***************************************************************** 04/12/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.83 ***************************************************************** 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 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N.K. Supreme People's Assembly Doesn't Me 2 US: EnergyBulletin.net: The Cyanide Solution Part I: No time for Nuk 3 US: [du-list] Airforce colonal abuse US citizens over uranium 4 US: Independent: Pipeline firms get great deals on Indian lands 5 Israel Renews Restrictions on Vanunu 6 Vanunu tried for breaking restrictions 7 AGI ENERGY: TABACCI, RESUME USE OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY NUCLEAR REACTORS 8 Experts Gather At UN Atomic Agency To Boost Nuclear Power Plant Safe 9 US: [NukeNet] Nuke Weapons/Nuke Power Presentation April 12 10 US: NRC: NRC Staff to Hold Public Meeting April 19 in Clinton, Ill. 11 AFP: Japan sets July deadline for deal with EU on nuclear reactor 12 US: NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice 13 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Revealing hidden treasure 14 US: News Journal: Hope Creek plant starts up again 15 Daily Yomiuri: KEPCO exec testifies over accident 16 US: NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc.; Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2; 17 US: NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Receipt and 18 US: NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Edwin I. Hatch Nu 19 US: NRC: Notice of Decommissioning Workshop 20 US: NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Joseph M. Farley Nuclea 21 US: NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Vogtle Electric Generat 22 US: NRC: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Receipt of Request for Acti 23 US: Brattleboro Reformer: DPS: VY uprate may raise radiation limit 24 US: York Daily Record: PPL CORP.: Reactor idled for repair - 25 The Australian: Nuclear power is the problem, not a solution 26 Macleans.ca: N.B. premier seeking almost $1 billion in federal loans 27 US: Las Vegas SUN: GAO: Nuclear Plants Must Track Materials NUCLEAR SECURITY 28 US: [NUKES] A Fierce Debate on Atom Bombs From Cold War 29 [southnews] Australia opposes US nuclear stance 30 Guardian Unlimited: Nuke Watchdog: N. Korea Is Top Problem 31 UPI: Nuclear scandal threatens alliance - 32 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Roh tough on N. Korea 33 Book Review: "Atomic Iran" - Carol Devine-Molin 34 Xinhua: US makes new pitch for N. Korea talks 35 Guardian Unlimited: Richard Norton-Taylor - A most dangerous message NUCLEAR SAFETY 36 US: [DU-WATCH] UNIFIED VETERANS COALITION HEALTH BULLETIN 37 [du-list] non-chelation, antioxidant therapies for uranium 38 US: [DU-WATCH] NICHOLS: Articles on Uranium Weapons 39 US: Las Vegas RJ: Idaho senator seeks to expand program for downwind 40 Guardian Unlimited: No Major Radiation Leak for Lost H-Bomb 41 US: DesMoines Register: State Govt.: Middletown workers face new set 42 US: KTVB.COM: Crapo pushing federal add Idaho downwinders to fallout 43 Scotsman.com News: 'Gulf War Syndrome' Final Review 44 Scotsman.com: 'Gulf War Syndrome' Factfile NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 45 Guardian Unlimited: Scientist Got Paid for Yucca Assignment 46 US: Buffalo News: 150 salaried jobs cut at West Valley nuclear site 47 US: AP Wire: WIPP shipments fail to meet expectations 48 US: Las Vegas RJ: BLM mandates land use input 49 Las Vegas RJ: Scientist in e-mail flap returned to Yucca project 50 New Bellona response: Integration of hazardous waste into the Waste 51 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Yucca probe intensifies 52 Las Vegas SUN: Scientist continued work despite probe 53 US: washington post: Nuclear Plants Not Keeping Track of Waste 54 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Report raps NRC on waste 55 Scotsman.com: Victory for Britain in EU Nuclear Waste Case 56 KLAS: Yucca Mountain Investigation PEACE 57 Japan Times: Japan to push fast CTBT activation at nuclear talk US DEPT. OF ENERGY 58 DOE: Office of Science; Biological and Environmental Research 59 DOE: Agency Information Collection Extension 60 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Groups want money for nukes shifted to H 61 Tri-City Herald: DOE to slash Hanford, group claims 62 Tri-Valley Herald: Sandia chief to battle UC for lab 63 lamonitor.com: Sandia director to head Lockheed's bid for LANL ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N.K. Supreme People's Assembly Doesn't Mention Nuclear Program Updated Apr.12,2005 15:08 KST tackle the country's chronic food problem. The Supreme People's Assembly did not address the regional tension over its nuclear program or the six-party disarmament talks. The North Korean Central News Agency said the 687-member legislature decided to increase the state budget by more than 11 percent from last year. On February 10th this year, North Korea declared it possessed nuclear weapons and that it would stay away from the 6-nation talks unless Washington drops its hostile policy toward the North. Arirang TV ***************************************************************** 2 EnergyBulletin.net: The Cyanide Solution Part I: No time for Nukes | Energy and Peak Oil News Published on 7 Apr 2005 by . Archived on 9 Apr 2005. by Kellia Ramares Many conservatives and some so-called environmentalists and greens now espouse nuclear power as the solution to combat global warming. Kéllia Ramares investigates whether building a new generation of nuclear power plants is practical, possible, or wise given both their huge expense and that climate change is already occurring and global oil peak is imminent. (The issues of nuclear waste and security will be dealt with later in this series). The following people