cancer cases 
among adults. "In 2004 we diagnosed 25 percent more cancer cases than the 
year before and the mortality rate increased eight-fold between 1988 and 
1991," said Dr. Jawad al-Ali of the Sadr Hospital in Basra.

             Doctors against nuclear war

             Hassan and al-Ali are two of 15 Iraqi specialists who have 
joined forces with German scientists in a project to research diseases 
provoked by acts of war, financed by the German Academic Exchange Service.



             In Iraq, burning oil wells, bombed chemical factories, 
demolished production sites for chemical weapons and even the use of 
radioactive ammunition are just a few of the things which may have 
triggered diseases there.

             "As epidemiologists, we are quite sure that other diseases 
than cancer and birth deformities also have to be considered," said project 
leader Wolfgang Hoffmann from the University of Greifswald.

             The scientists involved in the project met through the 
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW). All 
have a special interest in the consequences of using depleted-uranium (DU) 
ammunition, the German project's main focus.

             British and American uranium bombs



             In the two US-led wars on Iraq, missile warheads containing 
the depleted uranium-238 were used. While it is only lightly radioactive, 
it is an extremely tough waste-product to contain because the uranium 
pulverizes and contaminates the whole surrounding area with radioactivity 
at the moment of the explosion.


             "Naturally, the nations leading the war refuse to acknowldege 
that this type of uranium can be harmful. But as an epidemiologist, I have 
to say that every bit of radiation can give rise to cancer. It's just a 
question if what was fired in this case led to an increase in the number of 
cancer cases," said Professor Eberhard Greiser from the University of Bremen.

             As with many of the questions arising from the project so far, 
there is no definite answer. But al-Ali tried to give a partial answer.

             "In Basra in 1991, the Americans and the British dropped at 
least 300 tons of this kind of ammunition in one battle. That was the 
battle where they destroyed all the tanks of the then Republican Army. 
After the war, the population was urged to gather all weapons and sell them 
to the government. Also if people had guns or bazookas or whatever they 
found in the desert, they were told to bring it with them," he said.



             According to al-Ali's calculations, approximately 750,000 
people in Basra and the surrounding areas were exposed to radiation as a 
result.

             Finding the evidence

             The doctors say the connection between the contamination of 
hundred of thousands of people on one side and the rising number of cancer 
cases on the other is beyond doubt, but proving it is not easy.

             "To prove it, we would have to demonstrate that there was 
uranium 238 on the patients' clothes or in their body fluid. And besides, 
cancer is a multi-causal disease. How would we be able to give 100 percent 
proof?" al-Ali asked.

             Despite the resigned attitudes among many of her colleagues, 
Hassan firmly believes that the radioactive missiles used by the Americans 
and the British are responsible for the increased incidence of cancer in 
Iraq since the early 1990s. She hopes a future independent Iraqi government 
will seek compensation from Washington and London. "We have to demand it. 
That is the price of the war," she said.

             Jürgen Hanefeld (nk)




   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 18 [du-list] Australian troops may be exposed to uranium
 
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:31:04 -0800

 
<x-flowed>
Comments to...
EU
Sigrid Kirk
Editor-in-Chief
Email: newsroom@NEWS.com.
Australian troops may be exposed to uranium
By Luke McIlveen
March 09, 2005

Exposure risk ... Aussie troops sent to Iraq may come into contact with 
leftover uranium-based munitions
THE army is investigating the possibility that 450 Australian troops bound 
for Iraq could be exposed to toxic materials, including uranium.

The troops will be deployed to Al Muthanna province in southern Iraq, an 
area suspected of being a dumping ground for depleted uranium left by US 
forces in the Gulf War.
An Australian Army reconnaissance team has been in Iraq to investigate the 
presence of uranium and other safety threats, and is due to report back 
this week.

Defence authorities confirmed they were investigating the uranium threat to 
the Diggers, who will be sent to Iraq in May to protect Japanese military 
engineers.

"The health and safety of our personnel is the ADF's highest priority," the 
Department of Defence said in response to written questions from the Herald 
Sun this week.

"The ADF is aware of the issues surrounding the presence of depleted 
uranium in Iraq.

"The ADF currently has a reconnaissance team in Iraq that is examining in 
detail a range of issues related to the forthcoming deployment.


"Following their assessment, the ADF will take the necessary steps to 
ensure that the deployment will be as safe as possible."

Defence Minister Robert Hill told the Senate the army was conducting 
"surveys" on contaminated areas to reduce the risk to Diggers.

Senator Hill said he would take advice on whether Australian troops should 
be tested for radioactive contamination when they return.

Several of the 1400 Dutch troops the Australian contingent is replacing 
have complained to their union after expended uranium shells were found 
near their camp.

The long-term effects of the shells have been linked to various cancers and 
the mysterious Gulf War syndrome, which plagued thousands of US marines in 
the Gulf War when repelling Iraqui troops from Kuwait.


Sigrid Kirk
Editor-in-Chief
Email: newsroom@NEWS.com.
   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.7.1 - Release Date: 3/9/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 19 US  DOE has received the warning
 
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 11:00:57 -0600 (CST)

 
ASPO - The Association for the Study of Peak Oil and Gas
US  DOE has received the warning

http://www.peakoil.net/USDOE.html

In February ASPO received interesting information from Dr. Robert L. Hirsch 
to be published in our newsletter.  Dr Hirsch and his colleagues have just 
completed a study for the U.S. DOE on the mitigation of world oil peaking, 
Hirsch, R.L., Bezdek, R.H, Wendling, R.M.  Peaking of World Oil Production: 
Impacts, Mitigation and Risk Management. The summery of this paper, as 
reporter by Dr. Hirsch, is presented below.

The date for Peak-Oil is discussed without focus on the date itself:   
Optimistic oil production forecasts deserve to be viewed with considerable 
skepticism, but the impact of Peak-Oil is described without doubts:   
World oil peaking represents a problem like none other.  The political, 
economic, and social stakes are enormous. 

The way US DOE has acted so far it is obvious that we cannot expect action 
before the Peak-Oil date. According to the study this will have the 
following impact: Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks 
before initiating crash program mitigation leaves the world with a 
significant liquid fuel deficit for two decades or longer.

ASPO has now for four years tried to raise awareness of the serious 
consequences that Peak-Oil has for Mankind. This report can help you 
understand the problems.

Kjell Aleklett,
president of ASPO

The Mitigation of the Peaking of World Oil Production
Summary of an Analysis, February 8, 2005

Dr. Robert L. Hirsch

A recently completed study for the U.S. Department of Energy analyzed viable 
technologies to mitigate oil shortages associated with the upcoming peaking 
of world oil production.   Commercial or near-commercial options include 
improved vehicle fuel efficiency, enhanced conventional oil recovery, and 
the production of substitute fuels.  While research and development on other 
options could be important, their commercial success is by no means assured, 
and none offer near-term solutions.

Improved fuel efficiency in the worlds transportation sector will be a 
critical element in the long-term reduction of liquid fuel consumption, 
however, the scale of effort required will inherently take time and be very 
expensive. For example, the U.S. has a fleet of over 200 million 
automobiles, vans, pick-ups, and SUVs. Replacement of just half with higher 
efficiency models will require at least 15 years at a cost of over two 
trillion dollars for the U.S. alone.  Similar conclusions generally apply 
worldwide.

Commercial and near-commercial options for mitigating the decline of 
conventional oil production include:
1) Enhanced Oil Recovery (EOR), which can help moderate oil production 
declines from older conventional oil fields;
2) Heavy oil/oil sands, a large resource of lower grade oils, now produced 
primarily in Canada and Venezuela;
3) Coal liquefaction, an established technique for producing clean 
substitute fuels from the worlds abundant coal reserves; and
4) Clean substitute fuels produced from remote natural gas.

For the foreseeable future, electricity-producing technologies, e.g., 
nuclear and solar energy, cannot substitute for liquid fuels in most 
transportation applications.  Someday, electric cars may be practical, but 
decades will be required before they achieve significant market penetration 
and impact world oil consumption.  And no one has yet defined viable options 
for powering heavy trucks or airplanes with electricity.

To explore how these technologies might contribute, three alternative 
mitigation scenarios were analyzed:  One where action is initiated when 
peaking occurs, a second where action is assumed to start 10 years before 
peaking, and a third where action is assumed to start 20 years before 
peaking.

Estimates of the possible contributions of each mitigation option were 
developed, based on crash program implementation. Crash programs represent 
the fastest possible implementation  the best case.  In practical terms, 
real-world action is certain to be slower.

Analysis of the simultaneous implementation of all of the options showed 
that an impact of roughly 25 million barrels per day might be possible 15 
years after initiation. Because conventional oil production decline will 
start at the time of peaking, crash program mitigation inherently cannot 
avert massive shortages unless it is initiated well in advance of peaking. 
Specifically,
7    Waiting until world conventional oil production peaks before initiating 
crash program mitigation leaves the world with a significant liquid fuel 
deficit for two decades or longer.
7    Initiating a crash program 10 years before world oil peaking would help 
considerably but would still result in a worldwide liquid fuels shortfall, 
starting roughly a decade after the time that oil would have otherwise 
peaked.
7    Initiating crash program mitigation 20 years before peaking offers the 
possibility of avoiding a world liquid fuels shortfall for the forecast 
period.

Without timely mitigation, world supply/demand balance will be achieved 
through massive demand destruction (shortages), accompanied by huge oil 
price increases, both of which would create a long period of significant 
economic hardship worldwide.

Other important observations revealed by the analysis included the 
following:
1.   The date of world oil peaking is not known with certainty, complicating 
the decision-making process.  A fundamental problem in predicting oil 
peaking is uncertain and politically biased oil reserves claims from many 
oil producing countries.
2.  As recently as 2001, authoritative forecasts of abundant future supplies 
of North American natural gas proved to be excessively optimistic as 
evidenced by the recent tripling of natural gas prices.  Oil and natural gas 
geology is similar in many ways, suggesting that optimistic oil production 
forecasts deserve to be viewed with considerable skepticism.
3.  In the developed nations, the economic problems associated with world 
oil   peaking and the resultant oil shortages will be extremely serious.  In 
the developing nations, economic problems will be much worse.
4.  While greater end-use efficiency is essential in the long term, 
increased efficiency alone will be neither sufficient nor timely enough to 
solve the oil shortage problem in the short term.  To preserve reasonable 
levels of economic prosperity and growth, production of large amounts of 
substitute liquid fuels will be required.  While a number of substitute fuel 
production technologies are currently available for deployment, the massive 
construction effort required will be extremely expensive and very 
time-consuming, even on a crash program basis.
5.  Government intervention will be essential, because the economic and 
social impacts of oil peaking will otherwise be chaotic, and crash program 
mitigation will need to be properly supported. How and when governments 
begin to seriously address these challenges is yet to be determined.

Oil peaking discussions should focus primarily on prudent risk management, 
and secondarily on forecasting the timing of oil peaking, which will always 
be inexact.   Mitigation initiated earlier than required might turn out to 
be premature, if peaking is slow in coming. If peaking is imminent, failure 
to act aggressively will be extremely damaging worldwide.

