***************************************************************** 04/11/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.82 ***************************************************************** 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 [NYTr] Ritter: Bolton vs IAEA - Courting Disaster in Iran 2 Al Jazeera: Iran: No giving up uranium enrichment - 3 US: [NukeNet] Kristof -- Nukes are Green 4 US: Stop the 'Nuclear Option' 5 Nuke Weapons/Nuke Power Presentation April 12 6 Washington Times: Nuke whistleblower faces new charges 7 US: Guardian Unlimited: Intelligence Chief Confirmation Expected NUCLEAR REACTORS 8 US: [NukeNet] Fwd: [UnplugSalem] Dr Harvin and Norm on radio tues 9 US: [NukeNet] NY TIMES Says Nuke Plants Are Green, DON'T Add To 10 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance at Cooper Nuclear Power Pla 11 Slovak news: Slovakia must decommission Bohunice's reactors in 2006 12 US: NRC: NRC Issues "Yellow" Finding at Palo Verde Nuclear Plant; Pr NUCLEAR SECURITY 13 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Makes New Pitch for N. Korea Talks 14 BBC: India foils uranium theft 'plot' 15 Korea Times: NK Assembly Avoids Talking About Nuclear Program 16 Asian Tribune: Nuclear experts lauds Pakistan’s non-proliferation co 17 Guardian Unlimited: North Korean Parliament Approves Budget NUCLEAR SAFETY 18 US: NICHOLS & ROKKE: URANIUM WEAPONS: Depleted Uranium - Air Force C 19 US: [du-list] Military pollution (including DU) by Lucinda Marshall 20 [du-list] AV:The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying 21 US: URANIUM WEAPONS: Depleted Uranium - Suppressed Reports and Veter 22 [du-list] "no exposure to DU in Iraq War" - The Union Leader 23 [du-list] du in the news 12th April 05 24 Mos News: Russia’s Oldest Nuclear Processing Plant Accused of Pollut 25 US: Beaver County Times Allegheny Times: Town meetings for energy wo 26 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes to Meet 27 US: DHHS: NIOSH: Board of Radiation and Worker Health NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 28 www.GovExec.com: Employees in Yucca Mountain e-mail scandal will not 29 US: DenverPost.com - EDITORIALS: A success story at Shattuck 30 US: DenverPost.com - EDITORIALS: Smart to move Moab wastes 31 US: Press-Telegram - Opinion: A toxic stockpile 32 Las Vegas SUN: Porter wants Yucca e-mailers to go public 33 C&EN: Yucca Mountain Data Under Fire 34 US: Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Notification bill is needed now 35 Salt Lake Tribune: Yucca woes no obstacle for PFS 36 Register-Guard: Trouble at Yucca: E-mails raise serious doubts about 37 US: Newsday.com: GAO: Nuclear plants need to keep better track of ra 38 US: NRC: Application for a License To Export Radioactive Waste PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 39 ABQJOURNAL: Sandia Lab Director Steps Down to Help Lockheed in LANL 40 McClatchy Newspapers: DOE wants to cut Hanford cleanup, watchdogs sa 41 DOE: DOE Response to Recommendation 2004-2 of the Defense Nuclear ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Ritter: Bolton vs IAEA - Courting Disaster in Iran Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:34:24 -0500 (CDT) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit sent by mart [The Israelis *may* be planning to attack Iran in June...unless it gets pre-empted by a US-staged "Colour Revolution" coup in Russia before then. Be ready for something, one way or the other, probably in May or June.-mart] Al Jazeera - Mar 30, 2005 http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1B5FCF4A-FBF6-443A-93A9-5E37C43FDE0B.htm Sleepwalking to Disaster in Iran by Scott Ritter Late last year, in the aftermath of the 2004 Presidential election, I was contacted by someone close to the Bush administration about the situation in Iraq. There was a growing concern inside the Bush administration, this source said, about the direction the occupation was going. The Bush administration was keen on achieving some semblance of stability in Iraq before June 2005, I was told. When I asked why that date, the source dropped the bombshell: because that was when the Pentagon was told to be prepared to launch a massive aerial attack against Iran, Iraq's neighbour to the east, in order to destroy the Iranian nuclear programme. Why June 2005?, I asked. "The Israelis are concerned that if the Iranians get their nuclear enrichment programme up and running, then there will be no way to stop the Iranians from getting a nuclear weapon. June 2005 is seen as the decisive date." To be clear, the source did not say that President Bush had approved plans to bomb Iran in June 2005, as has been widely reported. The president had reviewed plans being prepared by the Pentagon to have the military capability in place by June 2005 for such an attack, if the president ordered. But when Secretary of State Condi Rice told America's European allies in February 2005, in response to press reports about a pending June 2005 American attack against Iran, she said that "the question [of a military strike] is simply not on the agenda at this point - we have diplomatic means to do this". President Bush himself followed up on Rice's statement by stating that "this notion that the United States is getting ready to attack Iran is simply ridiculous". He quickly added: "Having said that, all options are on the table." In short, both the president and the secretary of state were being honest, and disingenuous, at the same time. Truth to be told, there is no American military strike on the agenda; that is, until June 2005. It was curious that no one in the American media took it upon themselves to confront the president or his secretary of state about the June 2005 date, or for that matter the October 2004 review by the president of military plans to attack Iran in June 2005. The American media today is sleepwalking towards an American war with Iran with all of the incompetence and lack of integrity that it displayed during a similar path trodden during the buildup to our current war with Iraq. On the surface, there is nothing extraordinary about the news that the president of the United States would order the Pentagon to be prepared to launch military strikes on Iran in June 2005. That Iran has been a target of the Bush administration's ideologues is no secret: the president himself placed Iran in the "axis of evil" back in 2002, and has said that the world would be a better place with the current Iranian government relegated to the trash bin of history. The Bush administration has also expressed its concern about Iran's nuclear programmes - concerns shared by Israel and the European Union, although to different degrees. In September 2004, Iran rejected the International Atomic Energy Agency's call for closing down its nuclear fuel production programme (which many in the United States and Israel believe to be linked to a covert nuclear weapons programme). Iran then test fired a ballistic missile with sufficient range to hit targets in Israel as well as US military installations in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. The Iranian response triggered a serious re-examination of policy by both Israel and the United States. The Israeli policy review was driven in part by the Iranian actions, and in part by Israel's own intelligence assessment regarding the Iranian nuclear programme, made in August 2004. This assessment held that Iran was "less than a year" away from completing its uranium enrichment programme. If Iran was allowed to reach this benchmark, the assessment went on to say, then it had reached the "point of no return" for a nuclear weapons programme. The date set for this "point of no return" was June 2005. Israel's Defence Minister, Shaul Mofaz, declared that "under no circumstances would Israel be able to tolerate nuclear weapons in Iranian possession". Since October 2003 Israel had a plan in place for a pre-emptive strike against Iran's major nuclear facilities, including the nuclear reactor facility in Busher (scheduled to become active in 2005). These plans were constantly being updated, something that did not escape the attention of the Bush White House. The Israeli policy toward Iran, when it comes to stopping the Iranian nuclear programme, has always been for the US to lead the way. "The way to stop Iran", a senior Israeli official has said, "is by the leadership of the US, supported by European countries and taking this issue to the UN, and using the diplomatic channel with sanctions as a tool and a very deep inspection regime and full transparency". It seems that Tel Aviv and Washington, DC aren't too far removed on their Iranian policy objectives, except that there is always the unspoken "twist": what if the United States does not fully support European diplomatic initiatives, has no interest in letting IAEA inspections work, and envisions UN sanctions as a permanent means of containment until regime change is accomplished in Tehran, as opposed to a tool designed to compel Iran to cooperate on eliminating its nuclear programme? Because the fact is, despite recent warm remarks by President Bush and Condi Rice, the US does not fully embrace the EU's Iran diplomacy, viewing it as a programme "doomed to fail". The IAEA has come out with an official report, after extensive inspections of declared Iranian nuclear facilities in November 2004, that says there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons programme; the Bush administration responded by trying to oust the IAEA's lead inspector, Muhammad al-Baradai. And the Bush administration's push for UN sanctions shows every intention of making such sanctions deep, painful and long-lasting.Curiously, the date for the Bush administration's move to call for UN sanctions against Iran is June 2005. According to a US position paper circulated in Vienna at the end of last month, the US will give the EU-Iran discussions until June 2005 to resolve the Iranian standoff. "Ultimately only the full cessation and dismantling of Iran's fissile material production efforts can give us any confidence that Iran has abandoned its nuclear weapons ambitions," the US draft position paper said. Iran has called such thinking "hallucinations" on the part of the Bush administration. Economic sanctions and military attacks are not one and the same. Unless, of course, the architect of America's Iran policy never intends to give sanctions a chance. Enter John Bolton, who, as the former US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security for the Bush administration, is responsible for drafting the current US policy towards Iran. In February 2004, Bolton threw down the gauntlet by stating that Iran had a "secret nuclear weapons programme" that was unknown to the IAEA. "There is no doubt that Iran has a secret nuclear weapons production programme," Bolton said, without providing any source to back up his assertions. This is the same John Bolton who had in the past accused Cuba of having an offensive biological weapons programme, a claim even Bush administration hardliners had to distance themselves from. John Bolton is the Bush official who declared the European Union's engagement with Iran "doomed to fail". He is the Bush administration official who led the charge to remove al-Baradai from the IAEA. And he is the one who, in drafting the US strategy to get the UN Security Council to impose economic sanctions against Iran, asked the Pentagon to be prepared to launch "robust" military attacks against Iran should the UN fail to agree on sanctions. Bolton understands better than most the slim chances any US-brokered sanctions regime against Iran has in getting through the Security Council. The main obstacle is Russia, a permanent member of the Security Council who not only possesses a veto, but also is Iran's main supporter (and supplier) when it comes to its nuclear power programme. Bolton has made a career out of alienating the Russians. He was one of the key figures who helped negotiate a May 2002 arms reduction treaty signed by Presidents George Bush and Vladimir Putin in Moscow. This treaty was designed to reduce the nuclear arsenals of both America and Russia by two-thirds over a 10 year period. But that treaty - to Russia's immense displeasure - now appears to have been made mute thanks to a Bolton-inspired legal loophole that the Bush administration had built into the treaty language. Bolton knows Russia will not go along with UN sanctions against Iran, which makes the military planning being conducted by the Pentagon all the more relevant. Bolton's nomination as the next US Ambassador to the United Nations is as curious as it is worrying. This is the man who, before a panel discussion sponsored by the World Federalist Association in 1994, said: "There is no such thing as the United Nations." For the United States to submit to the will of the Security Council, Bolton wrote in a 1999 Weekly Standard article, would mean that "its discretion in using force to advance its national interests is likely to be inhibited in the future." But Bolton doesn't let treaty obligations, such as those incurred by the United States when it signed and ratified the UN Charter, get in the way. "Treaties are law only for US domestic purposes", he wrote in a 17 November 1997 Wall Street Journal Op Ed. "In their international operation, treaties are simply political obligations." Bolton believes that Iran should be isolated by United Nations sanctions and, if Iran will not back down from its nuclear programme, confronted with the threat of military action. And as the Bush administration has noted in the past, particularly in the case of Iraq, such threat must be real and meaningful, and backed by the will and determination to use it. Bolton and others in the Bush administration contend that, despite the lack of proof, Iran's nuclear intentions are obvious. In response, the IAEA's al-Baradai has pointed out the lack of a "smoking gun" which would prove Iran's involvement in a nuclear weapons programme. "We are not God," he said. "We cannot read intentions." But, based upon history, precedent, and personalities, the intent of the United States regarding Iran is crystal clear: the Bush administration intends to bomb Iran. Whether this attack takes place in June 2005, when the Pentagon has been instructed to be ready, or at a later date, once all other preparations have been made, is really the only question that remains to be answered. That, and whether the journalists who populate the mainstream American media will continue to sleepwalk on their way to facilitating yet another disaster in the Middle East. [Scott Ritter is the former UN Chief Weapons Inspector in Iraq, 1991-1998 and author of Iraq Confidential: The Untold Story of America's Intelligence Conspiracy, published by IB.] The opinions expressed here are the author's and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position or have the endorsement of Aljazeera. * Search the NYTr Archives at: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your settings via the web, visit: http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================= NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us 339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org e-mail: nyt@blythe.org ================================================================= ***************************************************************** 2 Al Jazeera: Iran: No giving up uranium enrichment - 4/11/2005 10:00:00 AM GMT Asefi reiterated that uranium enrichment was Iran's legitimate right Despite current intensive talks with the European Union’s big-three, Britain, Germany, and France, Iran said on Sunday that it will never abandon uranium enrichment, according to a senior official. Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi affirmed that the Islamic Republic will never give up its right to carry out the process, however, he said he was hopeful about ongoing talks with the EU. Britain, France and Germany, have initiated nuclear talks with Tehran with the aim of persuading it scrap all activities related to uranium enrichment. Asefi reiterated that uranium enrichment was Iran's legitimate right, repeating comments made almost daily by Iranian officials. Speaking to a weekly news conference, Asefi said that "Iran will never give up its (uranium) enrichment activities". Washington claims that Iran is using civilian atomic power as guise for a weapons program. Iran, on the other hand, maintains that its nuclear program is peaceful, however, it agreed to suspend uranium enrichment during the talks with the EU, insisting that the freeze is temporary. "Iran’s uranium enrichment suspension is only for a short period of time, "Asefi said. "It will be until reaching an agreement with the EU." Germany, France and Britain threaten to join the U.S. in referring Iran’s nuclear file to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions if Tehran refused to suspend uranium enrichment. Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has announced earlier that the two sides have made significant progress in this regard. Giving his own assessment of the last month talks, Foreign Ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi described them as 'good', stressing that 'although cautionary, the last round of the negotiations has been a step forward'. "The prospects of the negotiations are more positive than the past and we hope we will take an unreserved positive step in the next meeting," he told reporters. "Today, almost a majority of the European countries have recognized Iran's right to having peaceful nuclear technology and the only issue is definite guarantees, on which we will reach a conclusion in the next negotiations," he said. However, he refused to provide any details of a plan offered by Iran as part of the country's proposal to reach breakthrough in the standoff. "Any plan offered by Iran is based on the principle that we never give up uranium enrichment and that the suspension of enrichment is temporary and voluntary," he stressed. Copyright 2005 Al Jazeera Publishing Limited ***************************************************************** 3 [NukeNet] Kristof -- Nukes are Green Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:31:48 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) In addition to singling out and picking on a dead anti-nuclear advocate instead of the many committed living ones who could respond, Kristof perpetuates a whole bunch of myths that need to be challenged by all of us who are environmentalists: 1) That we must accept that energy consumption has to increase at anything close to the rates projected by the International Energy Agency or any of the other Energy Agencies that have gotten us in the mess we are in. 2) That nukes are basically safe, except for a few unfortunate incidents and, oh yeah, this little matter of the waste. 