are featured in the report: + Scott Burnell - Spokesperson - Nuclear Regulatory Commission - Maryland, US + Richard Heinberg - Author - The Party's Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies - California, US + Sheila Watt-Cloutier - Chairperson - Inuit Circumpolar Conference - Nunavut, Canada + Tom Williams - Spokesperson - Duke Power - North Carolina, US + John Ritch - Director General - World Nuclear Association, UK Stay tuned for Part II of The Cyanide Solution on nuclear waste. * Audio (length 6min): , ~~~~~~~~~~~ Transcript The Cyanide Solution refers to the unfortunate new global policies of dramatically increasing coal and nuclear power stations. The chemical formula of cyanide is CN. In March of 2001, U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney told MSNBC, ``If you want to do something about carbon dioxide emissions, then you ought to build nuclear power plants. They don't emit any carbon dioxide. They don't emit greenhouse gases.'' The pro-nuclear recommendation from the Republican Cheney comes as no surprise to those who see the former Halliburton CEO as a proponent of corporate industrialism. Former Vice President Al Gore, a reputed environmentalist, authored a book called, “Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit,” published in 1992. Yet on July 25, 1998, Gore visited the Chernobyl Museum in Kiev, Ukraine, and delivered a speech in which he said, “The lesson of Chernobyl is not an indictment of nuclear power as such. Nuclear power, designed well, regulated properly, cared for meticulously, has a place in the world’s energy supply.” And no less a green figure than British environmentalist James Lovelock, who promoted the Gaia Hypothesis--Earth as a living, self-regulating organism--has decided that nuclear power is needed to combat global warming. But even as some environmentalists start to rethink the traditional Green opposition to nuclear power, one must ask, “Is nuclear practical?” In June, 2003, John Ritch, Director General of the World Nuclear Association, told Global Public Media’s Julian Darley that the nuclear industry plans for the long haul. “The nuclear industry doesn’t engage in sort of short term planning. Right now the industry is gathering itself to start building a new generation of nuclear power plants. The nuclear industry in the United States has set a goal of moving from 100 to 150 reactors, a 50% increase, in the next twenty years. It is a consequence of long-term planning that sees a future in which greenhouse-gas emissions are going to have to be reduced, and in which there may indeed be a shortage of certain fossil fuels.” But Sheila Watt-Cloutier, chair of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, says that Global warming is melting the Arctic is melting so rapidly, that the traditional hunting culture of the indigenous Inuit is threatened right now: “Where there used to be streams where you were able to cross to go into another hunting area, is now become a torrent river as a result of the glaciers melting. And we had a drowning there a couple of years ago as a result of that. We have lost hunters who have fallen through the ice. We are working towards developing a strategy that would allow us to connect climate change to human rights issues.” As an example of the long lead times needed by the nuclear industry to license and build a plant, consider Duke Power, headquartered in North Carolina. The utility provides electricity to residential, commercial, and industrial customers in North and South Carolina. Duke sees a need for additional generating capacity in its service area, and has no more room to build in its current plants. So in March, Duke Power met with the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission—the NRC, for preliminary discussions about how to use the NRC’s yet untried combined operating license procedure to apply for permission to build and operate a new nuclear power plant. Tom Williams, a spokesperson for Duke Power, described his company’s timeline for building a new nuclear plant: “We think the overall process will take about four years to license the plant, and then about five years to build the plant. So, we’re looking at about a nine to ten year time horizon from the time from when we begin to when we actually have a plant online. But it is important to note that we have not committed to do this yet. What we’ve said is that we’re looking at it very seriously. We’re preparing a cost estimate to see what it could cost to get a combined operating license. If we decide to go forward with things, then we’ll be submitting bids for requests for proposals from the market to see who can help us oversee this process. And then we’ll select somebody to do that by the end of the year.” Assuming again, that things go forward. Scott Burnell of the NRC confirmed that Duke’s licensing application is still years away: “The discussions have been in terms of understanding our process more completely and providing some hypothetical timelines for how they might proceed with a combined license application. But they’ve made it clear to us that they don’t expect to come to a decision on how to move forward until later this year, and even if they do decide to move forward, they wouldn’t expect to actually submit the application until early in 2008.” So if Duke applies for a license in 2008, its plant will not be online until about 2017 or 2018…Assuming Peak Oil doesn’t get in the way. Oil is a finite resource…and Peak Oil, the point after which world oil production will be in terminal decline, is in sight. Exactly when Peak will occur has been debated for some time. The most optimistic forecasters, such as the U.S. Geological Survey, say it’s still two or even three decades away. But Richard Heinberg, author of “The Party’s Over: Oil, War and the Fate of Industrial Societies”, thinks