World oil peaking represents a problem like none other.  The political, 
economic, and social stakes are enormous.  Prudent risk management demands 
urgent attention and early action. 
*****************************************************************
 20 Salt Lake Tribune: Consider the risks 

Article Last Updated: 03/09/2005 01:10:34 AM                              
                   
  Two times in the past 12 months, train wrecks and subsequent
chlorine spills have killed people with a toxic gas cloud. Salt
Lake City is lucky this time.

   The tanker car that was found March 6 in South Salt Lake to
be leaking toxic chemicals could have been one of the regular
shipments of chlorine or ammonia.

   Conversely, if a rail car of spent nuclear fuel broke open,
guys with radiation suits would   have to pick up the pellets of
spent fuel with tongs, put them into a new container and haul
them out to their destination. No plume of toxic vapors. No
deaths.
   Consider the true risks we face, not what the fear-mongers are 
pushing.
   
   Chuck McCown
   Lake Point
          
                  
Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
webmaster@sltrib.com  
*****************************************************************
 21 Montreal Gazette: Poisoned workers left out in cold 

canada.com network
 		 		
 - Site Feedback [feedback@thegazette.canwest.com] 

  The Gazette   

March 9, 2005
 
  CREDIT: JOHN MAHONEY, THE GAZETTE  

  Former Noranda Inc. employees suffering from beryllium
poisoning demonstrated outside a Montreal hotel yesterday after
being excluded from a research conference on beryllium, a
precious metal that can cause berylliosis, a progressive
breathing illness. About 13 people suffered beryllium poisoning
while working at Noranda Inc.'s Murdochville smelter between
1987 and 2000. Quebec's workplace health and safety board said
the company knew its workers were exposed to high levels of
beryllium. Crown prosecutors have not decided whether criminal
charges will be filed against the company.  

© The Gazette (Montreal) 2005 

  Copyright © CanWest Interactive Inc. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 22 Deutsche Welle: After the War Comes Cancer | Germany | 

[http://dw-world.de/select_html/]                                            

09.03.2005                                                                    
 		     	 
[Iraqi women fear for their children's future]   
								 								 								
Information collected for a German project investigating the use 
of uranium-charged ammunition in Iraq shows that when Iraqi women 
fear for their children's health, it is with good reason.

After two wars where oil wells were torched, chemical factories
bombed and radioactive ammunition fired, the first thing Iraqi
women ask when giving birth is not if it is a boy or a girl, but
if it is normal or deformed. The number of cancer cases and
children born with deformities has skyrocketed after the two
Gulf Wars. 

"Since 1991 the number of children born with birth deformities
has quadrupled," said Dr. Janan Hassan, who runs a children's
clinic at a hospital in Basra in southern Iraq. "The same is the
case for the number of children under 15 who are diagnosed with
cancer. Mostly, it is leukemia. Almost 80 percent of the
children die because we neither have medicine nor the
possibility to give them chemotherapy." 

Doctors have also recorded an extreme rise in cancer cases among
adults. "In 2004 we diagnosed 25 percent more cancer cases than
the year before and the mortality rate increased eight-fold
between 1988 and 1991," said Dr. Jawad al-Ali of the Sadr
Hospital in Basra. 

Doctors against nuclear war 

Hassan and al-Ali are two of 15 Iraqi specialists who have
joined forces with German scientists in a project to research
diseases provoked by acts of war, financed by the German
Academic Exchange Service. 

  [Burning oil fields]   
    
In Iraq, burning oil wells, bombed chemical factories,
demolished production sites for chemical weapons and even the
use of radioactive ammunition are just a few of the things which
may have triggered diseases there. 

"As epidemiologists, we are quite sure that other diseases than
cancer and birth deformities also have to be considered," said
project leader Wolfgang Hoffmann from the University of
Greifswald. 

The scientists involved in the project met through the
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
(IPPNW). All have a special interest in the consequences of
using depleted-uranium (DU) ammunition, the German project's
main focus.  

British and American uranium bombs 

  [Smoke rises after bombs are dropped on an arms cache used by
militia fighters roughly 100 miles south of Baghdad]   
    
In the two US-led wars on Iraq, missile warheads containing the
depleted uranium-238 were used. While it is only lightly
radioactive, it is an extremely tough waste-product to contain
because the uranium pulverizes and contaminates the whole
surrounding area with radioactivity at the moment of the
explosion. 

"Naturally, the nations leading the war refuse to acknowldege
that this type of uranium can be harmful. But as an
epidemiologist, I have to say that every bit of radiation can
give rise to cancer. It's just a question if what was fired in
this case led to an increase in the number of cancer cases,"
said Professor Eberhard Greiser from the University of Bremen. 

As with many of the questions arising from the project so far,
there is no definite answer. But al-Ali tried to give a partial
answer. 

"In Basra in 1991, the Americans and the British dropped at
least 300 tons of this kind of ammunition in one battle. That
was the battle where they destroyed all the tanks of the then
Republican Army. After the war, the population was urged to
gather all weapons and sell them to the government. Also if
people had guns or bazookas or whatever they found in the
desert, they were told to bring it with them," he said. 

  [War's destruction in Baghdad, June 2003]   

According to al-Ali's calculations, approximately 750,000 people
in Basra and the surrounding areas were exposed to radiation as
a result. 

Finding the evidence 

The doctors say the connection between the contamination of
hundred of thousands of people on one side and the rising number
of cancer cases on the other is beyond doubt, but proving it is
not easy. 

"To prove it, we would have to demonstrate that there was
uranium 238 on the patients' clothes or in their body fluid. And
besides, cancer is a multi-causal disease. How would we be able
to give 100 percent proof?" al-Ali asked. 

Despite the resigned attitudes among many of her colleagues,
Hassan firmly believes that the radioactive missiles used by the
Americans and the British are responsible for the increased
incidence of cancer in Iraq since the early 1990s. She hopes a
future independent Iraqi government will seek compensation from
Washington and London. "We have to demand it. That is the price
of the war," she said. JÃ¼rgen Hanefeld (nk) 
[de:mehr] 						--> 					   				
 			
During bilateral talks in Mainz, SchrÃ¶der said Germany's 
disputes with the United States over Iraq were in the past. The 
two leaders found common ground even on divisive issues such as 
Iran and global warming. (Feb. 24, 2005) Germany Investigates 
Soldiers' 

Radiation Exposure 

German authorities have confirmed reports that Bundeswehr 
soldiers could have been exposed to radioactivity from a type of 
paint formerly used on military equipment. (June 25, 2004) A New 
Generation of Chernobyl Victims
						
16 years ago an explosion at the Chernobyl nuclear plant killed 
31 people and sent a thick cloud of radiation across much of 
Europe. Today, the skies are clear, but the fight against 
                
[Feedback]                                                                                                                                      
If you would like to comment on this or any other story you've
seen on DW-WORLD, send us a message including your name and
country.								 								  			 			     		 	

*****************************************************************
 23 deseret news: Utah nuclear fuel fight going to White House 

[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, March 9, 2005 

Options running out to bar Goshute storage site 

By Jerry Spangler Deseret Morning News 

WASHINGTON — With options running out for Utah to block nuclear 
waste storage on Goshute tribal lands in Tooele County, Utah's 
two Republican senators, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, are taking 
their appeal directly to the White House. 

An anti-nuclear waste sign is posted outside Utah's Goshute 
Reservation in 2002. 
Douglas C. Pizac, Associated Press 

Hatch and Bennett will meet today with White House Deputy 
Chief of Staff Karl Rove, himself a former Utahn, to enlist the 
administration's support in blocking the PFS consortium of 
nuclear power utilities from storing up to 40,000 tons of spent 
nuclear fuel rods in Utah. 

"It is a fair statement to say we are running out of 
time," said an admittedly nervous Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah. 

The appeal to the White House is the latest move by the 
Utah delegation, which has been meeting "continuously" to 
discuss how to stop PFS now that the Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board, in a split decision, ruled PFS should be granted a 
license. That decision is expected to be ratified by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. 

There is growing skepticism the delegation has the 
political muscle to thwart the project and that its legislative 
options are limited, at best. 

"Oh mercy," said Rep. Rob Bishop, the Republican who 
represents the 1st Congressional District where the PFS storage 
site is located. "I still believe a legislative option is the 
best option, and it may be the only one." 

Bishop, who admits to a certain level of legislative 
creativity, insists the fight in Congress is not over, nor has 
he given up. 

He will again introduce legislation declaring federal 
lands around the site as wilderness, something that would block 
PFS from constructing a rail line to the site. But a similar 
measure, which passed the House last year, was thwarted by the 
Senate. And there is little reason, Bishop admitted, to believe 
it would sail through this year. 

But it might stand a better chance if the Utah delegation 
could enlist the support of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid 
of Nevada, who has been sharply critical of the Utah senators 
for supporting permanent nuclear waste storage at Yucca 
Mountain, Nev., in exchange for a letter from then-Secretary of 
Energy Spencer Abraham that no federal money would be used to 
support PFS. 

That promise is seen by some as somewhat empty, since PFS 
is privately funded, anyway. 

"I strongly oppose any decision that would allow storage 
of nuclear waste in Skull Valley," Bennett said. "I continue to 
believe our best course is to store the waste at its current 
locations until Yucca Mountain is ready. It doesn't make sense 
to move it twice." 

But Utah's House members are not unified with the 
senators that supporting Yucca Mountain is the only way to keep 
the waste out of Utah. 

Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, says it is time to "close 
ranks" with the Nevada delegation, calling Yucca Mountain "a far 
worse solution, but better than a temporary solution in Utah." 

The Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation is in Tooele County. 
Deseret Morning News archives 

"We should have had a united front (with Nevada) against 
the East Coast dumping its waste on the West," added Matheson, 
who opposed the Yucca Mountain project from the beginning. "We 
should reach out to Nevada and try to build the relationship." 

Bishop also opposes Yucca Mountain and questions the 
wisdom of the senators' deal. 

"Hindsight is always wonderful," he said. "At the time, 
the senators were doing what they thought was appropriate. And 
it may still turn out to be the right thing to do. But it has 
not been helpful yet." 

Cannon said there really wasn't much the senators could 
do, that "we did see a better solution." 

Bishop is frustrated by Reid and the Nevada delegation, 
which he believes worked behind the scenes last year to kill his 
wilderness bill to block PFS — even though the industry openly 
admits PFS is a precursor to Yucca Mountain. 

"If that's the way he (Reid) is going to be, we need to 
be more creative and work around him," Bishop said. "He does not 
have dictatorial power, not yet. But it makes it harder if the 
Nevada delegation wants to play games like that." 

Utah House members believe the fate of Yucca Mountain and 
PFS are tied together. The industry wants the PFS site as 
"temporary" storage — the lease with the Goshutes is up to 40 
years — until it can be moved to permanent storage at Yucca 
Mountain. But everything points to the industry using both 
facilities. 

Scores of regulatory and legal setbacks on the Yucca 
Mountain project have delayed the opening of that facility to 
2012 at the earliest, and there is growing sentiment it might 
not open at all. The delays have made the need for temporary 
storage even more acute. 

Matheson points out Yucca Mountain has a capacity of 
about 70,000 tons of nuclear waste. But the nation already has 
more waste than that at sites around the country. And with a 
renewed national emphasis on nuclear power, the waste problem is 
going to get progressively worse. 