3) That nukes are becoming economic&(although they might be, if they receive all the subsidies and policy support recommended by the National Commission on Energy Policy. The $200/ton carbon tax, mentioned in Kristofs piece would make some combination of solar, wind, biomass and efficiency look pretty good economically too. 4) That environmentalists support it. I am unaware of any membership environmental organization (except for Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy) that supports nuclear power as a solution to environmental problems. Kristof cites the National Commission on Energy Policys findings evidence that environmentalists are coming around to support nuclear power. To the extent that the NCEP report got any kind words from the enviros, it was only because it succeeded in getting some former climate skeptics to formally acknowledge that global warming is a problem that we need to address. Most of the key findings, particularly the recommendations calling for nukes to be on equal footing with renewables for support from the production tax credits and RPS-like policies, were universally opposed by the environmental organizations. We need to shut down the growing drumbeat suggesting that true environmentalists need to have the fortitude to accept nuclear power as a solution to global warming. Instead, we need the fortitude to demand that energy consumption level off at close to current levels through combination conservation, efficiency and fuel economy. And, we need to have the courage of our convictions to fight for a shift toward wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, tidal and anything but nuclear. And, we need to begin campaigning against nuclear power because it is risky, polluting (if not global warming), generates some of the most persistent, toxic waste known to humankind and increases the likelihood that dangerous nuclear material will get into the wrong hands. If we dont&I will begin to buy the argument that environmentalism is dead. Nukes Are Green By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF image0016.gif Published: April 9, 2005 image0026.giff there was one thing that used to be crystal clear to any environmentalist, it was that nuclear energy was the deadliest threat this planet faced. That's why Dick Gregory pledged at a huge anti-nuke demonstration in 1979 that he would eat no solid food until all nuclear plants in the U.S. were shut down. Mr. Gregory may be getting hungry. But it's time for the rest of us to drop that hostility to nuclear power. It's increasingly clear that the biggest environmental threat we face is actually global warming, and that leads to a corollary: nuclear energy is green. Nuclear power, in contrast with other sources, produces no greenhouse gases. So President Bush's overall environmental policy gives me the shivers, but he's right to push ahead for nuclear energy. There haven't been any successful orders for new nuclear plants since 1973, but several proposals for new plants are now moving ahead - and that's good for the world we live in. Global energy demand will rise 60 percent over the next 25 years, according to the International Energy Agency, and nuclear power is the cleanest and best bet to fill that gap. Solar power is a disappointment, still accounting for only about one-fifth of 1 percent of the nation's electricity and costing about five times as much as other sources. Wind is promising, for its costs have fallen 80 percent, but it suffers from one big problem: wind doesn't blow all the time. It's difficult to rely upon a source that comes and goes. In contrast, nuclear energy already makes up 20 percent of America's power, not to mention 75 percent of France's. A sensible energy plan must encourage conservation - far more than Mr. Bush's plans do - and promote things like hybrid vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells. But for now, nuclear power is the only source that doesn't contribute to global warming and that can quickly become a mainstay of the grid. Is it safe? No, not entirely. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl demonstrated that, and there are also risks from terrorist attacks. Then again, the world now has a half-century of experience with nuclear power plants, 440 of them around the world, and they have proved safer so far than the alternatives. America's biggest power source is now coal, which kills about 25,000 people a year through soot in the air. To put it another way, nuclear energy seems much safer than our dependency on coal, which kills more than 60 people every day. Moreover, nuclear technology has become far safer over the years. The future may belong to pebble-bed reactors, a new design that promises to be both highly efficient and incapable of a meltdown. Radioactive wastes are a challenge. But burdening future generations with nuclear wastes in deep shafts is probably more reasonable than burdening them with a warmer world in which Manhattan is submerged under 20 feet of water. Right now, the only significant source of electricity in the U.S. that does not involve carbon emissions is hydropower. But salmon runs have declined so much that we should be ripping out dams, not adding more. What killed nuclear power in the past was cold economics. Major studies at M.I.T. and elsewhere show that nuclear power is still a bit more expensive than new coal or natural gas plants, but in the same ballpark if fossil fuel prices rise. And if a $200-per-ton tax was imposed on carbon emissions, nuclear energy would become cheaper than coal from new plants. So it's time to welcome nuclear energy as green (though not to subsidize it with direct handouts, as the nuclear industry would like). Indeed, some environmentalists are already climbing onboard. For example, the National Commission on Energy Policy, a privately financed effort involving environmentalists, academics and industry representatives, issued a report in December that favors new nuclear plants. One of the most eloquent advocates of nuclear energy is James Lovelock, the British scientist who created the Gaia hypothesis, which holds that Earth is, in effect, a self-regulating organism. "I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy," Mr. Lovelock wrote last year, adding: "Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendents. ... Only one immediately available source does not cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy." Rob Sargent Senior Energy Policy Analyst National Association of State PIRGs & affiliated organizations 44 Winter Street Boston, MA 02108 P: 617-747-4317 F: 617-292-8057 C: 617-312-7546 rsargent@pirg.org www.pirg.org ***************************************************************** 4 Stop the 'Nuclear Option' Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 19:00:41 GMT Republican leaders in the Senate want to end 200 years of checks and balances to gain absolute power. If they succeed, they will end our right to challenge and defeat dangerous candidates for federal judgeships. Working families’ legal rights are at stake. Act now to stop this win-at-all-costs attack on democracy. Top Republican leaders on Capitol Hill are about to wage an unprecedented war on a critically important part of our democracy: the right to filibuster and defeat extremist federal judicial nominees. We have to act now to stop this win-at-all-costs attack on democracy and our right to challenge dangerous judicial nominees. Please take a moment now to contact your senators and tell them to preserve the right to filibuster judicial nominees. The Republican plan to deny the right to filibuster their candidates for federal judgeships is so explosive it's being called "the nuclear option." They are embarking on an end-run around democracy, Senate rules and 200 years of Senate tradition. And if they win, President George W. Bush and Senate Republicans will have unchecked power to pack our federal courts with extremist nominees - people like: Janice Rogers Brown, who calls Social Security "cannibalization" by senior citizens. Texas Supreme Court Justice Priscilla Owen, whose record shows she is plain hostile to the interests of working people. William Myers, whose attacks on environmental laws and sacred lands have earned unprecedented opposition from environmentalists, American Indians and others. Terrence Boyle, who has been reversed more than 150 times and whose civil rights decisions are extremely problematic. These are not the kinds of people we want making decisions that shape the rights of working families. Please act now to preserve democracy and the ability to challenge and stop extremist nominees to federal courts. Click this link: Senators always have been able to challenge judicial nominees by using the filibuster. But Republican senators want to change that now so they can rubber-stamp President Bush's extremist nominees to federal courts. They accuse Democrats of standing in the way of filling court vacancies—but here's what they don't want you to know: Democrats have blocked only 10 of President Bush's judicial nominees with a filibuster - and those nominees were real gems with troubling records and questionable credentials. Republicans, in contrast, used various tactics to block more than 60 of President Clinton’s judicial nominees. We need to tell our senators the filibuster is not the problem—attempts by the White House and its Senate allies to pack the federal courts with anti-worker, anti-rights judges are the problem. Please click the following link to take action: Once you have contacted your senators, please click the following link to urge others you know who are concerned about our rights to send their senators a message, too: Thank you for taking action today for working families. Working Families e-Activist Network, AFL-CIOApril 11, 2005 www.unionvoice.org ***************************************************************** 5 Nuke Weapons/Nuke Power Presentation April 12 Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:40:56 -0400 The IAEA's mandate: "To accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world" and, somehow at the same time, "establish and administer safeguards against the diversion of military purposes of nuclear materials intended for use in civil nuclear programs; and to establish or adopt health and safety standards." From its outset, the IAEA has been run by atomic zealots. Its first director general was Sterling Cole who as a U.S. congressman was an original member and then chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, as extreme in its promotion of nuclear technology as the AEC­and also ultimately eliminated by Congress. Selma Brackman's War & Peace Foundation has wisely proposed that the IAEA be replaced with a World Sustainable Energy Agency. Individual governments and the UN can - and must - implement the wide use of non-lethal, renewable, safe energy technologies available now as an alternative to deadly, unnecessary nuclear power. Meanwhile, real nuclear non-proliferation, as Amory and Hunter Lovins stated, requires "civil denuclearization"­as daunting as that may be. April 12, 2005 Presentation: Karl Grossman Professor, State University of New York/College at Old Westbury Nuclear Abolition - Prospects and Initiatives Graduate Center, The City University of New York April 12, 2005 The key problem concerning the effort to abolish nuclear weapons is that it does not go far enough. The only true way to end the threat of nuclear weapons spreading throughout this world is to also put a stop to nuclear power. Radical? Yes, but consider the even more radical alternative: a world in which scores of nations can construct nuclear weaponry because they possess nuclear power technology. There are major parts of the earth - Africa, South America, the South Pacific, and others - that have now been designated nuclear-free zones. I submit that if we are really to have a world free of the horrific threat of nuclear weapons and their use, our long-term goal need be the designation of this entire planet as a nuclear-free zone - no nuclear weapons, no nuclear power (the other side of the same coin). Radical? Yes, but consider the alternative - trying to keep using carrots and sticks, juggling on the road to inevitable nuclear disaster. That may or may not occur this decade or next but sooner or later, as nuclear power continues to spread, it will. A nuclear-free world is the only way, I believe, that humanity will be free of the dark specter of nuclear warfare. Some will say putting the atomic genie back into the bottle is impossible. I say anything people have done, other people can undo. Especially if the reason is good. And the prospect of massive loss of life from nuclear destruction is the best of reasons. "All nuclear fission technologies both use and produce fissionable materials that are or can be concentrated," Amory and Hunter Lovins wrote in their seminal book, Energy/War: Breaking the Nuclear Link. "Unavoidably latent in those technologies, therefore, is a potential for nuclear violence and coercion which may be exploited by governments, factions"­and this they wrote in 1980 decades before 9/11­or "terrorist groups." "Little strategic material is needed to make a weapon of mass destruction," they went on. "A Nagasaki-yield bomb can be made from a few kilograms of plutonium, a piece the size of a tennis ball." "A large power reactor," they noted, "annually produces, and an experimental critical assembly may contain, hundreds of kilograms of plutonium; a large fast breeder reactor would contain thousands of kilograms; a large reprocessing plant may separate tens of thousands." Civilian nuclear power technology, they stated, provides the way to make nuclear weapons - furnishing the materiel and trained personnel. Indeed, that's how India got The Bomb in 1974. Canada supplied a reactor for "peaceful purposes" and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission trained Indian engineers. And lo and behold, India had nuclear weapons. "Separation of plutonium from spent fuel preceded and facilitated the British, French and Indian decisions to build bombs," write Amory and Hunter Lovins. "Nuclear power," they noted, "provided the essential expeditor, and in many cases the necessary cover." z The myth of the "Peaceful Atom" is just that. Important to any dream of creating a nuclear-free world is the elimination of the International Atomic Energy Agency - the global nuclear-pusher. The IAEA was formed as a result of U.S. President Dwight Eisenhower's 1953 "Atoms for Peace" speech before the UN General Assembly. Eisenhower proposed the creation of an international agency to promote civilian applications of atomic energy and, somehow at the same time, control the use of fissionable material - a dual role paralleling that of the then U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. In 1974, the AEC was abolished after the U.S. Congress concluded that, in theory and practice, it was in conflict of interest. Its mission was so involved with promoting nuclear energy that it was no monitor, Congress decided. But the IAEA - in the AEC's image - remains with us. The IAEA's mandate: "To accelerate and enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to peace, health and prosperity throughout the world" and, somehow at the same time, "establish and administer safeguards against the diversion of military purposes of nuclear materials intended for use in civil nuclear programs; and to establish or adopt health and safety standards." From its outset, the IAEA has been run by atomic zealots. z Its first director general was Sterling Cole who as a U.S. congressman was an original member and then chairman of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, as extreme in its promotion of nuclear technology as the AEC­and also ultimately eliminated by Congress. Later, Hans Blix became IAEA director general - after, his official IAEA biography stresses, he led the move against the effort to close nuclear power plants in his native Sweden. Blix was outspoken in insisting nuclear technology be spread throughout the world - calling for "resolute response by government, acting individually or together as in the [IAE] Agency." Blix's long-time second-in command: Morris Rosen - formerly of the AEC and before that the nuclear division of General Electric. After the Chernobyl nuclear plant disaster, Rosen rendered this sage advice: "There is very little doubt that nuclear power is a rather benign industrial enterprise and we may have to expect catastrophic accidents from time to time." Rosen is currently the IAEA's coordinator for environmental matters. As for the current IAEA director general, Mohamed ElBaradei, he too, is a great nuclear booster. "There is clearly a sense of rising expectations for nuclear power," he told a gathering in Paris last month organized by the IAEA and entitled "International Conference on Nuclear Power for the 2lst Century." z And the IAEA has been doing everything it can to fuel those expectations - scandalously downplaying the public health consequences of nuclear accidents including the Chernobyl tragedy, promoting all sorts of technology atomic and, with its nearly $300 million budget, encouraging the spread of nuclear power machinery around the globe. Selma Brackman's War & Peace Foundation has wisely proposed that the IAEA be replaced with a World Sustainable Energy Agency. Individual governments and the UN can - and must - implement the wide use of non-lethal, renewable, safe energy technologies available now as an alternative to deadly, unnecessary nuclear power. Meanwhile, real nuclear non-proliferation, as Amory and Hunter Lovins stated, requires "civil denuclearization"­as daunting as that may be. Even Admiral Hyman Rickover, the "father" of the U.S. nuclear navy and manager of the construction of the first commercial nuclear plant in the world, in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in the end came to the conclusion that the world must - in his words - "outlaw nuclear reactors." Rickover in a farewell address told a committee of Congress in 1982: "I'll be philosophical. Until about two billion years ago, it was impossible to have any life on earth: that is, there was so much radiation on earth you couldn't have any life - fish or anything. Gradually, about two billion years ago, the amount of radiation on this planet and probably in the entire system