Peak is upon us: “My concern now is that those of us who were predicting that oil peak might happen in the years between 2010 and 2015 were unrealistically optimistic. In 2006, there is less new production capacity that will be coming online than is the case in 2005. But the need for new production capacity in 2006 will be greater than it is this year. So, barring some really extraordinary unforeseen events, I think that 2005 is most likely going to end up being the peak year. And we’ll see declines in production from here on out.” Even if all these issues could be satisfactorily resolved in short order, will there be enough energy to build nuclear plants when global oil production goes into terminal decline? Nuclear power plants are built of tons of concrete and steel that require much energy to manufacture. If the energy and materials to build nuclear power plants must be taken from other forms of construction, which projects will be sacrificed? Military bases abroad, or houses, schools and hospitals at home? Who decides? For Global Public Media, I’m Kéllia Ramares. Transcript by Kéllia Ramares ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Editorial Notes ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Kéllia Ramares is also the producer of the excellent radio documentary Peak Oil, which we hope to review in full quite soon. It's available to buy here: -AF ***************************************************************** 3 [du-list] Airforce colonal abuse US citizens over uranium Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:19:33 -0700 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 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. [End.] Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com [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/ ***************************************************************** 4 Independent: Pipeline firms get great deals on Indian lands April 11, 2005: By Kathy Helms Diné Bureau FORT DEFIANCE — Pipeline companies operating on Navajoland allegedly are getting "sweetheart deals" on rights of ways, according to a December 2004 article published by SmartMoney.com. In August 2003, Alan Balaran, special master overseeing the Cobell v. Norton class-action lawsuit, filed a report in U.S. District Court alleging the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) was giving pipeline companies "lowball deals" on Indian land being developed in the San Juan Basin. BIA has denied the charges. A Bureau of Land Management (BLM) spokesman told SmartMoney.com that the Farmington field office has approved more rights of way than any other field office in the United States. Last month, the U.S. House Resources Subcommittee on Energy and Minerals held a hearing to examine the growing global appetite for energy and its effects on the United States. The Energy and Minerals committee chairman introduced the North American Energy Freedom Act of 2005 to work toward U.S. energy independence by 2025. The act is expected to be included in this year's comprehensive energy bill package to be introduced in Congress by Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M. The Energy Freedom Act would create a 16-member committee representing the United States, Canada and Mexico to work for energy independence within 20 years through natural gas, oil, coal, renewable and alternative energy development. Domenici's previous energy bill, which did not pass Congress, would have provided more than $18 billion in tax incentives to boost development of oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear power, and an additional $20 billion for construction of a natural gas pipeline from Alaska to Chicago. Domenici and New Mexico's Sen. Jeff Bingaman are working on a new round of incentives to be included in this year's energy bill. A March 2004 report from the U.S. Department of Energy noted that the world's remaining conventional oil resources total 2.7 trillion barrels, not including North America's total of 3.7 trillion barrels, with about 2 trillion in U.S. oil shale found in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Kentucky, Ohio and Indiana. The report also found that it would be possible to start an oil shale industry by 2011 that would produce 200,000 barrels per day initially and 2 million bpd by 2020, with direct economic value to the United States of about $1 trillion. Last November in an address to the National Coal Council, Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham said the nation has a 250-year domestic supply of coal. Abraham said Department of Energy (DOE) researchers and scientists are working with counterparts in other nations to develop new methods for using coal. The key is technology, he said. "They are developing the cutting-edge technologies that will permit not just us, but nations like Russia, China, Australia, and others, to burn coal cleanly and efficiently." He said that's why DOE has laid out a $2 billion commitment to the development of clean coal technology, with the first round of grants unveiled around 2002. The Clean Coal Power Initiative is a cost-shared program between government and industry. New Mexico is among the second round of grant recipients, with an unnamed project receiving $79 million to develop a multi-pollutant control process to remove 99.5 percent of sulfur dioxide, 89 percent removal of SO3 and nitrogen oxides, and 90 percent removal of mercury from plant emissions. The New Mexico project and others will contribute to the FutureGen program a cost-shared, $950 million project to create the world's first near-zero-emissions fossil fuel plant. FutureGen is made up of a national network of public-private sector partnerships including more than 150 organizations in 40 states, three Indian nations and two Canadian partnerships, Abraham said. Last November, The