Matheson, Cannon and Bishop are all supporters of a 
change in national policy to allow the recycling of spent fuel 
rods (banned by presidential order in the 1970s) as Japan and 
Europe now do. They believe the remaining waste should be left 
where it is. 

"We ought to be talking reprocessing in America," Cannon 
said. "That is the real solution to the transportation and 
storage problems." 

Cannon expects there will be considerable congressional 
discussion over the issue of reprocessing, but he doubts it will 
happen in time to thwart PFS. 

The reality is there is little support at this time in 
Congress for recycling, and there is no groundswell of 
opposition to the PFS proposal. The states with PFS member 
utilities are large and powerfully represented in Congress, and 
any attempt to block PFS legislatively faces an uphill battle. 

Bishop's wilderness bill, with a few tweaks to mollify 
opponents, is probably the best chance, although the delegation 
hinted it has other ideas under wraps. 

There is also an outside chance the Bureau of Indian 
Affairs and the Bureau of Land Management could weigh in against 
PFS, but the delegation is not optimistic about that. 

"We think we have some arrows in our quiver we can play 
around with," Bishop said. "We're not giving up on it." 

E-mail: spang@desnews.com [spang@desnews.com] 

© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 24 Bradenton Herald: Senator backs notification bill

| 03/09/2005 | 

Senator backs notification bill
 
Rep. Bill Galvano's measure will have a twin in the Senate

 STEPHEN MAJORS

 Herald Staff Writer

TALLAHASSEE - Rep. Bill Galvano has found a Senate sponsor for
his bill that would shore up contamination notification
requirements for the state Department of Environmental
Protection. 

Sen. Paula Dockery, R-Lakeland, has agreed to file a Senate
bill, that, like Galvano's bill, would require the DEP to notify
affected parties of contamination within 10 days of learning
about the pollution. 

"I always think that people having more information is better
than being in the dark," said Dockery, who is chairwoman of the
Senate Environmental Preservation committee. 

Galvano, R-Bradenton, filed his bill in the House two weeks ago
in response to complaints from Tallevast residents, who did not
learn about groundwater contaminants until 2003 - three years
after the DEP learned that the pollution had spread from the
former grounds of the American Beryllium Company into adjacent
properties. 

Under current law, the DEP does not notify the public of
contamination until it can conduct an analysis of the site and
determine an appropriate clean-up plan, according to DEP
spokesman Russell Schweiss. 

Concerns about other potential contamination sites in the wake
of Tallevast have attracted the attention of federal lawmakers
as well. 

U.S. Rep. Katherine Harris, R-Sarasota, in remarks Saturday at
the Manatee County Republican Party's annual Lincoln Day Dinner,
said there were thousands of other sites across the state with a
potential to become another Tallevast. 

Harris said she received the information through briefings with
federal and state officials. 

"We are concerned at the lack of knowledge of 19,000 sites that
we understand have been verified as being contaminated," Harris
said through a spokesperson. "If there is some type of
contamination that is of interest to the public we would urge
agencies in charge of clean up and identification to at least
advise the public in some manner." 

Schweiss said the DEP has identified 19,756 contaminated sites
statewide. Because most of these sites are gas stations and
petroleum storage sites, he said, the vast majority have no
potential to become another Tallevast. About 8,200 sites across
the state are currently being cleaned up, he said. 

"Tallevast is on the extreme end of contamination," Schweiss
said. "The majority of these sites are petroleum sites that
don't have any health implications." 

Schweiss said that in Manatee County, there are 79 contaminated
sites that have not been cleaned up, 53 of which are petroleum
sites. The remaining 26 are what are known as "responsible
party" sites, which are operations other than gas stations and
dry cleaning. 

"We're working to address every one of those sites," Schweiss
said. "We have one of the most aggressive inspection programs in
the nation." 

The Herald obtained a spreadsheet the DEP gave to the Manatee
County Health Department a few months ago that contains
information on the contamination sites being monitored by the
department. It was compiled in September. 

The spreadsheet lists 25 sites as responsible party sites. Seven
of the sites, including Tallevast, are classified as having
contamination that has spread off-site, while in seven cases it
is unknown whether contamination has spread off-site. In 11
sites, contamination has not spread off-site, according to the
list. 

Galvano said he obtained the list from the DEP. 

"When I look at a spreadsheet like this, I can bet you that only
a handful of people are really aware of what's going on,"
Galvano said. "When you hear that there may be contamination in
your property, you want to ask questions." 

"All of this stuff is related," he said, referring to Harris'
comments Saturday. 

Schweiss said individual county lists were distributed to county
health departments in preparation for new cleanup procedures
that will go into effect in mid-April. Under the "Global
Rebecca" standard, responsible party sites will be classified
according to their health risks, and cleaned up in resulting
priority. Those standards are already applied to petroleum and
dry cleaning sites, Schweiss said. 

Schweiss could not specify Tuesday what types of contamination
occurred in the sites on the spreadsheet or whether public
notification had occurred, but said the department was working
hard to monitor and clean up the sites. The department is
working to pull individual files on the locations and will be
able to provide more information in a week. 

Schweiss cautioned against jumping to conclusions that the sites
could be dangerous. 

Galvano's bill has not yet received committee assignments. He
said he is looking for co-sponsors in the House. 

HeraldToday.com 

What's the background on the Tallevast pollution? Explore our
online archive for past coverage.   

*****************************************************************
 25 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Court rules against Nevada 
 
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
 

State loses decision on money to fight planned nuclear waste
repository By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
 
WASHINGTON -- Nevada could be forced to reach deeper into its
own pockets to continue battling Yucca Mountain after losing a
bid Tuesday to obtain more federal money for the fight.
 
 A three-judge federal panel ruled against the state, which
argued that it was shortchanged when Congress appropriated only
$1 million for its nuclear waste repository studies in 2004.
 
 The state had requested $5 million to help build a case that
Yucca Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is not safe
for permanent storage of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel.
 
 The state sued the Department of Energy for more money. But the
judicial panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia said in a 14-page decision that DOE did not have the
authority to give out more than what Congress appropriated.
 
 The state probably will not appeal the ruling, said Bob Loux,
executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects.
 
 "We're disappointed but we thought it was something we needed
to pursue," Loux said. 
Nevada spend the federal funds to hire technical experts and pay
for research into how the repository might perform.
 
 Some work was slowed when the government purse strings
tightened, but the state's budget problem has been tempered
because the Energy Department also has hit snags and was forced
to delay project licensing.
 
 Loux has said the state will need to spend more than $10
million annually to participate whenever Yucca Mountain
licensing hearings get under way at the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
 
 Nevada attorneys have said they plan an aggressive case against
the repository in a licensing process that could take a minimum
of three years and most likely more than four years.
 
 Loux said Nevada received $2 million from Congress for 2005,
and the Energy Department's 2006 budget recommends $3.5 million.
 
 Nevada legislators in November approved $1.75 million from its
contingency fund to tide over the state's Yucca Mountain program.
 
 "If the government doesn't provide enough money, we will have
to see where we can," Loux said.
 
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 26 Las Vegas SUN: New timeline being prepared for Yucca project

By Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com 
[suzanne@lasvegassun.com] > SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU 

ROCKVILLE, Md. -- A new timeline for the Yucca Mountain project
should be ready three to four months from now, a project
official said Tuesday.

 W. John Arthur, deputy director of the department's Office of
Repository Development said the department is working on a new
schedule that will lay out all the "critical decisions" on
transportation planning, licensing, operations and other areas
of the proposed nuclear waste repository in the next few months.

 The department recently backed down from its proposed 2010
opening date after it missed its goal of handing in a license
application at the end of last year while facing budget cuts and
complicated regulation problems.

 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will ultimately decide if the
Energy Department can build its proposed nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Tunnels inside the mountain would store 77,00 tons of high-level
nuclear waste from across the country.

 Arthur said a new opening date really depends on when the
Environmental Protection Agency would issue a new standard for
the minimum length of time that Yucca will need to safely
contain the radiation, the project's budget, and other
variables, but it should be figured out by the summer.

 "The clock really starts once the license application is
submitted,," Arthur said at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's
17th annual Regulatory Information Conference taking place this
week in Rockville, Md.

 He said former Yucca Mountain project Chief Margaret Chu said a
new opening date of 2012 was more probable.

 "That date is still achievable," Arthur said.

 Arthur said the department is evaluating all its regulatory
options, and that it is on track to get its project documents
loaded into a database, as required by law, in time to get a
license application done by the end of the year.

 The department anticipates the EPA will issue a new radiation
standard this summer and will update the database with new
documents once it submitted the application, Arthur said.

 He emphasized though that he aims to have the license ready by
the end of the year. The Energy Secretary decides when to
actually send it to the commission.

 Jack Strosnider, director of the commission's Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards, said the commission can accept
an application but, under law, could not begin any review on it
until six months after the department gets all of its documents
into a database set up just for the project.

 The department sent all its documents into the database last
year, but based on complaints raised by Nevada's lawyers, an
administrative court within the commission said it needed to do
it again.

 "It's DOE's call as to when they submit an application,"
Stronsider said.

 Stronsider said if the department submits an application prior
to a new radiation standard or getting its documents in place,
"they need to make it very clear as to their bases for
submitting the application. "

 He pointed out though that there are some things that are
independent of a new radiation standard the commission might be
able to review even if a new standard is not set.

 Meanwhile, J. Gary Lanthrum, director of the department's
Office of National Transportation, which focuses on moving spent
fuel from sites across the country to Nevada, said his office is
still going through more 4,000 comments it received during
scoping meetings on what to include in an environmental study on
a proposed new rail line in Nevada. The department aims to build
a 309-mile railroad through Caliente to Yucca Mountain to
transport the spent nuclear fuel.

 Lanthrum said the initial target of the spring it "slipping a
little bit" because his office is still going through the
comments and has to addresses all of the. He hopes to have the
draft environmental impact statement finished by the summer.

 Lanthrum also said no decision has been made on whether the
department would being construction of the rail line before the
commission would begin review of the repository license
application.

 Notably absent from this week's conference's panel on "Spent
Fuel Management" were any representatives from Nevada.

 Bob Loux, executive director of the state's Agency for Nuclear
Projects, who has addressed the conference before, said he spoke
with the conference organizers in December about someone from
Nevada or anyone who disagrees with the plan participating on
the panel. Loux said he was told the panel's focus was going to
be more on private fuel storage and other waste issues not
specific to Yucca Mountain.

 

*****************************************************************
 27 RGJ: Nevada loses ruling on funds to fight Yucca Mountain nuclear dump
 
+ [Reno Gazette-Journal]  [Reno Gazette-Journal]

Reno, Nevada, USA  775-788-6200   [ BORDER=]   
 
[online@rgj.com] ASSOCIATED PRESS 3/8/2005 09:28 am 
 
LAS VEGAS — Nevada lost a bid Tuesday to get more money from the
federal government to fight the proposed Yucca Mountain nuclear
waste dump.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia rejected the state’s argument that the
Energy Department shortchanged it by $4 million last year.

The judges ruled that the $1 million Nevada got in 2004 was what
Congress intended, and the Energy Department had no authority to
provide more.

“The court clearly ruled that when Congress makes a specific
appropriation, that’s all the state should get,” said Joe Egan,
a Vienna, Va.-based lawyer representing Nevada. He said no
decision had been made about an appeal.