reduced and made it possible for some for some form of life to begin." "Now," Rickover went on, "when we go back to using nuclear power, we are creating something which nature tried to destroy to make life possible.Every time you produce radiation, you produce something that has life, in some cases for billions of years, and I think there the human race is going to wreck itself, and it's far more important that we get control of this horrible force and try to eliminate it." As for nuclear weaponry, the "lesson of history," said the retiring admiral, is that in war nations "will use" whatever weaponry they have. Nuclear power can give any nation nuclear weaponry. By moving forward with a commitment and goal of eliminating nuclear weapons and nuclear power, humanity can be spared the threat of nuclear war. Anything else would be, unfortunately, incomplete and inadequate in the long run. The U.S., which uncorked this lethal technology, should serve as a model and lead in eliminating the twin scourges. An impossible dream? No, considering the probable nightmare otherwise as the continued spread of nuclear power causes the proliferation of nuclear weaponry - and its use inevitably by "governments, factions, terrorist groups." *** Karl Grossman is professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury and coordinator of the college's Media & Communications Program. A special concentration for decades has been nuclear technology. Among the six books Grossman has authored are: Cover Up: What You Are Not Supposed To Know About Nuclear Power; The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program's Nuclear Threat To Our Planet; Power Crazy; and Weapons in Space. He has given presentations around the world. Grossman also has long been active in television. He narrated and wrote the award-winning documentaries The Push To Revive Nuclear Power; Nukes In Space: The Nuclearization and Weaponization of the Heavens; and Three Mile Island Revisited, all produced by EnviroVideo. For the past 14 years, he has hosted Enviro Close-Up, an interview program aired through North America on the DISH satellite network (Channel 9415), on cable and commercial TV and now video-streamed on the Internet, too. His magazine and newspaper articles have appeared in numerous publications. Grossman is a charter member of the Commission on Disarmament Education, Conflict Resolution and Peace of the International Association of University Presidents and the United Nations. He is a member of the boards of the Nuclear Information and Resource Service-World Information Service on Energy and the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting. He can be reached by e-mail at kgrossman@hamptons.com. His home address is: Box 1680, Sag Harbor, New York, 11963. His telephone number is (631) 725-2858. ***************************************************************** 6 Washington Times: Nuke whistleblower faces new charges World - April 11, 2005 TEL AVIV -- Mordechai Vanunu, the Israeli nuclear whistleblower who spent more than 17 years in jail, faces new criminal charges for violating a military-imposed gag order prohibiting him from speaking to foreigners. Mr. Vanunu, who was convicted in a closed-door trial after sharing top-secret information about the nuclear reactor in Dimona with the London Sunday Times, will appear tomorrow in a Jerusalem magistrate court for a preliminary hearing on the indictment. If he is found guilty, he faces another prison term, but a defense lawyer said it is unlikely the court would impose such a severe punishment. ***************************************************************** 7 Guardian Unlimited: Intelligence Chief Confirmation Expected From the Associated Press [UP] Monday April 11, 2005 11:01 PM By KATHERINE SHRADER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - John Negroponte, President Bush's choice to fill the newly created position of national intelligence director, is expected to win easy confirmation for a job that many agree will be exceptionally hard. Significant doubts remain about whether the former U.S. ambassador to Iraq, whose Senate confirmation hearing is set for Tuesday, will have adequate authority to rein in the 15 intelligence agencies trained in eavesdropping, code breaking and old-fashioned spying. Most are used to calling their own shots. Given ambiguities in the law that created the post last year, a consensus is emerging that Negroponte's potency may come from his own success in tapping the broad authorities granted to him. He also will have to cope with strong personalities, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, underscoring how important it will be for the White House to stand behind him. ``He will only be as successful as the president is in backing him up,'' said West Virginia Sen. Jay Rockefeller, the top Democrat on the intelligence committee, which is holding the hearing. Case in point: Congress decided that Negroponte will handle all aspects of strategic foreign intelligence, but the Pentagon will still handle decisions and spending related to military missions. Negroponte is expected to have opportunities to assert himself. Situations may arise in which a spy system is collecting intelligence for active military operations but Negroponte wants it for a longer-term strategic mission, such as snooping on an adversary's nuclear site. Former CIA Director James Woolsey said Negroponte's job will often require saying what no one wants to hear, akin to ``a skunk at the garden party.'' Woolsey believes asserting control will be a continuing effort, as agencies find ways to protect their money and avoid the intelligence director's control. The director ``needs enough authority that he can make things happen, but not so much that he gets into the micromanagement of each agency,'' Woolsey said. The concept of creating an intelligence chief with expanded powers to control the budgets and activities of U.S. spy agencies became a reality after the Sept. 11 Commission's recommendation last summer. Congress quickly took action, under the white-hot glare of the 2004 elections and a lobbying campaign from people who lost loved ones in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Certain ambiguities became a necessity to get the sweeping intelligence-reform law done. A recent presidential commission investigating intelligence shortfalls advised giving the director powers to match his responsibilities, warning that the CIA and Defense Department agencies are among the ``most headstrong'' in government. A career diplomat, Negroponte has been seeking advice from many. This month, he and his deputy-nominee, National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden, have met with lawmakers and senior intelligence leaders about their new offices. Some words of wisdom conflict. In interviews, Rockefeller said Negroponte does not need to make ``a big splash'' immediately because his personality doesn't require it. Yet California Rep. Jane Harman, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said Negroponte has six months to succeed before the ``turf protectors'' destroy his momentum. She believes he needs a decisive win in a turf battle - early. She wants to see strong leadership. ``I am worried about a very good work force finally giving up,'' Harman said. Senate Intelligence Chairman Pat Roberts, R-Kan., said some of his concerns were laid to rest when the president announced the Negroponte selection, making clear Negroponte ``would be his No. 1 point person on intelligence.'' Yet changes to the director's powers are already under consideration, even as House and Senate intelligence leaders agree Negroponte needs to get into the job first. While most of Tuesday's hearing is expected to look ahead, some attention may be devoted to Negroponte's record as ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985. Human rights advocates continue to question his knowledge of killings and kidnappings during his tour of duty. The issue held up his 2001 nomination to be United Nations ambassador for half a year. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 8 [NukeNet] Fwd: [UnplugSalem] Dr Harvin and Norm on radio tues Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:31:39 -0700 We'll be on WSNJ-AM 1240/1440 from 9:05 am to 10:00 Am on Tuesday. you can listen in at: http://www.wsnjam.com/ WSNJ is available in Cumberland and Salem counties, and parts of Cape May, and Atlantic. Phone numbers for listeners to call in are: 856-451-2931/2932 We'll be discussing NRC's bogus decision clearing PSEG of wrong-doing in Dr Harvin's case, and also the continuing saga of Hope Creek. On Weds, we'll be on the Don Williams Show, WOND 1400/1580, from 8:35 AM for 15 or 20 minutes. WOND is not available on the internet; it broadcasts thruout South Jersey on the AM band. Call in numbers: Atlantic City 609-927-1100 | Cape May 609-390-8300 | Hammonton 609-567-5656 |Ocean County 609-597-0914 | #1400 on your Verizon or Cingular Wireless Phone. Thanks Norm Coalition for Peace and Justice UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982 ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org "A time comes when silence is betrayal. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government's policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought, within one's own bosom and in the surrounding world." - Martin Luther King Jr. ***************************************************************** 9 [NukeNet] NY TIMES Says Nuke Plants Are Green, DON'T Add To Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:31:41 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Nicholas Kristof of the NYTimes wrote: > But for now, nuclear power is the only source that doesn't contribute to global warming For those of you that may want to contact Mr. Kristof to rebut his line that NPPs don't add to global warming he can be reached at: E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com And via phone at: 212-556-1234. Dr. Helen Caldicott's article from several months ago rebutting this line appears below Mr. Kristof's article. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/09/opinion/09kristof.html?hp OP-ED COLUMNIST Nukes Are Green By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF Published: April 9, 2005 Forum: Join a Discussion on Nicholas D. Kristof's Columns 1. Op-Ed Contributor: One Hundred Years of Uncertainty 2. Op-Ed Contributor: Our Near-Death Experience 3. The Man Date 4. Op-Ed Columnist: Nukes Are Green 5. Op-Ed Columnist: Reining In the G.O.P.'s Parade Go to Complete List f there was one thing that used to be crystal clear to any environmentalist, it was that nuclear energy was the deadliest threat this planet faced. That's why Dick Gregory pledged at a huge anti-nuke demonstration in 1979 that he would eat no solid food until all nuclear plants in the U.S. were shut down. z Mr. Gregory may be getting hungry. But it's time for the rest of us to drop that hostility to nuclear power. It's increasingly clear that the biggest environmental threat we face is actually global warming, and that leads to a corollary: nuclear energy is green. Nuclear power, in contrast with other sources, produces no greenhouse gases. So President Bush's overall environmental policy gives me the shivers, but he's right to push ahead for nuclear energy. There haven't been any successful orders for new nuclear plants since 1973, but several proposals for new plants are now moving ahead - and that's good for the world we live in. Global energy demand will rise 60 percent over the next 25 years, according to the International Energy Agency, and nuclear power is the cleanest and best bet to fill that gap. Solar power is a disappointment, still accounting for only about one-fifth of 1 percent of the nation's electricity and costing about five times as much as other sources. Wind is promising, for its costs have fallen 80 percent, but it suffers from one big problem: wind doesn't blow all the time. It's difficult to rely upon a source that comes and goes. In contrast, nuclear energy already makes up 20 percent of America's power, not to mention 75 percent of France's. z A sensible energy plan must encourage conservation - far more than Mr. Bush's plans do - and promote things like hybrid vehicles and hydrogen fuel cells. But for now, nuclear power is the only source that doesn't contribute to global warming and that can quickly become a mainstay of the grid. Is it safe? No, not entirely. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl demonstrated that, and there are also risks from terrorist attacks. Then again, the world now has a half-century of experience with nuclear power plants, 440 of them around the world, and they have proved safer so far than the alternatives. America's biggest power source is now coal, which kills about 25,000 people a year through soot in the air. To put it another way, nuclear energy seems much safer than our dependency on coal, which kills more than 60 people every day. Moreover, nuclear technology has become far safer over the years. The future may belong to pebble-bed reactors, a new design that promises to be both highly efficient and incapable of a meltdown. zRadioactive wastes are a challenge. But burdening future generations with nuclear wastes in deep shafts is probably more reasonable than burdening them with a warmer world in which Manhattan is submerged under 20 feet of water. Right now, the only significant source of electricity in the U.S. that does not involve carbon emissions is hydropower. But salmon runs have declined so much that we should be ripping out dams, not adding more. What killed nuclear power in the past was cold economics. Major studies at M.I.T. and elsewhere show that nuclear power is still a bit more expensive than new coal or natural gas plants, but in the same ballpark if fossil fuel prices rise. And if a $200-per-ton tax was imposed on carbon emissions, nuclear energy would become cheaper than coal from new plants. So it's time to welcome nuclear energy as green (though not to subsidize it with direct handouts, as the nuclear industry would like). Indeed, some environmentalists are already climbing onboard. For example, the National Commission on Energy Policy, a privately financed effort involving environmentalists, academics and industry representatives, issued a report in December that favors new nuclear plants. One of the most eloquent advocates of nuclear energy is James Lovelock, the British scientist who created the Gaia hypothesis, which holds that Earth is, in effect, a self-regulating organism. "I am a Green, and I entreat my friends in the movement to drop their wrongheaded objection to nuclear energy," Mr. Lovelock wrote last year, adding: "Every year that we continue burning carbon makes it worse for our descendents. ... Only one immediately available source does not cause global warming, and that is nuclear energy." E-mail: nicholas@nytimes.com Dr. Helen Caldicott wrote: Dear Friends of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, We are thrilled to announce that an op-ed written by Dr. Helen Caldicott was published in the Baltimore Sun today. The piece, entitled "Nuclear power still a deadly proposition," is printed in its entirety below. In the opinion piece, Helen debunks the myths that nuclear power is "clean and green" and raises the real environmental concerns behind the current use of nuclear power and behind the new interest in nuclear power for the future. This article highlights just a few of the reasons that we are holding our fall symposium, titled, Nuclear Power and Children's Health, in Chicago on October 15th and 16th. We hope that you will join us for this important meeting. For registration information, go to http://www.nuclearpolicy.org/conferences.cfm. Enjoy reading the article and, when you are done, please pass it on to other people like you who are interested in learning more about nuclear power and the important work of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute. By sharing this article and Helen's work, you are helping create a consensus for a nuclear-free future. Thanks for your continued support! -The NPRI team (Helen, Julie, Megan, Regina, Rupali, Jessica, and Crystal) Nuclear power still a deadly proposition By Helen Caldicott Originally published August 17, 2004 in The Baltimore Sun WHILE VICE PRESIDENT Dick Cheney is actively promoting nuclear power as a significant plank in his energy plan, he claims that nuclear power is "a safe, clean and very plentiful energy source." The Nuclear Energy Institute, the policy organization of the nuclear energy and technologies industries, is currently running an energetic campaign for the revivification of nuclear power. Ubiquitous TV and radio ads carry the admonition that "Kids today are part of the most energy-intensive generation in history. They demand lots of clean electricity. And they deserve clean air." Also, a consortium of 10 U.S. utilities has requested funding from the federal government for the construction of new reactors based on a European design, and they hope to receive government approval by 2010. This is a major policy change since no new nuclear reactors have been ordered in the United States since 1974. Nevertheless, the claims of the Mr. Cheney and the nuclear industry are false. According to data from the U.S. Energy Department (DOE), the production of nuclear power significantly contributes both to global warming and ozone depletion. The enrichment of uranium fuel for nuclear power uses 93 percent of the refrigerant chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) gas made annually in the United States. The global production of CFC is banned under the Montreal Protocol because it is a potent destroyer of ozone in the stratosphere, which protects us from the carcinogenic effects of solar ultraviolet light. The ozone layer is now so thin that the population in Australia is currently experiencing one of the highest incidences of skin cancer in the world. CFC compounds are also potent global warming agents 10,000 to 20,000 times more efficient heat trappers than carbon dioxide, which itself is responsible for 50 percent of the global warming phenomenon. But nuclear power also contributes significantly to global carbon dioxide production. Huge quantities of fossil fuel are expended for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle -- to mine, mill and enrich the uranium fuel and to construct the massive nuclear reactor buildings and their cooling towers. Uranium enrichment is a particularly energy intensive process which uses electricity generated from huge coal-fired