Energy Department spokesman Joe Davis declined comment until
department lawyers reviewed the ruling.

The state had contended the federal Nuclear Waste Policy Act of
1983 provided for it to get money from a nuclear waste fund paid
for by companies that use nuclear power.

The state told the court the funding would pay for its
scientific studies and help it oversee the Energy Department’s
application for a repository operating license from the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.

“We’re disappointed. We felt like it was something we needed,”
said Bob Loux, Nevada nuclear projects director and the top
state official working to oppose the Yucca project. He said the
state would continue oversight on a limited budget while
challenging transportation routes and federal water use at the
Yucca site.

The lawsuit, filed a year ago, is one of a series of state
challenges to elements of the federal plan to bury 77,000 tons
of the nation’s most radioactive waste beneath Yucca Mountain,
90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

Congress and President Bush approved the project in 2002,
despite opposition from Nevada’s governor and its congressional
delegation.

The Energy Department wanted to submit a license application by
December 2004 and open the dump in 2010. But the schedule was
pushed back following a ruling from the federal appeals court in
a separate case last July.

The court said a 10,000-year Environmental Protection Agency
radiation protection standard for the Yucca site did not extend
far enough into the future to meet a National Academy of
Sciences recommendation. The EPA is rewriting the standard and
is expected to release a draft in late spring or early summer.

Energy Department officials now say they hope to submit a
license application by the end of this year, but the repository
might not open until 2012 or later. 

[http://www.gannettfoundation.org/] © Copyright Reno
Gazette-Journal, a  [http://www.gannett.com] Newspaper.
*****************************************************************
 28 Salt Lake Tribune: Giving us pause 

Article Last Updated: 03/09/2005 01:10:38 AM                              
                                        
  A leaking container of chemicals led to a shutdown of I-15 and
the evacuation of 8,000 people in South Salt Lake. Meanwhile,
Private Fuel Storage, a limited liability corporation, is trying
to assure the   Nuclear Regulatory Commission that it can safely
ship 40,000 metric tons of the country's highest-level nuclear 
waste across the country on its way to Skull Valley. That should 
give the entire country pause.
   
   Rob DeBirk
   Salt   Lake City
   
Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 







*****************************************************************
 29 Salt Lake Tribune: Opinion Rules were broken 
 			 			 				 				 				
  Article Last Updated: 03/09/2005 01:10:39 AM                              
                   
  Folks, if you like the toxic spill that occurred on March 6 in
South Salt Lake, then you're going to love it when they start
shipping untested radioactive canisters along the same corridors.

   The tanker that leaked, being sublet to another company, was
loaded with industrial waste that no one seemed to be able to
identify at first. That sure makes me feel safe.

   Yes,   rules were in place. No, rules were not followed, and
yes, this is the kind of thing that could possibly happen with
the transportation of radioactive waste, soon to be headed our 
way.
   
   Rob Gilliland 
   Salt Lake City
          
                  
Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 



*****************************************************************
 30 Vermont Guardian: Nuclear storage talks heat up

[http://www.vermontguardian.com

by Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian 

BRATTLEBORO  Contrary to the state law and the recommendation of
the regional planners, key lawmakers in Montpelier have agreed
to allow Vermont Yankee officials to piggyback the states
legislative and regulatory processes in their quest for approval
to build a nuclear waste storage facility on the banks of the
Connecticut River. 

Citing time constraints, House Speaker Gaye Symington,
D-Jericho, said she and Senate President Pro Tem Peter Welch,
D-Windsor, agreed to bypass the statute that requires an entity
seeking to store nuclear waste to petition the leaders of the
House and the Senate. Instead, both leaders agreed that VY owner
Entergy would present its case before a joint legislative
committee, Symington said. At the same time, she said she
expects Vermont Yankee to apply to the Public Service Board for
the necessary approval to build the facility. 

They need the law to read in such a way that it allows for
[Entergy] to site dry cask storage. Its the Legislature's
prerogative to change the law, and we have a standing committee
focused on energy issues, so it doesnt make any sense to have a
different process than using the standing process, Symington
said. 

The question will be under what circumstances does the
Legislature approve Entergy's using dry cask storage, she told
the Vermont Guardian. 

Vermont law stipulates that the Legislature must first approve a
nuclear waste storage facility before any board or commission
can act on the issue. In a March 8 recommendation to the Public
Service Board, the Windham Regional Commission notes that
statute states unequivocally that state agencies are not allowed
to participate in support of the [review] process unless first
approved by the Legislature, and in fact they are directed to
prevent against it. The inability of major parties to
participate would render the process moot. 

After a flurry of meetings last week with committee leaders and
Entergy lobbyists, Symington said she expected Entergy to make a
formal dry-cask proposal to the Legislature soon. 

But looking a week forward from March 8 on legislative committee
calendars, Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, said the dry-cask issue
was on no agenda. 

As recently as late last month, Vermont Yankee officials
continued to press for a simple wording change in Vermont
statute that would extend an exemption to Entergy Nuclear
Vermont Yankee, a subsidiary of the multinational Entergy
Nuclear, which bought the plant three years ago from a coalition
of regional utilities. 

Vice President Jay Thayer told lawmakers Feb. 23, I think what
we seek is the clarification of  an existing exemption. That
exemption would allow Vermont Yankees original owners to
construct a waste storage facility without further legislative
approval. Entergy argues that the exemption should extend to the
plant1s new owners. 

But after the Legislature twice rejected the wording change,
Darrow said he expected more from the company. We want them to
propose a realistic starting point since their original starting
point was changing one little world and taking the Legislature
out of the picture, he said. If the storage is approved, he said
he expects the Legislature will restrict the number of casks
Vermont Yankee is allowed to use. 

So far, the only formal dry-cask proposal on the table is the
one Vermont Yankee officials filed last month with the Windham
Regional Commission as a precursor to an application to the
Vermont Public Service Board. Entergy is expected to file
formally with the board as early as March 18. 

In its quasi-judicial capacity, the board has a narrower purview
than the Legislature, with a mandate to review only the
financial aspects of radioactive waste storage. 

Thayer said the company wants to avoid a duplication of efforts 
and the extra time it would take  for the Legislature and the
board to act on the dry-cask proposal consecutively. Both
processes cover the same issues, he said Feb. 23. There seems to
be very, very close agreement between the intent of the two
investigations, from the standpoint of my opinion, in protecting
the good of the people of the state of Vermont. To run through a
[legislative] review process as its described in the petition,
and then to initiate a review for a certificate of public good,
we1re simply out of time, Thayer said. 

But in its recommendation to the Public Service Board, the
Windham Regional Commission, which held a public hearing on the
issue in Brattleboro on March 3, said the board should not
accept a petition for dry cask storage at this time. 

The commission cites state statute, which stipulates that no
nuclear storage facility can be built in Vermont unless the
general assembly first finds that it promotes the general good
of the state and approves, either through bill or joint
resolution, a petition for approval of the facility. No such
finding has been made, the commission notes in its report, nor
has state statute been amended to negate the need for
Legislative approval. 

Symington said Entergys lobbyist has assured her that the Public
Service Board process is meaningless without the Legislature
changing the law to accommodate dry-cask storage. My
understanding is that in order for them to get dry-cask storage
in time not to disrupt their operation, they need to have it in
place by 2007, Symington told the Vermont Guardian. It takes a
year to build it, and they can1t begin building it until they
have Public Service Board approval, and it takes a year to get
that. 

But according to one nuclear fuel storage expert, the state is
allowing Entergy to create a crisis when none exists. 

Arnie Gunderson, an expert witness before the joint session of
the natural resources committees, said Entergys time frame has
little to do with maintaining about a third of Vermont1s power
supply that comes from the 30-year-old Vernon reactor. 

Instead, Gunderson said the timetable corresponds with the
companys bid to increase power output and subsequently apply for
a license extension that would allow Entergy to operate Vermont
Yankee at 120 percent capacity for 20 years beyond its existing
license, which expires in 2012. 

They want to get the fuel outside before they commit and spend
the money to license the plant to 2032, Gunderson said. Without
the uprate, Vermont Yankee has enough storage capacity in its
spent fuel pool until 2008, he noted. And then there's only one
refueling left between 2008 and shutdown in 2012. 

Gunderson  who worked for a company that designs fuel-rod
assemblies and said he does not support a VY shutdown before its
existing license expires  said Vermont Yankee officials could
find enough space either within the spent fuel pool or in the
plant1s containment access building to store the rods from the
plants final refueling. 

Posted March 9, 2005 

 ©2004-2005 Vermont Guardian |  [info@vermontguardian.com] 
*****************************************************************
 31 Brattleboro Reformer: WRC weighs in on dry cask fray

[http://www.reformer.com/]   

March 09, 2005 Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
 			 								 					
By CAROLYN LORIÉ 
Reformer Staff
BRATTLEBORO -- The Windham Regional Commission has recommended
to the Public Service Board that it not accept Vermont Yankee's
application for dry cask storage, until the state Legislature
has dealt with the matter.

 The recommendation was filed with the board on Tuesday evening,
one week after the commission held a public hearing on the
matter.

 According to the letter filed, the decision was based on state
law that stipulates that the Vermont Legislature must approve
any application for the storage of nuclear waste and until it
does, no other state agency or body can take up the issue.

 The approval process for dry cask storage at the nuclear power
plant has become a source of contention, as well as confusion.

 While the law does state that legislative approval is necessary
for the storage of nuclear waste, an exemption was given to the
Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corporation, which owned the plant
before Entergy Nuclear. 

Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee officials have argued that the
exemption should extend to whatever company owns the plant.
Their bid to have the law amended at the end of the last
legislative session, however, failed. Plant officials and
lobbyists are once again pursuing a change in the law, but so
far no legislation has been introduced.

 Further complicating matters is the uncertainty of what is
expected of Entergy officials. Some Windham County delegates
have explicitly stated that they want a petition from the
company seeking dry cask storage.

 Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, has been especially vocal on the
matter and has accused the company of attempting to bypass the
legislative process.

 Senate President Peter Welch, D-Windsor, however, said that
legislative counsel does not believe that a petition to the
general assembly is necessary but that the issue can be
addressed through the legislative standing committees. In other
words, a bill can be introduced granting Entergy permission to
have dry cask storage.

 Welch was adamant that such legislation can, and most likely
would, come with restrictions and that Entergy would not be
given blanket permission to have unlimited casks.

 "The first concern of the Legislature is safety and safety is
not for sale," said Welch.

 Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams said the Windham Regional
Commission's decision highlights the issue that must be settled,
namely the need for the Legislature to act.

 In addition to legislative approval, however, Vermont Yankee
officials must get a certificate of public good from the Vermont
Public Service Board. And again, there has been uncertainty
about the process, in terms of the order in which approval must
be sought. Must the Legislature give approval before an
application is filed with the Public Service Board or can
approval from both bodies be pursued simultaneously?

 The Windham Regional Commission reached the conclusion that the
processes should not be pursued at the same time. Tuesday's
letter read: "Lacking a compelling reason for a dual process, we
recommend that the processes be followed in sequence so as to
minimize confusion and better support public discourse and
understanding of such a major development, especially one with
such far-reaching implications."

 While the commission cannot dictate how the board handles the
application -- which can legally be filed as of March 15 -- it
is required to make recommendations that are in the best
interest of the region.

 It also noted that since the plant has adequate storage space
in the spent fuel pool until the spring of 2007, there is
adequate time for the board to make a decision, even if the
application were not submitted until the summer or fall of 2005.

 The commission went on to state that while this would make for
a tight schedule, responsibility for this should rest with
Entergy, as "the 2001 Windham Regional Plan noted the
expectation that 'Vermont Yankee will apply for a dry-cask
storage system in 2001 or 2002'.... That statement was based on
discussions in 1999 and 2000, including with Vermont Yankee
officials, and it was the WRC's expectation at the time that
this would have been resolved before now."

 Finally, the commission asked that when and if dry cask storage
is approved, that it be restricted to the number of casks
necessary to get the plant through to the end it's license,
which expires in 2012.

 Many have said that approval of dry cask storage will make it
easier for Entergy officials to seek license extension.

 While the Nuclear Regulatory Commission makes the final
decision about whether a plant can extend its license, the 2001
sale agreement between the state and Entergy stipulated that the
Public Service Board must also give its approval.

 There is currently a bill being discussed in the Legislature
that would require permission from them as well.

                     
Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., 
*****************************************************************
 32 NRC: Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation, Idaho Spent Fuel
 
                         FR Doc 05-4549 
[Federal Register: March 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 45)] 
[Notices] [Page 11715-11716] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09mr05-132]
 
Facility; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact Regarding a Proposed Exemption AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Environmental assessment.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James R. Hall, Senior Project 
Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear Material 
Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555.
 
Telephone: (301) 415-8500; fax number: (301) 425-8555; e-mail: 
jrh@nrc.gov [jrh@nrc.gov] .
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an exemption, 
pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, from the provisions of 10 CFR 
72.70(a)(1) to the Foster Wheeler Environmental Corporation 
(FWENC or licensee). This regulation requires that each specific 
licensee under 10 CFR part 72 submit an original Final Safety 
Analysis Report (FSAR) to the Commission within 90 days after 
issuance of the license. The NRC granted a license for the Idaho 
Spent Fuel (ISF) Facility, an independent spent fuel storage 
installation (ISFSI) to be located at the Idaho National 
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL), to FWENC on 
November 30, 2004.
 
The requested exemption would allow FWENC to submit an original 
FSAR for the ISF Facility no later than August 28, 2005, or no 
later than 30 days prior to the commencement of construction, 
whichever comes first.
 
FWENC submitted the exemption request on February 2, 2005.
 
Environmental Assessment (EA) Identification of Proposed Action: 
The licensee requested an exemption from the requirement in 10 
CFR 72.70(a)(1), which states that each licensee shall submit an 
original FSAR to the Commission, in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4, 
within 90 days after issuance of the license. The requested 
exemption would allow the licensee to delay the submittal of the 
original FSAR for the ISF Facility by up to 6 months (no later 
than August 28, 2005, or 30 days prior to commencement of 
construction, whichever comes first).
 
 
[[Page 11716]] The proposed action before the Commission is 
whether to grant this exemption pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7. Need for 
the Proposed Action: The NRC granted a license to construct and 
operate the ISF Facility to FWENC on November 30, 2004.
 
FWENC will build and operate the facility under a contract with 
the U.
 
S. Department of Energy (DOE). The ISF Facility represents an 
additional milestone in the 1995 settlement agreement among DOE, 
the U.S. Navy, and the State of Idaho regarding the disposition 
of spent nuclear fuel at INEEL.
 
The exemption would allow the licensee additional time to submit 
an original FSAR beyond February 28, 2005, which is 90 days from 
the date the facility license was issued. As part of its 
justification for the exemption request, FWENC indicated that it 
has held recent discussions with DOE to determine whether the 
FSAR and related documents contain sensitive information that 
should be withheld from public disclosure.
 
These discussions were prompted in part by recent NRC actions to 
reassess its policy and practices on release of sensitive 
information; however, the NRC has not yet provided any new 
direction to licensees on this subject. FWENC has not yet made 
its determination, but it may need to expend more resources 
and/or time to prepare the FSAR and associated justifications if 
it elects to request that parts of the document be withheld. In 
order to allow it more time to identify what parts of the FSAR, 
if any, are to be withheld, to prepare the necessary 
justifications, and to revise the document accordingly, the 
licensee has requested the subject exemption.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC staff 
previously evaluated the environmental impacts resulting from the 
construction, operation and decommissioning of the ISF Facility, 
and determined that such impacts would be acceptably small. The 
staff's conclusions are documented in the ``Environmental Impact 
Statement (EIS) for the Proposed Idaho Spent Fuel Facility at the 
Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory in Butte 
County, Idaho (Final Report), NUREG-1773,'' issued in January 
2004. The proposed action under consideration would not change 
the staff's previous conclusions in the EIS regarding 
environmental impacts, because the proposed exemption is an 
administrative action that will not affect the physical design or 
operation of the ISF Facility. Therefore, there are no 
radiological or non-radiological impacts from a delay in 
submitting the FSAR, and the staff finds that the proposed 
exemption will not have any significant environmental impact.
 
Alternative to the Proposed Action: As an alternative to the 
proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed 
action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Approval or denial 
of the exemption request would result in no change in the 
environmental impacts described in the staff's final EIS. 
Therefore, the environmental impacts of the proposed action and 
the alternative action are similar.
 
Agencies and Persons Consulted: On February 17, 2005, Mr.
 
Doug Walker, Senior Health Physicist with the State of Idaho 
INEEL Oversight Program, was contacted regarding the 
environmental assessment for the proposed exemption and had no 
comments. The NRC staff previously evaluated the environmental 
impacts of the ISF Facility in the final EIS issued in January 
2004, and has determined that additional consultation under 
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required for this 
specific exemption which involves administrative reporting 
requirements and will not affect listed species or critical 
habitat. The NRC staff has similarly determined that the proposed 
exemption is not a type of activity having the potential to cause 
effects on historic properties. Therefore, no further 
consultation is required under Section 106 of the National 
Historic Preservation Act.
 
Conclusion: The staff has reviewed the exemption request 
submitted by FWENC and has determined that allowing the licensee 
to delay the submittal of the original Final Safety Analysis 
Report for the ISF Facility up to an additional 6 months beyond 
the date required by 10 CFR 72.70(a)(1) is an administrative 
change, and would have no significant impact on the environment.
 
Finding of No Significant Impact The environmental impacts of the 
proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51.
 
Based upon the foregoing EA, the Commission finds that the 
proposed action of granting the exemption from 10 CFR 
72.70(a)(1), so that FWENC may delay the submittal of the 
original FSAR for the ISF Facility, will not significantly impact 
the quality of the human environment.
 
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that a Finding of No 
Significant Impact is appropriate, and that an environmental 
impact statement for the proposed exemption is not necessary.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the FWENC 
request for exemption, dated February 2, 2005, which was docketed 
under 10 CFR part 72, Docket No. 72-25. This document is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's Public 
Document Room, One White Flint North Building, 11555 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, MD, or from the publicly available records 
component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management 
System (ADAMS). This document may be accessed through the NRC's 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 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] 
. If there are problems in accessing the documents located in 
ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff 
at 1-800-397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov 
[pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 1st day of 
March, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
James R. Hall, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 05-4549 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 33 35th Anniversary Of NPT Treaty And The World Still Faces Accidental [Mostly] Annihilation
 
Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2005 03:01:26 -0500

 


    This past Saturday, March 5, 2005 marked the
35th anniversary of the NPT Treaty going into
effect, including, of course, it's Article VI
calling for the abolition of nuclear weapons. 35
years is a very, very long period of time. Many
reading this weren't even born then or were small
children. Lastly, Russia's inability to monitor
incoming "stuff" renders the possibility of an
accidental nuclear war MUCH more likely as we
drift towards unparalled catastrophes:

Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to
pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms
race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.
and on a treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective
international control.


  NPT Treaty:
http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/docs.html

Desiring to further the easing of international
tension and the strengthening of trust between the
States in order to facilitate the cessation of the
manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of
all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination
from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the
means of their delivery pursuant to a treaty on
general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control,

Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of
the United Nations, States must refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any State, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations, and that the establishment and
maintenance of international peace and security
are to be promoted with the least diversion for
armaments of the world's human and economic
resources,

Have agreed as follows:



  Text of the NPT



Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons
Signed at Washington, London, and Moscow July 1,
1968
Ratification advised by U.S. Senate March 13, 1969
U.S. ratification deposited at Washington, London,
and Moscow March 5, 1970
Proclaimed by U.S. President March 5, 1970
Entered into force March 5, 1970

The States concluding this Treaty, hereinafter
referred to as the "Parties to the Treaty",

Considering the devastation that would be visited
upon all mankind by a nuclear war and the
consequent need to make every effort to avert the
danger of such a war and to take measures to
safeguard the security of peoples,

Believing that the proliferation of nuclear
weapons would seriously enhance the danger of
nuclear war,

In conformity with resolutions of the United
Nations General Assembly calling for the
conclusion of an agreement on the prevention of
wider dissemination of nuclear weapons,

Undertaking to coöperate in facilitating the
application of International Atomic Energy Agency
safeguards on peaceful nuclear activities,

Expressing their support for research, development
and other efforts to further the application,
within the framework of the International Atomic
Energy Agency safeguards system, of the principle
of safeguarding effectively the flow of source and
special fissionable materials by use of
instruments and other techniques at certain
strategic points,

Affirming the principle that the benefits of
peaceful applications of nuclear technology,
including any technological by-products which may
be derived by nuclear-weapon States from the
development of nuclear explosive devices, should
be available for peaceful purposes to all Parties
of the Treaty, whether nuclear-weapon or
non-nuclear weapon States,

Convinced that, in furtherance of this principle,
all Parties to the Treaty are entitled to
participate in the fullest possible exchange of
scientific information for, and to contribute
alone or in coöperation with other States to, the
further development of the applications of atomic
energy for peaceful purposes,

Declaring their intention to achieve at the
earliest possible date the cessation of the
nuclear arms race and to undertake effective
measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament,

Urging the coöperation of all States in the
attainment of this objective,

Recalling the determination expressed by the
Parties to the 1963 Treaty banning nuclear weapons
tests in the atmosphere, in outer space and under
water in its Preamble to seek to achieve the
discontinuance of all test explosions of nuclear
weapons for all time and to continue negotiations
to this end,

Desiring to further the easing of international
tension and the strengthening of trust between the
States in order to facilitate the cessation of the
manufacture of nuclear weapons, the liquidation of
all their existing stockpiles, and the elimination
from national arsenals of nuclear weapons and the
means of their delivery pursuant to a treaty on
general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control,

Recalling that, in accordance with the Charter of
the United Nations, States must refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of
force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any State, or in any
other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the
United Nations, and that the establishment and
maintenance of international peace and security
are to be promoted with the least diversion for
armaments of the world's human and economic
resources,

Have agreed as follows:


Article I
Each nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty
undertakes not to transfer to any recipient
whatsoever nuclear weapons or other explosive
devices directly, or indirectly; and not in any
way assist, encourage. or induce any non-nuclear-
weapon State to manufacture or otherwise acquire
nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive
devices, or control over such weapons or explosive
devices.


Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty
undertakes not to receive the transfer from any
transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other
explosive devices or of control over such weapons
or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not
to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear
weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and
not to seek or receive any assistance in the
manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices.


Article III
1. Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the
Treaty undertakes to accept safeguards, as set
forth in an agreement to be negotiated and
concluded with the International Atomic Energy
Agency in accordance with the Statute of the
International Atomic Energy Agency and the
Agency's safeguards system for the exclusive
purpose of verification of the fulfillment of its
obligations assumed under this Treaty with a view
to preventing diversion of nuclear energy from
peaceful uses to nuclear weapons or other nuclear
explosive devices. Procedures for the safeguards
required by this article shall be followed with
respect to source or special fissionable material
whether it is being produced, processed or used in
any principal nuclear facility or is outside any
such facility. The safeguards required by this
article shall be applied to all source or special
fissionable material in all peaceful nuclear
activities within the territory of such State,
under its jurisdiction, or carried out under its
control any here.

2. Each State Party to the Treaty undertakes not
to provide: (a) source or special fissionable
material, or (b) equipment or material especially
designed or prepared for the processing, use or
production of special fissionable material. to any
non- nuclear-weapon State for peaceful purposes,
unless the source or special fissionable material
shall be subject to the safeguards required by
this article.

3. The safeguards required by this article shall
be implemented in a manner designed to comply with
the article IV of this Treaty, and to avoid
hampering the economic or technological
development of the Parties or international
coöperation in the field of peaceful nuclear
activities, including the international exchange
of nuclear material for the processing. use or
production of nuclear material for peaceful
purposes in accordance with the provisions of this
article and the principle of safeguarding set
forth in the Preamble of the Treaty.

4. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty
shall conclude agreements with the International
Atomic Energy Agency to meet the requirements of
this article either individually or together with
other States in accordance with the Statute of the
International Atomic Energy Agency. Negotiation of
such agreements shall commence within 180 days
from the original entry into force of this Treaty.
For States depositing their instruments of
ratification or accession after the 180-day
period, negotiation of such agreements shall
commence not later than the date of such deposit.
Such agreements shall enter into force not later
than eighteen months after the date of initiation
of negotiations.


Article IV
1. Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as
affecting the inalienable right of all Parties to
the Treaty to develop research, production and use
of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without
discrimination and in conformity with articles I
and II of this Treaty.

2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to
facilitate, and have the right to participate in,
the fullest possible exchange of equipment,
materials and scientific and technological
information for the peaceful uses of nuclear
energy. Parties to the Treaty in a position to do
so shall also coöperate in contributing alone or
together with other States or in international
organizations to the further development of the
applications of nuclear energy for peaceful
purposes, especially in the territories of
non-nuclear-weapon States Party to the Treaty,
with due consideration for the needs of the
developing areas of the world.


Article V
Each Party to the Treaty undertakes to take
appropriate measures to ensure that, in accordance
with this Treaty under appropriate international
observation and through appropriate international
procedures, potential benefits from any peaceful
applications of nuclear explosions will be made
available to non-nuclear-weapon States Party to
the Treaty on a nondiscriminatory basis and that
the charge to such Parties for the explosive
devices used will be as low as possible and
exclude an charge for research and development.
Non-nuclear- weapon States Party to the Treaty
shall be able to obtain such benefits, pursuant to
a special international agreement or agreements,
through an appropriate international body with
adequate representation of non-nuclear-weapon
States. Negotiations on this subject shall
commence as soon as possible after the Treaty
enters into force. Non-nuclear-weapon States Party
to the Treaty so desiring may also obtain such
benefits pursuant to bilateral agreements.


Article VI
Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to
pursue negotiations in good faith on effective
measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms
race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament.
and on a treaty on general and complete
disarmament under strict and effective
international control.


Article VII
Nothing in this Treaty affects the right of any
group of States to conclude regional treaties in
order to assure the total absence of nuclear
weapons in their respective territories.


Article VIII
l. Any Party to the Treaty may propose amendments
to this Treaty. The text of any proposed amendment
shall be submitted to the Depositary Governments
which shall circulate it to all Parties to the
Treaty. Thereupon, if requested to do so by one-
third or more of the Parties to the Treaty, the
Depositary Governments shall convene a conference,
to which they shall invite all Parties to the
Treaty, to consider such an amendment.

2. Any amendment to this Treaty must be approved
by a majority of the votes of all the Parties to
the Treaty, including the votes of all
non-nuclear- weapon States Party to the Treaty and
all other Parties which, on the date the amendment
is circulated, are members of the Board of
Governors of the International Atomic Energy
Agency. The amendment shall enter into force for
each Party that deposits its instrument of
ratification of the amendment upon the deposit of
such instruments of ratification by a majority of
all the Parties, including the instruments of
ratification of all nuclear-weapon States Party to
the Treaty and all other Parties which, on the
date the amendment is circulated, are members of
the Board of Governors of the International Atomic
Energy Agency. Thereafter, it shall enter into
force for any Party upon deposit of its instrument
of ratification of the amendment.

3. Five years after the entry into force of this
Treaty, a conference of Parties to the Treaty
shall be held in Geneva, Switzerland, in order to
review the operation of this Treaty with a view to
assuring that the purposes of the Preamble and the
provisions of the Treaty are being realized. At
intervals of five years thereafter, a majority of
the Parties to the Treaty may obtain, by
submitting a proposal to this effect to the
Depositary Governments, the convening of further
conferences with the same objective of reviewing
the operation of the Treaty.


Article IX
1. This Treaty shall be open to all States for
signature. Any State which does not sign the
Treaty before its entry into force in accordance
with paragraph 3 of this article may accede to it
at any time.

2. This Treaty shall be subject to ratification by
signatory States. Instruments of ratification and
instruments of accession shall be deposited with
the Governments of the United States of America,
the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern
Ireland and the Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics, which are hereby designated the
Depositary Governments.

3. This Treaty shall enter into force after its
ratification by the States, the Governments of
which are designated Depositaries of the Treaty,
and forty other States signatory to this Treaty
and the deposit of their instruments of
ratification. For the purposes of this Treaty, a
nuclear-weapon State is one which has manufactured
and exploded a nuclear weapon or other nuclear
explosive device prior to January 1, 1967.

4. For States whose instruments of ratification or
of accession are deposited subsequent to the entry
into force of this Treaty, it shall enter into
force on the date of the deposit of their
instruments of ratification or accession.

5. The Depositary Governments shall promptly
inform all signatory and acceding States of the
date of each signature, the date of deposit of
each instrument of ratification or of accession,
the date of the entry into force of this Treaty,
and the date of receipt of any requests for
convening a conference or other notices.

6. This Treaty shall be registered by the
Depositary Governments pursuant to article 102 of
the Charter of the United Nations.


Article X
l. Each Party shall in exercising its national
sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the
Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events,
related to the subject matter of this Treaty, have
jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.
It shall give notice of such withdrawal to all
other Parties to the Treaty and to the United
Nations Security Council three months in advance.
Such notice shall include a statement of the
extraordinary events it regards as having
jeopardized it supreme interests.

2. Twenty-five years after the entry into force of
the Treaty, a conference shall be convened to
decide whether the Treaty shall continue in force
indefinitely, or shall be extended for an
additional fixed period or periods. This decision
shall be taken by a majority of the Parties to the
Treaty.


Article XI
This Treaty, the English, Russian, French,
Spanish, and Chinese texts of which are equally
authentic, shall be deposited in the archives of
the Depositary Governments. Duly certified copies
of this Treaty shall be transmitted by the
Depositary Governments to the Governments of the
signatory and acceding States.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF the undersigned, duly
authorized, have signed this Treaty, DONE in
triplicate, at the cities of Washington, London
and Moscow, this first day of July one thousand
nine hundred sixty-eight.



--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
 BACK TO GANA's INDEX OF DOCUMENTS




*****************************************************************
 34 New Mexican: Rumors of Bechtel-UC lab venture has bidders’ attention    
 	
 Wed Mar 9, 2005 5:19 pm   							 						

[http://www.santafenewmexican.com

Neither Bechtel National nor the University of California will
confirm reports that they are teaming up to manage Los Alamos
National Laboratory. 

But Tuesday, as another potential bidder said it would drop out
of the competition for the contact, it endorsed UC partnering
with Bechtel, a mammoth engineering and construction company
based in Frederick, Md. 

"I think Bechtel makes UC a strong team," Michael Plett, of the
Computer Sciences Corp., in Falls Church, Va., said in a
telephone interview. 

Although officials at the University of California, which has
operated the lab since 1943 for the federal government, won't
confirm they definitely plan to bid for the contract --
Bechtel's name has been circulating as one of UC's likely
partners. 

Andy Kellsey of Bechtel National said his company remains
interested but declined to say whether his company is forming a
partnership with UC. "We're still following the procurement," he
said. 

Months ago, Kellsey said Bechtel would consider being a lead
bidder but Tuesday he would not define the role Bechtel is
seeking. 

Gov. Bill Richardson, in an interview Tuesday, offered his
support for such a combination. 

"If the reports are true, I do believe that Bechtel would be a
good partner to the University of California," he said. 

Last year, Richardson made a trip to California to encourage
university regents to bid for the contract with an industrial
partner and the University of New Mexico. The industrial partner
would look after security, safety and other matters that have
vexed the university, and the university would focus on managing
scientific research. 

Richardson said Bechtel could enhance the engineering and
scientific strength of the lab. 

"It would be good to take advantage of their contacts,"
Richardson said of Bechtel. "They are strong managers. They are
in good financial shape. They have worldwide experience." 

He said UC might bid with two industrial partners but declined
to name the other one. 

Years of safety, security and financial problems at the lab
prompted then-Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to open the
management contract to others for the first time in history. 

Now, as competitors jockey for position -- forming teams and
seeking key management personnel behind the scenes -- players
are coy and evasive. Firm commitments probably won't be made
until the federal government publishes the official version of
the bidding criteria -- which sets forth the amount of money the
government is willing to pay the lab manager, the risks involved
and the expectations. The Energy Department hopes to name the
winner by October. 

Northrop Grumman's Information Technology sector, based in
McLean, Va., remains interested in being a prime bidder but has
not made a decision, Juli Ballesteros, a company spokesman, said
Tuesday. In a bold move, the company just advertised for the
jobs of deputy director and four associate directors to work at
the lab. Of course, filling the positions will be contingent on
Northrop Grumman winning the contract, Ballesteros said. 

"That's the potential," Ballesteros said. "If we do make the
decision to bid, we would have to ramp up pretty quickly and get
the talent in there." 

She imagines other bidders will do the same. 

Northrop Grumman, with offices in Los Alamos and Albuquerque,
has 445 employees in New Mexico. A branch of the company that
deals with space technology currently has a relationship with
LANL, she said. 

To find out who's in and who's out, The New Mexican called
interested parties that attended a conference last December in
Albuquerque about the competition. 

Of those reached by phone Tuesday, Computer Sciences Corp. was
the only company that had lost interest. "Money and a whole
bunch of other things came together," Plett said, noting that
CSC decided a week ago it probably would not bid. 