plants. Estimates of carbon dioxide production related to nuclear power are available from DOE for the "front end" of the nuclear fuel cycle, but prospective estimates for the "back end" of the cycle have yet to be calculated. Tens of thousands of tons of intensely hot radioactive fuel rods must continuously be cooled for decades in large pools of circulating water and these rods must then be carefully transported by road and rail and isolated from the environment in remote storage facilities in the United States. The radioactive reactor building must also be decommissioned after 40 years of operation, taken apart by remote control and similarly transported long distances and stored. Fully 95 percent of U.S. high level waste -- waste that is intensely radioactive -- has been generated by nuclear power thus far. This nuclear waste must then be guarded, protected and isolated from the environment for tens of thousands of years -- a physical and scientific impossibility. Biologically dangerous radioactive elements such as strontium 90, cesium 137 and plutonium will seep and leak into the water tables and become very concentrated in food chains for the rest of time, inevitably increasing the incidence of childhood cancer, genetic diseases and congenital malformations for this and future generations. Conclusion: Nuclear power is neither clean, green nor safe. It is the most biologically dangerous method to boil water to generate steam for the production of electricity. zz Helen Caldicott, a pediatrician, is president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and author of The New Nuclear Danger, George Bush's Military Industrial Complex (The New Press). She lives near Sydney, Australia. _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 10 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance at Cooper Nuclear Power Plant News Release - Region IV - 2005-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-05-011 April 8, 2005 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: REVISED FOR INSPECTION CLARIFICATION The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with representatives of Nebraska Public Power District on April 13 to discuss the results of the agencys assessment of safety performance at the Cooper Nuclear Station during 2004. The plant is located near Brownville, Neb. The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at the Brownville Concert Hall, located at Atlantic Avenue and Second Street. Before the session is adjourned, members of the NRC staff will be available to answer questions from the public on the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe operation of the facility. "Each year the NRC staff evaluates the performance of each of the nations commercial nuclear plants," said Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallett. "This meeting gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the district, local officials and residents near the plant. We want to make this information available to the public and answer any questions people may have about the plant." Overall, Cooper operated safely during the period reviewed. However, the NRC said Cooper will receive additional regulatory oversight, beyond the baseline or "normal" level of inspection, during 2005 due to a finding of low to moderate safety significance involving operator requalification written examination failures. The NRC will perform focused inspections under the baseline inspection program to address human performance and problem identification and resolution program deficiencies. A letter sent from the NRC Region IV office in Arlington, Tex., to plant officials will serve as the basis for the meeting. It is available from the NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/cns_2004q4.pdf. Routine inspections are performed by the NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the Region IV office and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Current information for Cooper is available on the NRC web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CNS/cns_chart.html. Last revised Monday, April 11, 2005 ***************************************************************** 11 Slovak news: Slovakia must decommission Bohunice's reactors in 2006 and 2008 Slovakia's English language newspaper April 11 - April 17, 2005, Volume 11, Number 14 SLOVAKIA must decommission two ageing nuclear reactors in Jaslovské Bohunice (Trnava region) by 2006-end and 2008-end, in accordance with the European Union (EU) accession agreement, European Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs told Slovak Economy Mister Pavol Rusko at an April 8 meeting in Brussels, the TASR news agency reported. Rusko failed to persuade the EU to agree with his plan for simultaneous decommissioning of the plant's two reactors in 2008. Rusko says Slovakia will now focus on obtaining more financial assistance from Brussels for the decommissioning. Last year the European Commission proposed €237 million (Sk9.21 billion) over the 2007 to 13 period to decommission Bohunice. Slovak officials, however, find the sum too little and want it increased. EU members have yet to reach agreement on the financing. Compiled by Marta Ďurianová from press reports The Slovak Spectator cannot vouch for the accuracy of the information presented in its Flash News postings. [4/11/2005 11:16:41 AM] Copyright © 1998-2003 The Rock spol. s r.o. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 12 NRC: NRC Issues "Yellow" Finding at Palo Verde Nuclear Plant; Proposes $50,000 Fine News Release - Region IV - 2005-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-05-012 April 11, 2005 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has determined that an inspection finding at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station regarding air trapped in portions of its emergency core cooling system is of "yellow" or of substantial safety significance that will result in additional NRC inspections and potentially other NRC action. The facility is operated by Arizona Public Service Co., near Wintersburg, Ariz. The NRC staff has also proposed a $50,000 civil penalty against the company for a related failure to perform a written safety evaluation and receive prior NRC approval before making a change to procedures for maintaining the emergency core cooling system. NRC conducted a special inspection last summer after operators discovered air trapped in a section of piping that NRC staff believes could interfere with the performance of pumps needed to supply water for emergency core cooling and containment spray during some accident conditions. Under the NRCs reactor oversight process, inspection findings are evaluated under a significance determination process and assigned a color that indicates its safety significance. Findings with very low safety significance are labeled "green." "White" findings have low to moderate safety significance, "yellow" findings have substantial safety significance, and "red" findings have high safety significance. A preliminary "greater than green" finding was described in a January 5 inspection report. The letter transmitting the report provided the company with an opportunity to either request a regulatory and pre-decisional enforcement conference to discuss the issue or to respond in writing. During a nine-hour public conference held on Feb. 17, the company maintained that the air voids found in piping at all three Palo Verde reactors would not have interfered with the ability of pumps to supply coolant to the reactor core during some severe accidents. The company also maintained that prior NRC approval of the procedural change made in 1992 was not necessary. APS officials corrected the problem when it was brought to their attention last summer, but Region IV Administrator Bruce S. Mallet said escalated enforcement action is warranted because the violations have substantial importance to safety. "The air voids might have prevented the emergency core cooling system from being able to perform its safety function during some accidents," Mallet said. "And we expect our licensees to prepare written analyses prior to making changes in procedures that raise unreviewed safety questions and reduce safety margins at a plant." The company has 30 days to appeal the NRC staffs determination of the "yellow" finding or contest the fine. Last revised Monday, April 11, 2005 ***************************************************************** 13 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Makes New Pitch for N. Korea Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Monday April 11, 2005 11:16 PM By WILLIAM C. MANN Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The United States has no intention of invading North Korea and would deal with security guarantees ``in an appropriate way'' if Kim Jong Il's government would return to multinational talks, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said Monday. ``We continue to believe the right place for North Korea to seek to address its concerns is through the six-party talks,'' Boucher said. ``At this point, as I've said, we don't know what their intentions are in terms of actually showing up and conducting serious discussions.'' He said North Korea still has not responded to proposals the United States offered in June, when the talks broke down and were followed by increasingly demanding positions from the government branded by the United States as a member of an ``axis of evil'' and an ``outpost of tyranny.'' As for security guarantees, Boucher said, ``We've made clear that security guarantees can be handled in the talks in an appropriate way.'' In February, North Korea announced for the first time that it has nuclear weapons and had no interest in further talks. Less than a month later, North Korean leaders told Chinese officials they were ready to return but didn't name their conditions. Just this month, North Korea expressed a continuing commitment to international negotiations aimed at ending its nuclear program. At the same time, however, it said Japan should withdraw because its presence only complicates matters, and the United States must apologize for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's ``outpost of tyranny'' comment before talks can be resumed. Russia and South Korea are the other parties to the talks. Selig Harrison, a Washington-based researcher, said last week after ending a visit to North Korea that ``the chance to negotiate is gone'' because of North Korea's frustration over a lack of contact with the Bush administration and fear that the United States might attack. President Bush and other top U.S. officials have denied they have plans to do that, and Boucher repeated the denial Monday. ``You've seen (Rice) make quite a number of different comments about these things when she was on her trip in the region and was quite clear on the various things that have been put forward, including ... a possibility of security guarantees from all the other parties in the talks,'' Boucher said. ``The president's made clear we have no intention of invading North Korea, and as the secretary said during her trip, nobody questions their sovereignty.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 14 BBC: India foils uranium theft 'plot' Last Updated: Monday, 11 April, 2005 Subir Bhaumik BBC News, Meghalaya [Picture by Anirban Roy] The uranium is believed to have come from Meghalaya Authorities in the north-east Indian state of Assam say they have uncovered a plot to steal uranium ore from a government facility. A senior police official, Khagen Sarmah, said two men in possession of a kilogram of semi-processed uranium had been arrested in the capital, Guwahati. India's Department of Atomic Energy has a large reserve of high quality uranium ore in neighbouring Meghalaya state. The seized uranium is suspected to have been stolen from there. Police sting Mr Sarmah said the two suspects were arrested late last week after a tip-off. "But we had to send the seized material for identification and now we know it is uranium," he said. A team of special branch policemen posed as customers and apparently trapped the two by agreeing to buy the uranium for 1.5 million rupees ($34,313). Mr Sarmah also said police were trying to find out how and where the suspects got hold of the uranium and where the consignment was destined for. A team of senior police officials has left for Shillong in Meghalaya to conduct further investigations at the facility run by the federal Department of Atomic Energy (DAE). Enriched uranium - basically the higher-grade material extracted from the original ore - is used as fuel for nuclear power stations. In 1993, 97 kilograms of "yellow cake" or semi-processed uranium ore was stolen from the DAE laboratory. Police made several arrests and recovered a portion of the stolen ore. The bulk of the material remained untraced. ***************************************************************** 15 Korea Times: NK Assembly Avoids Talking About Nuclear Program Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation By Park Song-wu Staff Reporter North Korea held the third session of the 11th Supreme PeopleˇŻs Assembly in Pyongyang Monday with the agenda being focused on ways of reviving its economy. It did not mention anything about PyongyangˇŻs nuclear programs. The parliamentˇŻs one-day plenary session, attended by the NorthˇŻs leader Kim Jong-il, reviewed the 2004 state budget spending and approved the budget for 2005. Professor Yang Moo-jin of Kyungnam University's Graduate School of North Korean Studies in Seoul said the NorthˇŻs parliament lost its timing to announce a meaningful statement regarding the nuclear standoff. ``If they held the session on March 9 as scheduled, it would have been perfect timing for Pyongyang to clear its stance on the nuclear program,ˇŻˇŻ he said. The legislature originally planned to convene on March 9, but Pyongyang called it off early last month without giving further details. North Korea watchers believed that the delay was linked to PyongyangˇŻs Feb. 10 announcement that it has nuclear weapons and will boycott the six-nation nuclear talks. Among 687 delegates of the rubber stamp parliament, 633 participated to approve PyongyangˇŻs plan to increase its state budget by 11.4 percent this year, the NorthˇŻs Korea Central News Agency (KCNA) reported. It did not say the total budget for 2005. Pyongyang allotted 15.9 percent of its total budgetary expenditure to military spending, an increase of 0.4 percentage point, it said. The KCNA said 29.1 percent more funds than the previous year will be invested in agriculture so that ``all efforts of the country can be directed toward decisively solving the people's food problem.ˇŻˇŻ A 14.7 percent bigger financial allocation than last year will be made for science and technology to accelerate the process of modernizing all fields, especially upgrading IT, the KCNA said. Also, 10.3 percent more funds than last year will be spent on more successfully implementing popular policies such as the compulsory free education system and the free medical care system, the KCNA said. The legislature convenes irregularly once or twice a year and usually endorses government and party policies without showing any dissent. All its members openly swear their loyalty to Kim Jong-il. im@koreatimes.co.kr 04-11-2005 22:26 ***************************************************************** 16 Asian Tribune: Nuclear experts lauds Pakistan’s non-proliferation commitment Date : 12/04/2005 , Tue A Newspaper Published by World Institute of Asian Studies. Vol. 4 No. 353 By Iqbal Hussain Khan Yousafzai - Reporting from Islamabad Islamabad, 12 April (Asiantribune.com):The Nuclear Suppliers Group has appreciated the steps taken by Pakistan for establishment of Nuclear Export Regime (NER) and its commitment to nuclear non-proliferation. This was stated by the Foreign Office Spokesman Mr. Jalil Abbas Jilani at a news briefing here on Monday. He said the two member delegation comprising current chairman of the group Ambassador Richard Ekwall and incoming chairman Roald Naess held talks with the Additional Foreign Secretary Mr. Tariq Usman Haider in Islamabad today. He described the talks as extremely fruitful and said the visit afforded an opportunity to explain steps taken by Pakistan for the establishment of Export Control Regime on sensitive material and technology consistent with Pakistan's strong commitment to non-proliferation. He said as a responsible nuclear weapons state which fulfill most of the criteria for the membership of the nuclear supplier group, Pakistan hopes to have mutually beneficial relations with the member countries of the Group as a partner while maintaining its nuclear deterrence as an indispensable part of security. He said both sides agreed to continue discussions in the future. To a question Mr. Jalil Abbas Jilani said Pakistan is a nuclear weapons state and cannot sign the NPT as a non nuclear weapons state. In reply to another question about arrests of a Pakistani businessmen in USA ,the spokesman said during investigations the man confessed to have supplied sensitive material and components to India in 2002. He said Pakistan's name does not figure in the investigations. - Asian Tribune - ***************************************************************** 17 Guardian Unlimited: North Korean Parliament Approves Budget From the Associated Press [UP] Monday April 11, 2005 3:16 PM AP Photo TOK204 By BURT HERMAN Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea's rubber-stamp legislature approved the national budget Monday under the watch of leader Kim Jong Il, boosting defense spending to arm all its citizens and turn the isolated communist country into a ``fortress,'' according to reports. Kim appeared at the one-day session of the Supreme People's Assembly, the North's official Korean Central News Agency reported, although he did not appear to have addressed the meeting of hand-picked loyalists. The North originally said it would convene the parliament session in early March but postponed it without any explanation. The legislature usually meets once or twice a year to approve budgets or policy already set by the Kim regime. The meeting comes amid a heightened standoff over North Korea's atomic programs after Pyongyang claimed in February it had developed nuclear weapons and said it would boycott six-nation disarmament talks that include the United States. But in the official report on the parliament session Monday, there was no mention of the nuclear dispute. North Korea's budget revenue will increase 15.1 percent this year from 2004, boosted by a 13.5 percent increase in revenues from state enterprises in the country's centrally planned economy, KCNA reported, citing Finance Minister Mun Il Bong. No figures were given for the 2005 budget or the year before. The North said it spent 15.6 percent of its budget on the military last year ``in order to cope with the more frantic moves of the U.S.