The following companies did not return calls: CH2M Hill, Fluor
Corp. and BWXT. Prior to this report, Lockheed Martin, Bettelle
Memorial Institute and the University of Texas withdrew interest
in being prime bidders. 

CSC has 40 years of experience in assisting the aerospace and
defense industry with business and technology management. 

Plett said the federal government crafted a good proposal, and
he supports the effort to preserve a beefy pension plan for
current employees. "I think Los Alamos laboratory is a jewel,"
he said. "I think the benefits package has helped make it what
it is." 

Six months ago, CSC might have been the only prime contractor
poised for the job, Plett said, but he doesn't feel bad about
quitting the race now. "I think they're going to have a fine
competition," Plett said. 

He mentioned the University of California, Northrop Grumman and
Jacobs. 

But Dan Pierre, a Jacobs Sverdrup representative who attended
the December conference, had little to say on the matter. "We're
not ready to announce," he said. 

Representatives from Washington Group International -- who
attended the December conference -- were upbeat but tightlipped. 

Jim Landers of Washington Group International said, "We're
interested," but he would not say in what capacity. 

Meanwhile, Landers said he has become an avid reader of the
LANL: The Real Story, an Internet blog started by lab computer
scientist Doug Roberts, where gripes are aired and issues are
discussed. 

"I think everybody's reading it. It's pretty insightful,"
Landers said. 

Few companies and universities have what it takes to manage a
nuclear-weapons laboratory. Here's the rundown so far: 

Not interested 

+ Lockheed Martin: Operates Sandia National Laboratories in
Albuquerque and Livermore, Calif. 

+ Bettelle Memorial Institute: Operates five U.S. Department of
Energy laboratories. 

+ University of Texas: Decided instead to help Sandia Labs
improve its research. 

+ Texas A & M University 

+ Computer Science Corp. (Falls Church, Va.): Manages large
aerospace contracts. 

Interested but undecided 

+ University of California: Operates Los Alamos, Lawrence
Livermore and Lawrence Berkeley labs. 

+ Northrop Grumman: A global-defense company headquartered in
Los Angeles; more than 125,000 employees; operations in all 50
states and 25 countries. 

+ Bechtel National (Frederick, Md.): The government-services arm
of Bechtel Group, which has 40,000 employees. Lead partner in
managing the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory. Led environmental cleanup at the U.S. government's
Hanford Site in Washington state. Won $1.8 billion contract to
rebuild Iraq's public works. 

+ Washington Group International (Boise, Idaho): One of world's
largest construction and engineering firms; recovered from
bankruptcy in 2002; has operated the 310-square-mile Savannah
River Site for the U.S. Department of Energy since 1989. 

Not saying 

+ Jacobs Engineering Group (Pasadena, Calif.): Provides
technology engineering services to aerospace and defense
projects; remediated contamination at three Energy Department
sites. 

+ CH2M Hill (Denver): Provides engineering, construction,
operations and technical services. 

+ Fluor Corp. (Aliso Viejo, Calif.): Oversees construction
projects. 

+ BWXT Technologies Lynchburg, Va.): Manages nuclear production
facilities and the closures of such facilities. 

-- Diana Heil 		 	   	 	 	 			
 		   			 		   	 	
Copyright 2004 Santa Fe New Mexican                                                                                             
*****************************************************************
 35 Tri-City Herald: Hanford lab dispute ends, operator can resume work 

This story was published Wednesday, March 9th, 2005 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

The last protest against the award of a contract to operate
Hanford's 222-S Laboratory has been dismissed, allowing Advanced
Technologies and Laboratories International to resume work to
begin operating the lab. 

"I have believed all along that the technical basis for this
contract award was sound and that ATL will be a strong addition
to the River Protection Project team," said Roy Schepens,
manager of the Office of River Protection for the Department of
Energy at Hanford, in a prepared statement Tuesday. 

"I have requested that ATL immediately resume its transition
work at the laboratory, and we'll complete that transition
safely and with as little disruption as possible to the work and
employees at 222-S," he said. 

The 222-S Lab is Hanford's primary laboratory for testing highly
radioactive waste samples. ATL's five-year contract for
analytical and testing services at the lab is valued at $58
million. 

Nuclear Analytical Services, a losing bidder on the project,
dropped a protest filed with the Government Accountability
Office after the Department of Energy answered nine allegations
in the protest, according to DOE. A decision by GAO was not due
until April 25. 

The procurement process by the Office of River Protection was
fair, thorough and well-documented, said Jou Hwang, ATL
president, in a prepared statement. 

Information on the basis of the protest has not been released,
although GAO protests may be filed for a range of reasons based
on how DOE evaluated safety and health, technical and management
approach, experience and past performance, key personnel and
cost of proposals. 

Earlier, the Small Business Administration dismissed another
protest filed by Nuclear Analytical Services after it found that
ATL meets size requirements to receive a small-business
contract. 

The Bush administration has pushed to get more government
contracts awarded to small businesses. But both small-business
contracts recently awarded at Hanford have faced protests. 

In January, the GAO upheld a protest filed over the award of the
small-business contract to dismantle Hanford's Fast Flux Test
Facility, and DOE is considering what to do next. 

ATL was awarded the contract to operate the 222-S Lab in early
January and a 90-day transition from contractor CH2M Hill
Hanford Group to ATL began. But the transition halted mid-month
after the protest was filed with GAO. 

ATL is based in Germantown, Md., but has had an office in the
Tri-Cities since 1997. Subcontractors are Battelle, which runs
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland; Severn Trent
Laboratories, which has a Richland laboratory and others across
the nation; and Environmental Quality Management, of Richland. 

The Nuclear Analytical Services team was led by RJ Lee Group, of
Monroeville, Pa., and Polestar, of Los Altos, Calif., both with
Tri-City offices. 

Most of the 70 employees at the lab will transfer to ATL. The
222-S complex includes a 70,000-square-foot laboratory and
several support buildings in the 200 West Area in central
Hanford. It has 11 hot cells for handling and analyzing
radioactive samples. 

The majority of samples analyzed in the lab are from Hanford's
underground tanks holding 53 million gallons of radioactive and
chemical waste. The waste is left from the separation of
plutonium from irradiated fuel at Hanford for the nation's
nuclear weapons program. 

© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 36 DenverPost.com: Lawmakers urge compensation for ill Rocky Flats workers

Published: Wednesday, March 09, 2005                                    
  	 	
By The Associated Press
                
 Several members of Colorado's congressional delegation have
urged federal health officials to provide compensation for
certain Rocky Flats employees who became sick after working at
the former nuclear weapons facility. 

Some workers need to be reclassified to become eligible for a
program offering financial and medical compensation for
employees at nuclear weapons production facilities, the
lawmakers argued in a letter to Michael Leavitt, U.S. Secretary
of Health and Human Services. 

The letter was signed by Colorado's two senators, Republican
Wayne Allard and Democrat Ken Salazar, and Reps. Bob Beauprez,
R-Colo., and Mark Udall, D-Colo. 

The Rocky Flats site, which is undergoing a $7 billion cleanup,
is in areas represented by Udall and Beauprez. 

The letter supported a petition from the Rocky Flats United
Steelworkers of America, Local 8031. The union argued certain
workers meet requirements to be classified as a "Special
Exposure Cohort," a category making them immediately and
automatically eligible for compensation. 

The classification would include individuals who have become
sick because of their work at Rocky Flats and people who may
become sick in the future, said Sean Conway, Allard's chief of
staff. 

"The men and women who worked at Rocky Flats and other nuclear
production sites across the nation are heroes of the Cold War.
Many knowingly and unknowingly risked their lives to help
protect our country," the letter said. "Such heroism deserves to
be acknowledged, respected and remembered. Providing appropriate
financial and medical compensation to these workers is a
significant step towards these goals." 

Rocky Flats made plutonium triggers for nuclear warheads until
1992, when it was shut down because of safety concerns. 

Cleanup efforts at the 6,420-acre site are scheduled to be
complete by next year. Federal officials plan to allow hiking,
cycling, horseback riding and other activities on 16 miles of
trails at Rocky Flats once it is converted to a refuge by 2008.
		   	 	
 All contents Copyright 2005 The Denver Post or other copyright
*****************************************************************
 37 Salt Lake Tribune: Cannon backs nuclear weapons tests in Nevada 

Article Last Updated: 03/09/2005 07:40:55 AM 

He believes his father died of cancers caused in part by 
exposure to radioactive fallout from Cold War-era tests 

By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 

WASHINGTON - Rep. Chris Cannon is voicing his support for 
resumed testing of nuclear weapons as a deterrent against people 
who want to harm the United States. 

"To the degree that we have people blow up our skyscrapers 
and hiding underground we have to have the ability to respond to 
them," Cannon said Tuesday. "I don't ever expect we'll end up 
using a bunker buster, but the other side needs to know that we 
have them." 

The tests, Cannon said Tuesday, should not be limited to a 
bunker busting nuclear weapon, which the Bush administration has 
proposed spending $8.5 million to study, although Congress 
rejected past requests. The testing should also include the 
existing nuclear stockpile to ensure the weapons have not 
deteriorated, he said. 

"What we really want here is deterrence. We want people to 
get out of their holes and into the democratic process and we 
want to scare them out," he said. "We need to give them the fear 
of destruction and hopefully over time people will recognize 
that the democratic system works." 

The testing does not necessarily begin immediately, Cannon 
said, but the president should have the authority to resume 
testing if he deems it appropriate. 

The issue of nuclear weapons testing is a sensitive one in 
Utah, where Cold War-era weapons testing in the Nevada desert 
rained radiation down on unwitting residents. Years later, 
thousands of "downwinders" were stricken with various forms of 
cancer. 

"We've been A-bombed, nerve-gassed and lied to enough," said 
J. Preston Truman of the group Downwinders. "You can't have it 
both ways. You can't say you are going to take care of your 
constituents and on the other hand say it's OK to come and 
bomb us again." 

In its recently concluded session, the Utah Legislature 
unanimously passed a resolution signed by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. 
adamantly opposing resuming nuclear weapons tests. 

"A resumption of nuclear testing at the federal government's 
Nevada Test Site would mean a return to the mistakes and 
miscalculations of the past, which have marred many Utahns," the 
resolution stated, and it "would signify a dramatic step 
backward in the United States of America's resolve to learn from 
its tragic nuclear testing legacy." 

As a young attorney in 1979, Cannon worked with former 
Interior Secretary and Congressman Stewart Udall to put together 
a lawsuit, Irene Allen v. United States, demanding compensation 
from the government for 24 residents sickened by exposure to 
radiation. 

The case was overturned on appeal in 1983, but Congress 
later acted to grant compensation payments to the Downwinders. 
To date, the government has approved 8,744 claims from residents 
who have been able to prove their cancers were caused by the 
radioactive fallout. 

Models of fallout from the Nevada tests show that Cannon's 
district includes several of the counties that had the highest 
radiation exposure in the country. 

Cannon says he believes his own father died of cancers that 
were caused in part by his exposure to radioactive fallout from 
the tests. 

"Cannon's statement was ignorant, out-of-touch with his 
constituents and out of step with the rest of the Utah 
delegation," said Vanessa Pierce of the Healthy Environment 
Alliance of Utah. 