-led imperialists to isolate and stifle'' the country. This year, the figure will rise to 15.9 percent ``with a view to bolstering the People's Army, developing the defense industry and implementing to the letter the (Korean Workers) Party's policy of placing all the people under arms and turning the whole country into a fortress,'' according to KCNA. Premier Pak Pong Ju focused his speech to the meeting on the claimed successes of the economy in the North, which relies on outside aid to feed its people. The North has embraced tentative reforms to its communist system and encouraged managers to put a priority on profit, which Pak said should continue. Economic officials and factory managers should devise strategies ``thoroughly adhering to the socialist principle and the principle of ensuring profitability,'' he said, according to KCNA. Pak also blasted the United States for halting fuel oil shipments that were provided under a 1994 deal between the countries in which Pyongyang agreed to stop its nuclear weapons development in exchange for aid. ``The U.S. imperialists were so base as to suspend even the supply of heavy fuel oil to our country last year, though they were committed to it as compensation,'' he said. The energy deal fell apart after the latest nuclear crisis erupted in 2002, when U.S. officials accused the North of running a secret uranium-enrichment program. International efforts have been under way to reopen international nuclear disarmament talks that also include China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States. Three previous rounds in Beijing failed to lead to any breakthroughs. But prospects for a speedy resumption of the talks appeared to dim after a U.S. scholar who visited North Korea and met senior leaders said Sunday that Pyongyang will not discuss dismantling its nuclear weapons before the United States normalizes diplomatic and economic relations. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 18 NICHOLS & ROKKE: URANIUM WEAPONS: Depleted Uranium - Air Force Colonel Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:07:53 -0700 Project Censored Award Winner (Oklahoma City) "Individuals on web sites throughout the United States have complained over a period of months about the abusive and aggressive actions of an Air Force Lieut. Colonel named Roger Helbig," stated Project Censored Award Winning writer Bob Nichols. "Col. Helbig has consistently misrepresented himself and his participation, voluntarily or on a paid basis, as a 'minder' or enforcer for the DOD 'lie' about Uranium Munitions in direct contravention of US Army Regulations and Orders," Nichols stated.   "Col. Helbig apparently is fervently following the Secret Los Alamos Memo about Uranium Weapons (UW), aka so-called 'Depleted Uranium,' instructing personnel to lie about Uranium Weapons to maintain the political viability of the continued use of the Genocidal Weapons: "weaponized radioactive and poisonous ceramic uranium oxide gas and dust" in Iraq and throughout Central Asia," added Nichols. http://traprockpeace.org/twomemos.html Nichols stated "Dr. Doug Rokke, Ph.D., is the former Army Officer in charge of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project. Dr Rokke is a career officer, loyal to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to any political party. He is the man the people of the United States can turn to for 'on the level information' about the true nature of Uranium Weapons (UW.)" Dr. Rokke commented "LTC Roger Helbig, United States Air Force: I would suggest that since you claim to be so knowledgeable about DU and my specific activities during Gulf War 1 and while I was the Director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium that you produce the actual official documents, not some comments by Bob Cherry or Ed Battle or Mike Kilpatrick, your bosses up the line, verifying your comments." Rokke added "Unless you can do so, please cease and go away. But before you go away you still have not answered why you, as an United States Air Force officer, refuse to support my / our actions to ensure that United States Department of Defense officials provide medical care to all DU casualties and clean up all environmental contamination as required by AR 700-48 and TB 9-1300-278; and, that medical care is provided to all DU casualties as required by Lt General Ron Peake's April 29, 2004 order." http://traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium_regs.html Will you provide us a public endorsement supporting full compliance of these mandatory actions? "Yes" or "No"? Dr. Rokke concluded "It is time for you to decide. The question is not about me; but, whether or not United States Department of Defense personnel comply with their own requirements to provide medical care and clean up all environmental contamination as specified in AR 700-48, TB 9-1300-278, and all of the orders mandating medical care for DU casualties." More news as it develops on Uranium Weapons. ***************************************************************** 19 [du-list] Military pollution (including DU) by Lucinda Marshall Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:33:11 -0700 World News Military Pollution: The Quintessential Universal Soldier By Lucinda Marshall Mar 30, 2005, 00:43 Email this article Printer friendly page Dirty wars: Military toxicity and pollution As children, we were taught that the military protected us in times of war. We learned about soldiers being killed and wounded by 'the enemy', and how people died if they got shot or if a bomb landed on them. Sometimes innocent people got killed during a war, but the fact that most victims were civilians was carefully hidden from us by our elders. They knew that children are smart enough to understand that there is a big moral difference between killing other soldiers and killing ordinary people. That a significant number of deaths were caused not by a weapon's impact, but by its toxicity and by military pollution, was never mentioned. We did not learn that military toxins know no boundaries, that they don't just kill the enemy, they kill our military personnel and people living near military bases, that they pollute the water, land and air. We were not taught and still aren't told today that military toxins go anywhere and kill everything, that they are in fact the quintessential universal soldier. We Have Met The Enemy The U.S. Department of Defense is the largest polluter in the world, producing more hazardous waste than the five largest U.S. chemical companies combined1. The types of hazardous wastes used by the military include pesticides and defoliants like Agent Orange. It includes solvents, petroleum, perchlorate (a component of rocket fuel) lead and mercury. And most ominously, depleted uranium. The health problems that have been documented as being attributable to these various toxins in military use include miscarriages, low birth weight, birth defects, kidney disease and cancer. Military pollution most directly affects those who are targeted by our weapons, soldiers and anyone living near a military base, both in the U.S. and abroad. In the U.S., one out of every ten Americans lives within ten miles of a military site that has been listed as a Superfund priority cleanup site2. Given where chemical and nuclear weapons are used, tested, manufactured, stored and disposed of, the burden of health impacts and environmental destruction falls disproportionately on poorer communities, people of color and indigenous communities. Women face particularly severe problems because of their sensitive reproductive tissues and children because their immune systems are not yet fully developed3. Way Off Base The number of health problems and environmental problems that have been reported near military installations throughout the world is truly staggering. The following are only a few of the many examples. The U.S. Navy is the largest polluter in the San Diego, California area, having created 100 toxic sites during the last 80 years. Environmental damage caused by the Navy includes spilling over 11,000 gallons of oil into the San Diego Bay in 1988. Fish in the Bay contain high levels of mercury and radioactive compounds that are attributable to Navy pollution of the Bay4. Near the Naval Air Station in Fallon, NV high rates of cancer and rare diseases have probably been linked to the dumping of jet fuel, radio and electronic emissions and the contamination of groundwater with radioactive materials. Fallon has the highest per capita rate of childhood leukemia in the nation5. It is important to note that the contamination of military bases is also a problem overseas where significant toxic pollution has impacted the areas near U.S. military bases in countries such as South Korea, the Philippines and Panama. Pollution from the manufacturing of military weapons is equally horrific. The soil near a plant that manufactured depleted uranium rounds in Colonie, New York was found to have 500 times the amount of uranium that one could normally expect to find in soil6. Military waste disposal sites also pose significant problems. Recently, evidence of contamination from the Diamond Alkali plant which manufactured Agent Orange that was used in Vietnam was found in the Newark Bay in New Jersey. Bottom dwellers in the Bay contain the highest levels of dioxins ever recorded in aquatic animals, high enough to guarantee cancer at the same levels in humans. Many low income, immigrant and homeless residents of the area rely on the Bay for subsistence fishing and thus face the considerable risks of exposure and ingestion of Agent Orange7. At Rocky Flats, a former nuclear weapons plant site in Colorado, Jon Lipsky, a former FBI agent, has recently come forward to expose the contamination of the land that he says the EPA and FBI and Department of Justice are suppressing. Lipsky and other plaintiffs in a case against the DOJ are concerned about plans to turn Rocky Flats into a wildlife refuge without adequately cleaning up the contamination. As Lipsky and others point out, disguising a toxic dump as a tourist attraction to be visited by schoolchildren is unacceptable8. The cleanup of sites such as these have slowed considerably since President George W. Bush took office. EPA inspections at military sites have dropped by 10%. The number of fines has dropped by 25% and the dollar amount of fines has been smaller. Overall spending on the cleanup of military sites has dropped 20% since 2001. Military spending on the cleanup of hazardous sites amounts to only 1% of the military budget9. As is the case with many pollutants, the effects of perchlorate, a toxic rocket fuel component, knows no bounds. New research has found perchlorate, in women's breast milk in eighteen states. It can also be found in ground water, crops such as lettuce and dairy milk. Perchlorate can cause mental retardation, loss of hearing and speech and motor skill problems10. Like other pollutants that are now finding their way into breastmilk, perchlorate puts mothers in the untenable position of simultaneously nurturing and (many times unknowingly) poisoning their children. Testing, 1, 2, 3 Nuclear testing is responsible for particularly hazardous pollution. Amchitka Island, off the coast of Alaska was the site of three nuclear weapons tests in a mile-deep shaft on the island in the late 1960's and early 1970's. The last bomb tested was the equivalent of 400 bombs the size of the one that was dropped on Hiroshima. At the time the tests were conducted, wildlife populations in the area dropped off dramatically. Afterwards, when workers started reporting health problems, their claims were initially dismissed but eventually they were awarded compensation for "occupational illness". Doctors now say Amchitka workers will develop cancer at twice the rate of other Americans. More ominously, in the late 1990's Greenpeace conducted tests that showed radioactive substances including plutonium in the waters near Amchitka. Scientists have also found that geological forces in the island chain are producing movements that may at some point in the future allow nuclear materials in the test shaft to leak into the surrounding land and water11. In "The Clan of the One-Breasted Woman", Terry Tempest Williams shares her poignant realization that the breast cancer that struck her mother, aunts and grandmothers was in all probability due to the radiation they were exposed to during the atomic testing that took place in Utah (where they lived) between 1951-196212. Despite assurances that the tests posed no danger, clearly the testing of bombs that were hundreds of times larger than those used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki would certainly pose a danger. And a report from the Breast Cancer Fund has recently concluded that ionizing radiation is the "best established environmental cause of breast cancer13." From Here To Eternity It is the military's use of Depleted Uranium that should cause the most alarm. Not only is the evidence of irreparable harm becoming undeniable, it is also quite clear that the U.S. government has been aware of the lethality of these weapons for quite some time. Despite denials of health risks, a 1950 Army pamphlet states, "Although there is negligible danger from uranium and plutonium outside the body, it is possible for dangerous amounts of these elements to enter the body through the lungs, the digestive system, or breaks in the skin14." An FAA Advisory Circular written in 1984 stated, "if particles are inhaled or ingested, they can be chemically toxic and cause a significant and long-lasting irradiation of internal tissue." In 1990, U.S. Army Armaments, Munitions and Chemical Command (AMCCOM) reported that depleted uranium is a "low level alpha radiation emitter, which is linked to cancer when exposures are internal." AMCCOM's radiological task group also pointed out that the "long term effects of low doses [of DU] have been implicated in cancer.there is no dose so low that the probability of effect is zero." The risk to our own military personnel was spelled out in a 1993 letter from the U.S. Army Surgeon General stating that, "When soldiers inhale or ingest DU dust, they incur a potential increase in cancer risk." And in 1995, a U.S. Army U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute report to Congress says that depleted uranium has the potential to generate "significant medical consequences15." The impact of depleted uranium on Gulf War veterans is so staggering that it is incomprehensible that the U.S. government persists in denying the damage done. The numbers tell the obvious story. During the three-week war in 1990-91, 467 U.S. personnel were reported injured. Since then, more than 11,000 Gulf War veterans have died and more than 600,000 are on permanent disability due to their exposure to depleted uranium, or what we euphemistically call Gulf War Syndrome. But U.S. military personnel are of course not the only victims of depleted uranium. Many returning soldiers brought it home to their families as well. Wives and girlfriends have been contaminated through sperm, causing a variety of gynecological problems, including cancer and the need for hysterectomies. Children born to Gulf Veterans have a much higher than normal incidence of birth defects, cancer and other diseases16. And of course, the same problems that have plagued our own citizens have also taken place in the countries where depleted uranium has been used, including the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. In Basra, Iraq, cancer rates have leapt from 11/100,000 in 1988 to 123/100,000 in 2002. Cancer in children under the age of fifteen has tripled at the Basra Maternity and Children's hospital since 1990. Children under five years of age now make up 56% of the reported cancer cases, in 1990, they were 13% of the total. There were several cases of babies born with multiple congenital birth defects in 1990. In the last three years there have been more than 200 such cases. This scenario is being played out wherever depleted uranium has been used17. The Ultimate Crime As human rights attorney Karen Parker explains, the use of depleted uranium is illegal in four ways: It fails the territorial test because it can't be contained on the battlefield. The impact of depleted uranium continues to be felt after the battle is over. It is illegal because it causes inhumane death and injury. Depleted uranium irreparably damages the environment. For all these reasons, the use of depleted uranium is in violation of the Geneva Convention and constitutes a war crime18. Writing Our Collective Epitaph The impetus to write this article came from my own history. When I was only a baby my grandmother, Lenore G. Marshall, was one of the early leaders in the effort to stop nuclear testing. A co-founder of The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE), she worked tirelessly to stop nuclear testing in Nevada and Amchitka. In the fullness of time, it is abundantly clear that her instincts were correct, and the peril we face today is many times greater. Why then are we still persisting in our use of toxic weaponry in the face of such overwhelming danger to our environment and health? There is no justification for our military killing us to protect us. And as the founding of SANE foretold, it is truly insane to think that we can justify permanently damaging the earth and endangering the future of humanity in the pursuit of global empire, even if one thought that was an admirable goal. In the process of killing everything in sight, we seem oblivious to the fact that we are also committing suicide. Our continued ignorance and silence will become our collective epitaph. Lucinda Marshall is a feminist artist, writer and activist. She is the Founder of the Feminist Peace Network, www.feministpeacenetwork.org which publishes Atrocities, a bulletin documenting violence against women throughout the world. She blogs at http://blog.zmag.org/bloggers/?blogger=marshall. Notes: 1 "War on Earth" by Bob Feldman, Dollars and Sense, March/April 2003. Also see the Military Toxics Project, www.miltoxproj.org. 2 "Pollution cleanups pit Pentagon against regulators" by Peter Eisler, USA Today, October 14, 2004. 3 "Health and Environmental Costs of Militarism" by Rosalie Bertell, presented in Barcelona, June 24, 2004. 4 "War on Earth" by Bob Feldman, Dollars and Sense, March/April 2003. 5 "The Fallon, NV Cancer Cluster And A US Navy Bombing" by Jeffrey St. Clair, Counterpunch, August 10, 2002. 6 "War on Earth" by Bob Feldman, Dollars and Sense, March/April 2003. 7 "Activists Oppose Plan to Dredge Up Agent Orange Residue in NJ Bay" by F. Timothy Martin, New Standard News, January 27, 2005. 8 "The Rocky Flats Horror Picture Show" by Amanda Griscom Little, Grist Magazine, January 21, 2005. 9 "Pollution cleanups pit Pentagon against regulators" by Peter Eisler, USA Today, October 14, 2004. 10 "Rocket Fuel Chemical Found in Breast Milk of Women in 18 States" by Robert Roy Britt, Live Science, February 24, 2005. 11 "Amchitka Nuclear Tests", December 23, 2001. 12 "The Clan of One-Breasted Women" by Terry Tempest Williams, Awakened Woman, March 1, 2005. 13 "State of the Evidence: What Is the Connection Between the Environment and Breast Cancer?", Third Edition, Edited by Nancy Evans, Health Science Consultant, Breast Cancer Fund, 2004. 14 "What Does The U.S. Govt. Know about DU?" by Leuren Moret, International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, Traprock Peace Center, November 25, 2003. 15 "Some of the U.S. Government's Documentation of Harmful Effects of D.U.", Nukewatch.com, January 31, 2003. 16 "Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets" by Leuren Moret, SF Bay View, February 23, 2005. 17 "Iraq: High levels of radioactive pollution seen in the south", Axis of Logic, November 19, 2004. 18 "The Illegality of DU Weaponry" by Karen Parker, JD, paper prepared for the International Uranium Weapons Conference in Hamburg, Germany October 16-19, 2003. http://www.gnn.tv/headlines/1708/Military_Pollution_The_Quintessential_Universal_Soldier ------------------------ 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/ ***************************************************************** 20 [du-list] AV:The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 16:40:17 -0700 Copyright © 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children By Judy Adamson February 15, 2005 The Cutting Edge: The Doctor, the Depleted Uranium and the Dying Children, SBS, 8.30pm This documentary follows the efforts of a German professor and Canadian medical researcher to prove that depleted uranium shells and bullets, used in two Gulf wars, have contributed to a range of appalling health problems in Iraqi locals as well as veterans. The pregnancy stories of veterans is heartbreaking, but worse still are the pictures of countless deformed and cancer-stricken Iraqi children. These experiences have also been mirrored in Kosovo. Remarkably, while the US and British governments persist in saying there is no proof that depleted uranium is to blame for what is known as "Gulf War Syndrome", doctors in Iraq say that malignant cancers have increased eightfold since the first Gulf War in 1991. Geiger counters used by the researchers still go into the red when brought close to abandoned tanks - tanks that children now play in. Men who fought in areas that were heavily bombarded have 400 times more depleted uranium in their urine than control subjects. And the 79-year-old German professor was arrested and fined for bringing just one "safe" bullet home for radioactivity testing. It's not pretty viewing, but it's very informative. Copyright © 2005. The Sydney Morning Herald. ------------------------ 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/ ***************************************************************** 21 URANIUM WEAPONS: Depleted Uranium - Suppressed Reports and Veterans' Stories Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 22:55:04 -0500 (Central Daylight Time)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Bob Nichols Writers&Warriors bobnichols@cox.net       LTC Roger Helbig, United States Air Force: A Bully Pushing Around Civilians      Air Force Colonel Abuses American Citizens over Uranium Weapons Coverup     Rokke: "Helbig! Yes or No?"     by Dr. Doug Rokke, US Army Ret.,  and Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner     (Oklahoma City) "Individuals on web sites throughout the United States have complained over a period of months about the abusive and aggressive actions of an Air Force Lieut. Colonel named Roger Helbig," stated Project Censored Award Winning writer Bob Nichols.   "Col. Helbig has consistently misrepresented himself and his participation, voluntarily or on a paid basis, as a 'minder' or enforcer for the DOD 'lie' about Uranium Munitions in direct contravention of US Army Regulations and Orders," Nichols stated.   "Col. Helbig apparently is fervently following the Secret Los Alamos Memo about Uranium Weapons (UW), aka so-called 'Depleted Uranium,' instructing personnel to lie about Uranium Weapons to maintain the political viability of the continued use of the Genocidal Weapons: "weaponized radioactive and poisonous ceramic uranium oxide gas and dust" in Iraq and throughout Central Asia," added Nichols. http://traprockpeace.org/twomemos.html   Nichols stated "Dr. Doug Rokke, Ph.D., is the former Army Officer in charge of the Pentagon's Depleted Uranium Project. Dr Rokke is a career officer, loyal to the Constitution of the United States of America, not to any political party. He is the man the people of the United States can turn to for 'on the level information'  about the true nature of Uranium Weapons (UW.)"   Dr. Rokke commented "LTC Roger Helbig, United States Air Force: I would suggest that since you claim to be so knowledgeable about DU and my specific activities during Gulf War 1 and while I was the Director of the U.S. Army Depleted Uranium that you produce the actual official documents, not some comments by Bob Cherry or Ed Battle or Mike Kilpatrick, your bosses up the line, verifying your comments."   Rokke added "Unless you can do so, please cease and go away. But before you go away you still have not answered;  why you, as an United States Air Force officer, refuse to support my / our actions to ensure that United States Department of Defense officials provide medical care to all DU casualties and clean up all environmental contamination as required by AR 700-48 and TB 9-1300-278; and, that medical care is provided to all DU casualties as required  by Lt General Ron P eake's April 29, 2004 order."   http://traprockpeace.org/depleted_uranium_regs.html   Will you provide us a public endorsement supporting full compliance of these mandatory actions?     "Yes" or "No"?   Dr. Rokke concluded "It is time for you to decide. The question is not about me; but, whether or not United States Department of Defense personnel comply with their own requirements to provide medical care and clean up all environmental contamination as specified in AR 700-48, TB 9-1300-278, and all of the orders mandating medical care for DU casualties."   More news as it develops on Uranium Weapons.  [End.]  
 ***************************************************************** 22 [du-list] "no exposure to DU in Iraq War" - The Union Leader Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:31:46 -0700 Iraq War showing more traditional illnesses By PAT HAMMOND Sunday News Staff http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=53157 Item ends.... "Probably," Gordan continued, "this is because this Iraq war is more conventional . . . meaning there were no burning fields, fallout from Scud missiles exploding in the air, destruction of weapons bunkers where chemical weapons were stashed, nerve agents, or exposure to depleted uranium. "So many environmental hazards the servicemen were exposed to in the last war are not present in this war," Gordan quoted. Gordan also notes that Secretary of Veterans Affairs Anthony Principi, responding in 2002 to his department's desire to understand whether the Gulf War veterans' medical complaints were legitimate and what caused them, formed an advisory panel. In October 2004, the panel concluded that the Gulf War illnesses were not results of war stress but of exposure to nerve agents and other environmental hazards present in the Gulf war region. Item ends. Send news tips to... writeus@theunionleader.com ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/05 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater? Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good! http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 23 [du-list] du in the news 12th April 05 Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 14:31:53 -0700 Green Left Weekly, Sun, 10 Apr 2005 1:57 AM PDT Global warming: Nuclear power no solution http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/622/622p9.htm Have the nuclear industry and its supporters suddenly gained an environmental consciousness? The Union Leader and NewHampshire Sunday News, Sat, 09 Apr 2005 9:17 PM PDT Iraq War showing more traditional illnesses http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showfast.html?article=53157 MANCHESTER â?" Early assessments of the health of Iraq War veterans have led a local specialist on Gulf War illness to conclude that servicemen in Iraq are not contracting the illness that struck thousands of service personnel in the Persian Gulf War. But some medical experts say the optimistic outlook may be premature. ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.9.5 - Release Date: 4/7/05 [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers. At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide! http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/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/ ***************************************************************** 24 Mos News: Russia’s Oldest Nuclear Processing Plant Accused of Polluting Environment - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM + Created: 11.04.2005 16:10 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:10 MSK Russian prosecutors have launched criminal proceedings against the Mayak nuclear plant accusing its management of environmental pollution. The deputy prosecutor-general in the Urals Federal District Yuri Zolotov told a news briefing on Monday that his agency had opened a criminal case under Article 246 that carries punishment for “violating environmental protection regulations during execution of works,” envisaging up to 5 years in prison. Proceedings were launched upon completion of an inquiry into Mayak ordered by Prosecutor General Vladimir Ustinov. Inspectors have checked all the reservoirs of the Techa tandem reservoir system. Water pollution was registered in only the Techa River. “It was established that over the past four years radiation levels grew permanently in the Techa River exceeding permissible levels not just by 2-3 times but by many more times,” Zolotov said. In 2004 NPO Mayak unlawfully dumped over 60 million cubic meters of industrial waste into the Techa. The overall damage has been assessed at 30 million rubles, Interfax news agency reported. Chelyabinsk-65 Reprocessing Plant, or NPO Mayak, has been the site of several serious accidents in the past. In 1957 a high-level waste storage facility exploded causing widespread contamination and resulted in the evacuation of over 10,000 people. Write us: info@mosnews.com Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM ***************************************************************** 25 Beaver County Times Allegheny Times: Town meetings for energy workers News - 04/11/2005 - U.S. Department of Labor officials will answer questions about the recently amended Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act at town hall meetings in Washington, Pa., on Tuesday and in New Kensington on Wednesday. The compensation act provides lump-sum payments of $150,000 and medical expenses to Department of Energy employees and contracted employees, and in some cases their survivors, who became ill as a result of exposure to radiation, beryllium or silica. The amendment expands such coverage to employees who worked at certain facilities, including Aliquippa Forge, formerly Vulcan Crucible Steel Co., that have been identified as having the potential for residual radiation contamination. In Beaver County, three facilities, including Vulcan, were covered under the original act. The other two, Beaver Falls' McDanel Refractory Co., now Vesuvius McDanel, and the decommissioned Shippingport Atomic Power Plant, which was owned by the U.S. Energy Department, are not covered by the new amendment. The first town hall meeting will be 2 to 6 p.m. Tuesday at the Holiday Inn Meadowlands, 340 Racetrack Road, Washington. The other will be 2 to 6 p.m. Wednesday at the Clarion Hotel and Conference Center, 300 Tarentum Bridge Road, New Kensington. Workers who need assistance filling out claim forms may schedule appointments after the meeting or call (866) 363-6993. ©Beaver County Times Allegheny Times 2005 ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes to Meet April 20-21 News Release - 2005-06 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-065 April 11, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes will hold a public meeting April 20 and 21 in Rockville, Md., where, among other items, members will meet with NRC Commissioners to provide opinions and recommendations on several technical matters. Committee members will also discuss proposed guidance that would allow family members to exceed the regulatory radiation dose limit while caring for a sick relative undergoing radiation treatment and hear external stakeholder opinions about the presence of physicians during gamma stereotactic radiosurgery therapy. The public portion of the meeting will be from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Wednesday and from 10 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Thursday. The meeting will be held at the Bethesda North Marriott Hotel and Conference Center, 5701 Marinelli Road, except for the Commission briefing, which will be held at the Commissioners Briefing Room, at the NRCs White Flint North Building, 11555 Rockville Pike. Questions from the public will be permitted at the discretion of the committee chairman. Any member of the public wishing to submit a written statement or needing special assistance must contact Angela McIntosh, at 301-415-5030 or arm@nrc.gov. A transcript and written comments will be available on the NRCs Web site, at www.nrc.gov and through the NRC Public Document Room on or about July 20, 2005. Last revised Monday, April 11, 2005 ***************************************************************** 27 DHHS: NIOSH: Board of Radiation and Worker Health FR Doc 05-7263 [Federal Register: April 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 68)] [Notices] [Page 18400] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap05-92] DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. section 10(a), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following committee meeting: Name: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Place: Teleconference call will originate at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institutes for Occupational Safety and Health, Atlanta, Georgia. Please see SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for details on accessing the teleconference. Status: Open to the public, teleconference access limited only by ports available. Background: The ABRWH was established under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) of 2000 to advise the President, delegated to the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), on a variety of policy and technical functions required to implement and effectively manage the new compensation program. Key functions of the Board include providing advice on the development of probability of causation guidelines which have been promulgated by HHS as a final rule, advice on methods of dose reconstruction which have also been promulgated by HHS as a final rule, advice on the scientific validity and quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being performed for purposes of the compensation program, and advice on petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC). In December 2000 the President delegated responsibility for funding, staffing, and operating the Board to HHS, which subsequently delegated this authority to the CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on August 3, 2001, and renewed on august 3, 2003. Purpose: This board is charged with (a) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS on the development of guidelines under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary, HHS on the scientific validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed for this Program; and (c) upon request by the Secretary, HHS, advising the Secretary on whether there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have endangered the health of members of this class. Matters to be Discussed: Agenda for this meeting will focus on Status of Activities concerning Iowa Army Ammunition Plant and Mallinckrodt Downtown Site; Special Exposure Cohort Task for SC, Inc.; and review of Draft, Agenda for the upcoming meeting. The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate. In the event an individual cannot attend, written comments may be submitted. Any written comments received will be provided at the meeting and should be submitted to the contact person below well in advance of the meeting. Supplementary Information: This conference call is scheduled for April 11, 2005 and set to begin at 8 a.m. eastern time and run through 11:30 a.m. eastern standard time. To access the teleconference you must dial 1-888-324-8504. You will need to provide the passcode 22906 to be connected to the call. In accordance with 41 CFR 102-3.150b, this notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the unexpected urgency of the topics that will be discussed. Contact Person for More Information: Lew Wade, Senior Science Advisor, NIOSH, CDC, 4676 Columbia Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, telephone (513) 533-6825, fax (513) 533-6826. The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee management activities for both the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. Dated: April 6, 2005. John Howard, Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). [FR Doc. 05-7263 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4163-19-M ***************************************************************** 28 www.GovExec.com: Employees in Yucca Mountain e-mail scandal will not testify (4/11/05) From CongressDaily Three scientists involved with e-mails about