She said a National Academy of Sciences study said there is 
no evidence that the nuclear weapons stockpile needs to be 
tested. Furthermore, the Energy Department has reported that 
half of its underground nuclear weapons tests released some 
radiation into the surrounding environment. 

"We cannot, in good conscience, put Utahns at risk for 
another accident again. It is unconscionable," she said. "His 
views are so radically different from those of the people that 
he represents that it's just unfathomable." 

Cannon says he believes any nuclear tests can be conducted 
safely and is committed to making sure there are protections in 
place. "With nuclear testing you have to be very careful," he 
said. 

Cannon also said he sees no contradiction in the United 
States' determination to stop Iran from developing nuclear 
weapons or preventing North Korea's program to develop further 
and to resume domestic nuclear tests. 

"Democracies don't create wars. Evil people who assume 
positions of power create wars," he said. America has defended 
freedom, he said, not created wars. 

Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 38 RadioActivist Campaign: a scientific campaign of the Tides Center
 
  TRAC and DoE joint-sampling groundwater seeps from Hanford Site 
into the Columbia River 

Site Map [http://www.radioactivist.org/site.html] 

30 second Livermore Public Service Announcement
[http://www.radioactivist.org/LLNLpsa2.html] 

Introduction to TRAC: 

The RadioActivist Campaign (TRAC) monitors radioactivity
contaminating public land, air, water, and biota around the new
U.S. nuclear weapons complex. By identifying and publicizing
previously unreported radioactive contamination, TRAC shifts
responsibility for and control over U.S. nuclear weapons
facilities from the bomb builders to the public as a whole.
Informed, the concerned public will stop the harms nuclear
weaponry does to our health, to our environment, and to our
democratic process. 

How: 

The RadioActivist Campaign monitors the U.S. nuclear complex by
sampling key radiological pathways from the major weapons
research, development, and production sites, annually. This
extensive monitoring is founded on TRAC’s previous in-depth
study at each site. TRAC maintains a baseline for its annual
monitoring around the nuclear weapons complex by conducting one
such in-depth site study, each year. 
2005: 

   • TRAC’s first ANNUAL MONITORING around the complex will
focus on: nuclear research and development labs at Los Alamos,
New Mexico, Livermore, California, and Oak Ridge, Tennessee; a
nuclear production site near Aiken, South Carolina; and a
nuclear test site in Nevada. 
   • TRAC’s IN-DEPTH STUDY, to maintain its radiological
baseline, will follow-up TRAC’s 2003 discovery of cesium-137
fallout contaminating the communities and environment to the
northeast of the Savannah River Site, South Carolina – the
Department of Energy’s “cheap and dirty bomb plant.” This work
is in collaboration with the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense
League. 

TRAC’s current WORKS-IN-PROGRESS in support of monitoring the
U.S. nuclear weapons complex are: Hanford, Washington:
confirmation of radioactivity in riverbed water, which threatens
the wild salmon hatchlings. Livermore, California: completion of
TRAC’s first in-depth study. Los Alamos, New Mexico: Cooperation
with New Mexico Environment Department, checking lab leakage
into the Rio Grande. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: conduct TRAC's first
in-depth study. 

TRAC reports its radiological results to mainstream media and
the public. TRAC collaborates with grassroots organizations to
educate and empower the American public. TRAC co-operates with
state agencies to foster regulatory oversight of federal nuclear
facilities. See About TRAC
[http://www.radioactivist.org/about.html] for an overview of
TRAC's outreach program
[http://www.radioactivist.org/outreach.html] and its field and
laboratory technology
[http://www.radioactivist.org/methods.html] . 

Funding: 

Please support TRAC’s first annual monitoring of the U.S.
nuclear weapons complex! Your tax-deductible contribution of
$25, $50, $100, $500, or $1,000 can help us protect your
community and environment from unreported radioactive releases.
Donate here. [http://www.radioactivist.org/support.html] Take an
even more active role in protecting your community by adopting a
project near your neighboring nuclear facility. Click here
[http://www.radioactivist.org/adopt.html] for more information
on how to “Adopt-a-Project.”   

The RadioActivist Campaign Address: 7312 N.E. North Shore Rd., 
Belfair, WA 98528 Phone: 360.275.1351 Director: Norm Buske, 
search@igc.org [search@igc.org] Outreach: Moon Callison, 
mooncal@tscnet.com [mooncal@tscnet.com] 
*****************************************************************
 39 KTVB: INL plans for more waste removal 

  KTVB.COM     
    
11:07 AM MST on Wednesday, March 9, 2005 

Associated Press 

TWIN FALLS -- The Department of Energy will increase cleanup
efforts at the Idaho National Laboratory. 

It's continuing accelerated cleanup projects on sites including
Pit four and Pit six at the Radioactive Waste Management
Complex. 

The department estimates that in the 1960s more than 21,000
drums of waste from Colorado was dumped in a combined half-acre
section of the two pits. 

Kathleen Trever is the state's oversight administrator at INL.
She says this second phase of the department's plan proposes to
remove enough waste to fill up to 10,000 drums. 

But the Snake River Alliance -- a nuclear watchdog group based
in Boise -- doesn't agree with DOE's selective cleaning
approach. 

Director Jeremy Maxand says it doesn't make sense to cherry-pick
waste and leave some behind. More headlines... 

*****************************************************************
 40 DOE: AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
                         FR Doc 05-4457 
[Federal Register: March 9, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 45)] 
[Notices] [Page 11626-11627] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr09mr05-62]
 
ACTION: Notice of meetings.
 
SUMMARY: The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International 
Energy Agency (IEA) will meet on March 16, 2005, at the 
headquarters of the IEA in Paris, France, in connection with a 
meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Samuel M. Bradley, Assistant 
General Counsel for International and National Security Programs, 
Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585, 202-586- 6738.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with section 
252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meeting 
is provided: A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to 
the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held at the 
headquarters of the IEA, 9, rue de la Federation, Paris, France, 
on March 16, 2005, beginning at 8:30 a.m. The purpose of this 
notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company 
members of the IAB at a meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on 
Emergency Questions (SEQ), which is scheduled to be held at the 
IEA on March 16, beginning at 9:30 a.m., including a preparatory 
encounter among company representatives from 8:30 a.m. to 9:15 
a.m. The agenda for the preparatory encounter is as follows: I. 
Welcome, Review of Agenda, and Introductions. II. Review of ERE 3 
Issues. --Regional Supply Disruptions.
 
--Market Understanding of Government Participants.
 
III. Discussion of Potential SEQ Activities. IV. Closing and 
Review of Meetings of Interest to IAB Members. --SEQ and IAB 
Meeting, June 21-22, 2005, Paris.
 
--SEQ and IAB Meeting, November 16-17, 2005, Paris (tentative).
 
The agenda for the SEQ meeting is under the control of the SEQ. 
It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda: 1. 
Adoption of the Agenda. 2. Approval of the Summary Record of the 
112th Meeting. 3. Program of Work. --Evaluation of EPPD 
Activities 2003-2004.
 
--Overview of Future Work in 2005.
 
4. Update on Compliance with IEP Stockholding Commitments. 
---Update on Compliance with IEP Stockholding Commitments.
 
--Analysis of the Reasons for Non-Compliance.
 
--Reports by Non-Complying Member Countries.
 
--Possible Measures to Assure Compliance with IEA Stockholding 
Commitments.
 
5. The Current Oil Market Situation and Emergency Preparedness. 
--Report on the New York Conference ``Oil Price Formation & 
Speculative Activity'', November 22-23, 2004, at NYMEX.
 
--Discussion of Present Oil Market and Emergency Preparedness.
 
6. Emergency Response Exercise 3. --Summary and Appraisal of the 
Third Emergency Response Training and Simulation Exercise.
 
7. Report on Current Activities of the IAB. 8. Policy and Other 
Developments in Member Countries. --Report on U.S. Symposium on 
Stockholding, November 30-December 2, 2004.
 
--Report on KKKSZ Conference on Extended EU-Extended Security, 
Budapest, November 3-5, 2004.
 
9. Emergency Response Review Program. --Emergency Response Review 
of Greece.
 
--Schedule of Emergency Response Reviews.
 
 
[[Page 11627]] --Questionnaire Response of the Netherlands.
 
10. Other Emergency Response Activities. --Report on MOS/JODI 
Meeting of Statisticians.
 
--Report on Workshop on Managing Oil Demand in Transport.
 
--Report on Advanced Oil and Gas Upstream Technologies--Possible 
Impact on Reserves.
 
--Progress on Project to Catalogue Member Country Emergency 
Legislation.
 
11. Activities with Non-Member Countries and International 
Organizations.
 
--Progress on IEA and EU Data Comparison.
 
12. Other Documents for Information. --Emergency Reserve 
Situation of IEA Member Countries on January 1, 2005.
 
--Emergency Reserve Situation of IEA Candidate Countries on 
January 1, 2005.
 
--Monthly Oil Statistics: December 2004.
 
--Base Period Final Consumption: 1Q 2004-4Q 2004.
 
--Quarterly Oil Forecast: 1Q 2005.
 
--Dispute Settlement Centre: Panel of Arbitrators.
 
--Update of Emergency Contacts List.
 
13. Other Business. --Preparations for the IEA Governing Board 
Meeting at the Ministerial Level, May 2-3, 2005.
 
--Dates of Next Meetings: June 21-22, 2005; November 16-17, 2005 
(tentative).
 
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and 
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meetings of 
the IAB are open to representatives of members of the IAB and 
their counsel; representatives of members of the IEA's Standing 
Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ); representatives of the 
Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade 
Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of 
Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission; and invitees of 
the IAB, the SEQ, or the IEA.
 
Issued in Washington, DC, March 3, 2005.
 
Diana D. Clark, Acting Assistant General Counsel for 
International and National Security Programs.
 
[FR Doc. 05-4457 Filed 3-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 41 [du-list] DU in the news - 10th March 05
 
Date: Wed, 09 Mar 2005 14:30:19 -0800

 
<x-flowed>

NEWS.com.au, Tue, 08 Mar 2005 1:36 PM PST
Australian troops may be exposed to uranium 
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,12489770-2,00.html
THE army is investigating the possibility that 450 Australian troops bound 
for Iraq could be exposed to toxic materials, including uranium.

Deutsche Welle, Tue, 08 Mar 2005 11:27 PM PST
After the War Comes Cancer 
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1510710,00.html
Information collected for a German project investigating the use of 
uranium-charged ammunition in Iraq shows that when Iraqi women fear for 
their children's health, it is with good reason.

Online Journal, Tue, 08 Mar 2005 7:35 PM PST
Senator Byrd is correct to equate Bush with Hitler 
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/030905Wasserman/030905wasserman.html
Adobe Acrobat Reader required. Click here to download a free copy. March 9, 
2005 ( Free Press ) The U.S. Senate's senior constitutional scholar has 
correctly equated Bush with Hitler, and the usual attack dogs are howling.

Baltimore Chronicle & Sentinel, Tue, 08 Mar 2005 3:32 PM PST
This President Is Right Indeed 
http://www.baltimorechronicle.com/030805Hussain.shtml
O n 20th January 2005, the President of United States of America, in his 
inaugural address, spoke to his people and the world. "Today, America 
speaks anew to the peoples of the world....At this second gathering, our 
duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen 
together.


   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************