falsifying documents on Nevada's Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump will not be made available to testify before a congressional panel, the Interior Department said Friday. The department's U.S. Geological Survey also released a letter from the panel that reveals the scientists' names for the first time, the Associated Press reported. The letter sent Thursday by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev. -- who chairs a House Government Reform subcommittee looking into the matter -- requests the presence of Joe A. Hevesi, Alan L. Flint and Lorraine E. Flint "to meet with subcommittee staff regarding statements contained in the e-mails in question." Only redacted versions of the e-mails have been made public, and so it was not possible to tell what role Hevesi or the Flints had. Subcommittee staffers declined to elaborate. All are listed on USGS Web sites as research hydrologists in Sacramento, Calif. The FBI and the inspectors general at the Interior and Energy departments are investigating the possibility of fraudulent work on the nuclear waste repository, and the Interior Department cited the investigations in turning down Porter's request for the scientists' presence at Wednesday's hearing. ***************************************************************** 29 DenverPost.com - EDITORIALS: A success story at Shattuck Article Published: Monday, April 11, 2005 Since the 1920s, soils laced with radium, uranium and other heavy metals had sat on the Shattuck Chemical Co. site near Denver's Overland Park neighborhood. Despite some twists over the last dozen years, it's now possible to celebrate success as the cleanup of 182,351 tons of waste enters its final chapter. Initial public comments to U.S. Environmental Agency and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment overwhelmingly supported moving the hazardous wastes. Instead, EPA decided to leave the heavy metals and radioactive soils in place, mix them with fly ash and cover the 15-foot pile with rocks and clay. And, EPA didn't require a waterproof barrier under the heap to prevent toxins from possibly reaching the South Platte River. Leaving a six-acre Superfund site in an urban neighborhood was unacceptable, but a provision in the federal Superfund law enabled Denver residents to force EPA to reconsider. The law requires Superfund projects to be reviewed every five years to make sure cleanup is working as planned. When EPA started a five-year review in 1998, area residents raised a ruckus. They caught the attention of then-Denver Mayor Wellington Webb and his environmental advisor, Teresa Donahue. They developed a bipartisan alliance including U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Democrat upset about radioactive wastes in the middle of Denver, and U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard, a Republican angry that EPA was dismissing public concerns. EPA reversed its earlier decision and agreed to remove the wastes. EPA since has done a second five-year review and verified the plan is working. Most of the waste has been sent to storage in Idaho, leaving only about 40,000 tons to be moved. That waste should be gone in about a year, perhaps paving the way for future redevelopment of the site in an economically useful and responsible way. All contents Copyright 2005 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 30 DenverPost.com - EDITORIALS: Smart to move Moab wastes For half a century, radioactive and toxic mill tailings have been perched a few hundred yards above the Colorado River near Moab, Utah. Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy announced its plan for cleaning up the mess. Coloradans as well as Utahns can applaud the decision - the 12 million tons of hazardous wastes should have been moved to a safer location years ago. The tailings are near the Potash Road 3 miles from downtown Moab. The pile is in the Colorado River's 100-year flood plain, clipped by a desert wash (flood route) and near another wash. The National Academy of Scientists says a major flood through the site is a near certainty. Such a flood would wash radioactive wastes downstream, but not evenly dilute them. Instead, the wastes would clump in "hot spots." It would be impossible to cleanse public lands of the resulting radioactivity, so a spill could force the government to close the popular river to human access, experts warn. We're not talking remote access, either. The tailings are upstream from Canyonlands National Park, Lake Powell, the Grand Canyon, Lake Mead and water supplies for Las Vegas, San Diego and suburban Los Angeles. The problem landed in Uncle Sam's lap after the uranium mill's owner, Denver-based Atlas Corp., declared bankruptcy in 2000. Last fall, the DOE issued an environmental statement that explored solutions. At the time, the DOE didn't identify a preferred cleanup plan. But last week, the DOE said it wants to move the tailings about 35 miles north, to near Crescent Junction, Utah. Although there's a sign for Crescent Junction on Interstate 70, it's not a town - far fewer people live nearby than in the Moab area. Significantly, Crescent and Moab are both in Grand County, Utah - and the county's elected council unanimously voted to tell DOE to remove the wastes from Moab. The Crescent Junction site would be away from any river, surrounded by rocks that should stop rain from infiltrating the waste and, unlike the existing tailings pile, would be lined by an impermeable barrier. The chief obstacle may be getting Congress to approve funding for the $412 million to $472 million cleanup. Yet the entire region has an interest in protecting the Colorado River's water quality and ensuring that toxic wastes never threaten public access to national parks and other federal lands. Colorado's congressional delegation should support Utah's efforts to obtain funding for the Moab project. All contents Copyright 2005 The Denver Post or other copyright ***************************************************************** 31 Press-Telegram - Opinion: A toxic stockpile Article Published: Sunday, April 10, 2005 - 7:22:46 Energy Department finally makes the right decision For those of us who prefer to keep radioactive waste far removed from our water supplies and we'll assume that's a large majority a decision last week by the U.S. Department of Energy comes as welcome news. The DOE gave preliminary approval to a plan to move a 12-million-ton pile of radioactive waste away from the Colorado River in Utah, where it threatens the drinking water supply for millions of people in four states. The DOE, as we wrote in a March 21 editorial, had been considering capping the waste pile and leaving it in its current location, a few hundred feet from the Colorado River near Moab, Utah. That proposal was the cheapest of several under consideration, but it was by far the most foolish and environmentally irresponsible. The waste pile which at 130 acres and nine stories deep is about the size of a sports stadium is made up of uranium tailings from an abandoned mine that harvested yellowcake uranium for nearly three decades. In addition to uranium, a known carcinogen, the waste pile contains radium ammonia, arsenic, mercury and other hazardous substances. A study commissioned by the state of Utah showed that a major, catastrophic flood could push the entire waste pile into the Colorado River, creating an immense environmental and public heath disaster. Even without a flood, the pile leaches about 15,000 gallons of toxic waste into the river every day. It needs to go. Five years ago the DOE promised to transport the waste to a disposal site, where it would be contained and capped far from any water supplies. Then it backtracked, and considered capping the pile at its current location. Fortunately the department appears to have come to its senses. It gave preliminary approval last week to moving the waste pile to a containment site, pending another environmental review and final approval. Now that it's made the right decision, the DOE needs to finish its reviews and move the radioactive waste away from the Colorado as soon as possible. Copyright © 2005 Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 32 Las Vegas SUN: Porter wants Yucca e-mailers to go public Today: April 11, 2005 at 9:46:03 PDT By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Interior Department does not want three federal scientists who exchanged e-mails about falsifying documents on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository to testify before a congressional panel, but Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., hopes they will come forward on their own. Due to ongoing investigations into the alleged falsifications, the department believes it is "inappropriate to require the individuals identified by the subcommittee to testify in a public hearing," according to a letter sent to Porter on Friday. On Thursday, Porter had sent a letter asking Joe A. Hevesi, Alan L. Flint and Lorraine E. Flint to meet with subcommittee staff and appear before the House Federal Workforce and Agency Organization Subcommittee at a hearing Wednesday. The letter named the employees under investigation for the first time. The subcommittee had redacted names from e-mails it released to avoid compromising investigations. It is not clear which person wrote which e-mail messages, so what part Hevesi and the Flints played in authoring them is unknown. The three are listed on USGS Web sites as research hydrologists working in Sacramento, Calif. Messages left at their homes Sunday went unreturned. Chad Bungard, the subcommittee's deputy staff director and chief counsel said the staff is still trying to figure out a "game plan" for Wednesday's scheduled hearing. He called subpoenaing the scientists "an option, but probably a last resort option." He said all three are free to show up on their own. "If they have nothing to hide they can come on their own," Bungard said. Porter is interested in why they wrote they e-mails and why they felt they needed to change information, Bungard said. In the letter to Porter, Matt Eames, the Interior Department's Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs office, wrote that at this time, the department could not predict what the investigations would find related to the three scientists Porter invited to testify. "To be clear, the Department is not defending any particular conduct or prejudging the outcome of the investigation, our sole aim is to assure that the investigation proceeds expeditiously and without impediment," Eames wrote. Last month, the Energy Department announced it had discovered e-mails written by USGS employees that may affect the Yucca Mountain project data. The redacted e-mails, released by the subcommittee, show Yucca Mountains scientists discussing how to "fudge" information, make numbers up and get around a Quality Assurance program in place to review and document scientific work for proving that the mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, could contain 77,000 tons of radioactive waste. The U.S. Geological Survey Web site indicates that Hevesi and the Flints, a married couple, authored reports on water flow rates and climate change in the desert Southwest. Their work is also part of a document database built by the Energy Department to support the Yucca Mountain repository. ***************************************************************** 33 C&EN: Yucca Mountain Data Under Fire [C&EN logo] [The Newsmagazine of the Chemical World] April 11, 2005 Vol. 83, Iss. 15 Volume 83, Number 15 p. 8 GOVERNMENT &POLICY Under Fire Science to support Nevada nuclear waste repository fabricated TEST SYSTEM Model waste canisters at Yucca Mountain are used to gauge the impact of temperature and heat. DOE PHOTO E-mails and other documents released by a House subcommittee last week show that government scientists fabricated data needed to support construction of the nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. At a House hearing, three representatives from Nevada grilled officials and told them to stop site work until an independent investigation into the depth of the duplicity is conducted. DOE officials, however, said they were doing their own investigations, and so far, they believe no evidence demonstrates that the underlying science for the project has been compromised. The revelations, first made public by DOE in mid-March, have led to ongoing criminal investigations by the Offices of Inspector General for the Interior and Energy Departments and the FBI. At a minimum, the investigations will delay DOE's press to file a license application with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to build the repository. Although only partial and redacted e-mails and other documents have been made public, they show that scientists admitted to one another that they were keeping separate records--one set for quality assurance inspections and another, accurate, set. They also describe compromises needed to overcome difficulties in meeting schedules on the huge project. The messages were exchanged in the late 1990s and focused on science and models for water incursion through the mountain and climate projections for future centuries--contentious issues that are critical to the project's success. This latest problem joins others, such as a court decision last summer throwing out the repository's radiation standard, which determines how much radioactivity may be released to the environment over the millenia the waste is radioactive. Chemical & Engineering News ISSN 0009-2347 Copyright © 2005 ***************************************************************** 34 Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Notification bill is needed now Don't let limitations derail Tallevast legislation Sometimes good is better than perfect, especially when it pertains to the mediocre Florida Legislature. A case in point is a bill sponsored by Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton. The much-needed measure would require state environmental officials to notify residents when pollution is discovered near their homes. Galvano introduced the bill in response to the state Department of Environmental Protection's handling of an environmental crisis in the Tallevast community near the Manatee-Sarasota county line. DEP officials learned of ground-water and soil pollution near the former American Beryllium Co. plant in 2000, but neighbors weren't told anything about it until several years later, when they began asking questions about workers sinking test wells. Currently, the agency isn't required to notify people until a cleanup plan is readied -- a process that can take years. Galvano's bill initially called for the DEP to notify residents within 10 days of discovery of pollution but, in a concession to DEP concerns, moved the deadline to 30 days. Now the measure is running into opposition from critics who argue that the DEP should cast a wider net and, among other things, include workers at sites where contamination is found. Galvano contends the law already covers them and says amendments at this stage could derail the bill. Notification certainly should be as far- reaching as possible. But if this impasse can't be resolved quickly, the Legislature should move forward with Galvano's version. The primary goal is to ensure that the Tallevast fiasco isn't repeated anywhere. It's a good bill. Pass it, and perfect it later. Last modified: April 11. 2005 12:00AM Serving the Herald-Tribune newspaper and SNN Channel 6 © ***************************************************************** 35 Salt Lake Tribune: Yucca woes no obstacle for PFS Article Last Updated: 04/11/2005 07:15:36 AM The coalition pushes on with its Skull Valley site plan By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune WASHINGTON - As plans to bury nuclear waste deep inside Nevada's Yucca Mountain limp along, wounded by disclosures of possible scientific fraud, the head of the company pushing for temporary storage in Utah says it doesn't matter whether Yucca Mountain dies. Private Fuel Storage will press ahead with its plans for Utah's Skull Valley site regardless of Yucca's fate, says John Parkyn, chief executive officer of the coalition of utility companies behind the plan. "We know there will be [a permanent repository] someplace. It's just a question of where and when," Parkyn said in an interview. "PFS is just temporary. We aren't applying for a permanent storage license and we don't want one." Even as the $58 billion Yucca Mountain project faces its most dire threat to date from revelations that scientists may have falsified research data, Private Fuel Storage's proposal just keeps rolling. Now in the final stages of receiving a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the plan calls for "temporary" storage of 44,000 tons of waste atop concrete pads on Goshute reservation lands 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. Continued progress on the PFS site while Yucca founders raises ominous questions about spent nuclear rods being orphaned indefinitely in Utah. "How can a facility be temporary when the place you're going to send it - Yucca Mountain - isn't built?" asks Dianne Nielson, director of the Utah Department of Environmental Quality. "If Yucca Mountain isn't going to be built, then the waste needs to stay where it is, at the reactor sites in the control of the companies that generate it where it's quite safe until a permanent solution can be found." The state argued that point before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, but the board rejected it. It will likely be part of the state's case, either before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, or before a federal appeals court, Nielson said. Meantime, the Energy Department revealed last month that documents regarding water penetration at Yucca Mountain may have been fabricated. Nevada officials have argued that water beneath the mountain could corrode the casks. The Nevada permanent storage project was already at least 14 years behind schedule, and the Bush administration has requested only about half as much money as planned in next year's budget. Last week, Nevada's governor, attorney general and congressional delegation used a House hearing to scold Energy Department and U.S. Geological Survey officials for the latest problems and demand a halt to the Yucca Mountain project until federal investigators get to the bottom of the case. Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn said the episode had pulled back the curtain "to reveal just how bankrupt and fraudulent the Yucca Mountain program may have been all along." "The evidence is becoming overwhelming that the Yucca Mountain program is broken beyond repair," said the Republican governor. "I would like to see someone in the Department of Energy have the guts or common decency to stand up and halt this project," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., claiming the department has misled Nevadans, Americans and the Congress. "It is not based on sound science and I think you ought to be ashamed." But Theodore Garrish, the Energy Department's top Yucca Mountain official, said his staff plans to double-check the data and, if the department believes Yucca can be done safely, it will submit a license application to the NRC by the end of the year. "I can assure you we will not go forward unless we have the feeling ourselves first that this repository will be safe," Garrish said. Utah Republican Sens. Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett have been supporters of Yucca Mountain in the past, arguing as recently as last month that building the Nevada repository would be the best way to keep the waste out of Utah. But in recent weeks they appear to have softened their support - Bennett expressing a willingness to entertain other solutions if they are politically saleable, and Hatch insisting he had supported all along leaving the waste at the reactors that generated it. Utah's three House members and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. are squarely against both Yucca Mountain and PFS, and have said the waste should be left where it is. They note that even if PFS were thwarted, much of the waste would be shipped through Utah on its way to Yucca Mountain. The delays in Yucca have likely already nullified a commitment six of the PFS partners made to Hatch and Bennett in 2002 not to invest in PFS if Yucca proceeds "in a timely manner." "That was something a long time ago and it said 'Yucca moving forward on schedule,' which of course it did not. The condition of Yucca Mountain opening by 2010 is gone. It didn't happen," Parkyn said. If plans for Yucca continue to crumble, Parkyn said he expects the Energy Department will return its focus to one of the other sites it studied in the mid-1980s as potential repositories. The Energy Department initially studied nine possible sites for the dump, including Davis Canyon and Lavender Canyon in southeastern Utah, near Canyonlands National Park. President Reagan narrowed the focus to three - Hanford, Wash., Deaf Smith County, Texas, and Yucca Mountain - and in 1987 Congress dropped the first two from consideration. Nielson said the state's concerns are not merely that Yucca may not open, but that , even if it does, it won't be able to hold all of the country's nuclear fuel. If reactors continue to produce waste, there could be 44,000 tons of waste left over after Yucca has been filled. That means there would have to be a second permanent repository, or else PFS would again risk becoming a permanent home, she said. © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 36 Register-Guard: Trouble at Yucca: E-mails raise serious doubts about project , Eugene, Oregon, USA April 11, 2005 Imagine that you are an astronaut who is scheduled for a shuttle launch. Shortly before lift-off, you learn that NASA scientists responsible for checking safety standards had falsified their work to prevent delays. Your reaction? The printable one probably goes something like: "Keep that shuttle - and me - on the ground until you know it's safe." A recent disturbing report on the planned high-level nuclear waste dump at Nevada's Yucca Mountain evokes a similar response. The Energy Department acknowledged in March that government employees had confided in e-mails to each other that they had fabricated research to make it appear that quality standards were satisfied - and to keep the project on track. Last week, a U.S. House subcommittee released dozens of the messages. In one of them, an analyst wrote that he withheld computer data from the project's quality assurance (QA) department. "In the end, I keep track of 2 sets of files, the ones that will keep QA happy and the ones that were actually used." In another message, a government worker wrote that he had made up dates involving the installation of software. "If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff," he said. These and dozens of other chilling e-mail messages have severely undermined the Department of Energy's claim that the nation's radioactive wastes can be stored in vaults carved deep in Yucca Mountain without contaminating groundwater for at least 10,000 years. The Los Alamos National Laboratory already has disputed the DOE's claim, saying its analysis found that radioactive wastes could seep into the water table within 300 years or less. The U.S. Geological Survey then issued its own study, which basically supported the DOE's original long-range projections. That would have been heartening, except for the emergence of the e-mails indicating that scientists working for the Geological Survey may have falsified data to ensure that the project moved forward, The DOE and the White House have repeatedly claimed that their recommendation of the Yucca Mountain site is based on "sound science." But the e-mails cast serious doubt on that claim. The Yucca Mountain project should not move forward until the government can prove that its claims are based on real science and not a pro-nuclear agenda or mere expedience. Copyright 2005 The Register-Guard ***************************************************************** 37 Newsday.com: GAO: Nuclear plants need to keep better track of radwaste By DAVID GRAM Associated Press Writer April 11, 2005, 8:35 PM EDT MONTPELIER, Vt. -- The nation's nuclear plants are doing an inadequate job keeping track of spent nuclear fuel, raising the possibility the highly radioactive material could fall into the hands of terrorists, the Government Accountability Office said Monday. The GAO report said that "several recent discoveries of missing or unaccounted-for spent fuel have raised concerns about nuclear power plants control over these materials and (the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's) oversight. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, heightened these concerns by raising questions about whether these highly radioactive materials could be diverted or stolen and used maliciously." The report was requested by Vermont's two U.S. senators and one House member and by Rep. John Olver, D-Mass., following the news a year ago this month that two pieces of spent nuclear fuel had been reported missing at the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. The pieces were later found in the plant's spent fuel storage pool, but not where records had indicated they were. Spent nuclear fuel also was reported missing from the Millstone Nuclear Power Station in Connecticut in 2000 and from the Humboldt Bay Power Plant in California last year. The Millstone waste was never found; the investigation into still-missing fuel at Humboldt Bay continues. "NRC is also aware of several earlier instances of lost or unaccounted-for spent fuel at other facilities," said the GAO, which is the investigative arm of Congress. "NRC inspectors often could not confirm that containers that were designated as containing loose fuel rods in fact contained the fuel rods. ... Thus, spent fuel may be missing or unaccounted for at still other plants." The GAO report recommended that the NRC establish new control and accounting rules for nuclear plants' handling of loose spent fuel pieces and an inspection program to make sure the rules are being followed. "I call on the NRC to implement these recommendations immediately," Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt. and ranking member of the Senate committee that oversees the NRC, said in a statement. "The NRC must do more to track spent fuel, as we saw in the case of Vermont Yankee, and the NRC must start inspecting plants again to avoid a repeat situation." NRC spokesman Bill McIntyre said the NRC beefed up its controls and inspections of plants' handling of spent fuel beginning in November of 2003. He said those efforts led to the discovery of pieces unaccounted for at Vermont Yankee and Humboldt Bay. McIntyre said the agency is following up at other plants and waiting to learn the scope of any other problems before deciding on new rules or inspection regimens. "It is possible that there will be problems at other plants," McIntyre said. But he called the risk of the spent fuel ending up in terrorists' hands "extremely low," because it would be very difficult to get the material past the radiation alarms at nuclear plants, and very dangerous for anyone trying to handle it. Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc. ***************************************************************** 38 NRC: Application for a License To Export Radioactive Waste FR Doc 05-7142 [Federal Register: April 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 68)] [Notices] [Page 18433] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap05-139] Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b)(2) ``Public notice of receipt of an application,'' please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has received the following request for an export license. Copies of the request can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html at the NRC home page. A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal Register. Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20520. In its review of the application for a license to export radioactive waste as defined in 10 CFR part 110 and noticed herein, the Commission does not evaluate the health, safety or environmental effects in the recipient nation of the material to be exported. The information concerning the application follows. NRC Export License Application for Radioactive Waste ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Name of applicant, date application, date received, application number, Material type End use Country of destination docket number ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Framatome, ANP, January 25, 2005..... 1.0 kilograms of U-235 To be returned to Germany. contained in 20 Advanced Nuclear Fuels kilograms uranium, GmbH (ANF-GmbH) in enriched to 5.0% as a Lingen, Germany. contaminant of up to 1,600 kilograms incinerator ash and non-combustible metals, as Class A radioactive waste in 12 barrels (55 gallon drums). February 1, 2005 XW009 11005535...... This material was previously authorized for export by NRC license XW006, which expired on December 31, 2004. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated this 4th day of April in Rockville, Maryland. Janice Dunn Lee, Director, Office of International Programs. [FR Doc. 05-7142 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 39 ABQJOURNAL: Sandia Lab Director Steps Down to Help Lockheed in LANL Bid the Albuquerque Journal newspaper. Monday, April 11, 2005 Sandia Lab Director Steps Down to Help Lockheed in LANL Bid Albuquerque Journal--> Associated Press The director of Sandia National Laboratories will step down later this month to help the company that manages Sandia prepare a bid to run Los Alamos National Laboratory. Director C. Paul Robinson will step down April 29, Sandia officials said in a release Monday. He will be replaced by Thomas O. Hunter, who has been senior vice president of Sandia's defense programs overseeing nuclear weapons work. Robinson plans to assist Lockheed Martin Corp., which currently manages Sandia, prepare a bid to the U.S. Department of Energy for the management contract at Los Alamos. The University of California has held the Los Alamos contract since the northern New Mexico lab was established in 1943. But a series of security, safety and financial problems in recent years led the DOE to put the management contract up for bid in 2003. Robinson was praised for his decade at the helm of Sandia. "Paul kept Sandia on a steady course toward excellence, ethical behavior and a better quality of life for its employees and the local community,'' said Michael F. Camardo, Sandia Corp. board chairman and executive vice president of Lockheed Martin information and technology services. Sandia's core mission will continue to focus on maintaining the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile, Hunter said. Camardo said Hunter, who has been at Sandia since 1967, brings intelligence and intergrity to his new role. "He has a deep and thorough understanding of the national security needs of the nation, the complex missions of the laboratory, and he cares about the people who work at Sandia,'' Camardo said. Copyright Albuquerque Journal Steve@abqjournal.com ***************************************************************** 40 McClatchy Newspapers: DOE wants to cut Hanford cleanup, watchdogs say By LES BLUMENTHAL April 11, 2005 WASHINGTON - Over the next five years the Department of Energy wants to cut the annual cleanup budget at the Hanford nuclear reservation in half, from about $2 billion a year to $1 billion, a coalition of DOE watchdog groups said Monday. The administration's initial proposal to slice $264 million from the Hanford cleanup program in the next fiscal year was only the "tip of the iceberg," said Gerald Pollet, executive director of Heart of American Northwest. "The Department of Energy's priorities are clear," Pollet said. "They don't want to clean up Hanford." However, a spokesman for the Department of Energy, Mike Waldron, said the Energy Department remains committed to cleaning up Hanford and that 27 percent of its overall cleanup budget would be spent at Hanford next year, a 20 percent increase since fiscal 2001. "We've made significant progress at Hanford," Waldron said. "We believe the fiscal 2006 budget will provide adequate funding to meet the cleanup milestones." Pollet and representatives of other groups that make up the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability were on Capitol Hill on Monday to convince lawmakers to reject the department's proposal to cut next year's cleanup budget at Hanford and elsewhere by a total of $549 million - the fourth largest cut of any federal program proposed by the administration. More than half of those cuts would be at Hanford, Pollet said, as the department is trying to pressure Washington state into agreeing to a DOE plan to leave more than 5 million gallons of highly radioactive waste at the reservation in aging underground tanks, some of which have previously leaked. In addition, Pollet said the department is using the budget cuts to punish Hanford because Washington state voters approved Initiative 297, which bars additional nuclear waste from being shipped to the reservation and requires a thorough cleanup including completely emptying the tanks. "We call it budget blackmail," Pollet said. Proposed budget reductions at the department's Savannah River and Idaho sites are not as steep because the states of South Carolina and Idaho have agreed to go along with DOE's efforts to reclassify high-level nuclear waste so not all of it has to be removed, he said. If the department's budget cuts are allowed to stand, Pollet said, more waste will be allowed to remain in Hanford's underground tanks, contaminated soil underneath the tanks will be never be cleaned up and nuclear waste will be allowed to remain in unlined trenches. Most alarmingly, Pollet said the most dangerous waste at Hanford, strontium and cesium capsules stored in pools, will never be treated and removed. Unless more money is provided, the department will be in violation of the Tri-Party Agreement between DOE, Washington state and the federal Environmental Protection Agency, which sets strict cleanup guidelines. "The department wants to abolish the environmental management program and get DOE out of the cleanup business," said Don Hancock of the Southwest Research and Information Center, another member of the alliance. And, at the same time the department wants to cut cleanup funding, the budget for modernizing and developing new nuclear weapons has doubled since 1995 to more than $6.6 billion, said Robert Civiak, a former budget analyst in the White House budget office who released a report on the weapons program at Monday's news conference. "This is an appalling waste of money on the dinosaurs of the Cold War," said Civiak, who believes the budget for nuclear weapons should be reduced by $2 billion and the United States should just maintain the stockpile at current levels. Cuviak said the savings should be used to bolster the cleanup program. "No one has used nuclear weapons in 60 years and no one thinks we should use them now," he said. (Distributed by Scripps-McClatchy Western Service.) ***************************************************************** 41 DOE: DOE Response to Recommendation 2004-2 of the Defense Nuclear FR Doc 05-7231 [Federal Register: April 11, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 68)] [Notices] [Page 18382-18384] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr11ap05-76] Facilities Safety Board, Active Confinement Systems AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice. SUMMARY: The Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board Recommendation 2004-2, concerning active confinement systems was published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2004 (69 FR 75047). In accordance with section 315(b) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 2286d(b), the Secretary transmitted the following response to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board on March 18, 2005. DATES: Comments, data, views, or arguments concerning the Secretary's response are due on or before May 13, 2005. ADDRESSES: Send comments, data, views, or arguments concerning the Secretary's response to: Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 625 Indiana Avenue NW., Suite 700, Washington, DC 20004. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard L. Black, Director, Office of Nuclear and Facility Safety Policy, Department of Energy, 270 Corporate Square Building, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0270. Issued in Washington, DC on April 5, 2005. Mark B. Whitaker, Jr., Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. BILLING CODE 6450-01-P [[Page 18383]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11AP05.458 [[Page 18384]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN11AP05.459 [FR Doc. 05-7231 Filed 4-8-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-C ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************