Wall Street Journal reported that Peabody Energy Corp. the world's largest U.S. coal producer and operator of the Black Mesa and Kayenta mines on Navajoland plans to double its annual production to 400 million tons by 2010. RAG Coal International, one of the leading privately owned international hard-coal producers, stated in a 2004 report that it had signed final contracts with Peabody Energy for the sale of RAG Australia Pty. Ltd. and the Twentymile mine in Colorado. RAG is the majority shareholder in STEAG AG, parent company of STEAG Power LLC, original developer of the Desert Rock Energy Project. Monday April 11, 2005 Gallup Independent feedback on this website and the paper in general. Send questions or comments to gallpind@cia-g.com [gallpind@cia-g.com] ***************************************************************** 5 Israel Renews Restrictions on Vanunu Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:19:29 -0700 Free Mordechai Vanunu - Info & Action Alert #55 - April 12, 2005 From the U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu http://www.vanunu.com and http://www.nonviolence.org/vanunu/ ** PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY TO SYMPATHETIC LISTS ** 1) Israel Renews Restrictions on Vanunu [note from the U.S. Campaign: Mordechai Vanunu sent the following message to his supporters, before his scheduled appearance in court for a preliminary hearing on the 22-count indictment charging him with violating the restrictions imposed on his liberty upon his release from prison last April. We received the message at midnight Tucson, Arizona time....More news to follow later today.] ------- Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 08:27:32 +0200 From: mordechai vanunu Hi Friends. The news today is not the opening of the trial. But they decided to renew all the restrictions, for another year, yesterday the police come and gave the papers, saying they decided to continue the restriction, and thinking to make them more severe like not to talk on NWs [nuclear weapons] to any one, So, it means one more year in this Prison state. I will continue to be very free, and exercise my freedom of speech... vmjc ------- -end- Felice Cohen-Joppa Coordinator U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu POB 43384 Tucson, AZ 85733 Phone/Fax 520-323-8697 freevanunu@mindspring.com www.vanunu.com ***************************************************************** 6 Vanunu tried for breaking restrictions Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 16:19:53 -0700 Free Mordechai Vanunu - Info & Action Alert #56 - April 12, 2005 From the U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu http://www.vanunu.com and http://www.nonviolence.org/vanunu/ ** PLEASE FORWARD WIDELY TO SYMPATHETIC LISTS ** 1) Israel's Vanunu tried for breaking restrictions (Reuters) 2) Vanunu asks court to abort trial (Jerusalem Post) -------------- 1) Israel's Vanunu tried for breaking restrictions By Allyn Fisher-Ilan swissinfo April 12, 2005 5:05 PM JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Israeli nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu is on trial accused of violating terms of his release from prison by talking to foreign reporters and trying to visit the West Bank. Vanunu, 50, was released last April after serving an 18-year term for spilling secrets about the Dimona nuclearreactor to a British newspaper. The revelations of the former technician led experts to conclude that Israel had nuclear weapons. "It is shameful to Israeli democracy to bring me back to court after all those years in prison," Vanunu told Reuters outside the Jerusalem court on Tuesday. "This case is proving to the world that Israel is not a real democracy." "As a human being, I have the right to express my political views and my ideas. I have no more secrets," said Vanunu. Under the terms of Vanunu's release, he was forbidden from speaking to foreign media and had to remain inside Israel. If convicted of violating the bans, he could be jailed for up to two years. Vanunu did not enter any plea in court as his lawyer challenged the validity of the case. The next hearing is due on May 19. The bans are due to be reviewed this month. Vanunu's lawyer said he had been given an official letter stating that the government intended to renew the restrictions and requesting a response. An indictment filed in a Jerusalem court last month charged Vanunu with 21 counts of violating the restrictions. Listing interviews in the U.S., British, Australian and French media, the indictment quoted Vanunu as claiming that Israel had assembled hydrogen and neutron bombs at Dimona and was annually producing 40 kilos (88 lb) of plutonium, enough to make 10 atomic bombs, at the facility. Last November, police arrested Vanunu, a convert to Christianity, at the Jerusalem church where he has lived since he left jail and brought him to court on suspicion of having spilled more state secrets to the foreign press. He was later released to house arrest and has remained under constant surveillance by Israeli security services. The indictment also charged him with violating a ban on travel overseas or to the Palestinian territories .Vanunu was briefly detained by Israeli police after he tried to visit the West Bank town of Bethlehem last Christmas. Vanunu was abducted in Rome by agents of Israel's Mossad intelligence service and jailed in 1986 fordiscussing his work at the Dimona reactor with the Sunday Times. ================ 2) Vanunu asks court to abort trial by Dan Izenberg THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 12, 2005 Nuclear whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu claimed on Tuesday that Israel possessed 200 atomic bombs, hydrogen and neutron bombs and produced 40 kilograms of plutonium each year. Vanunu spoke in Hebrew to reporters a few minutes before the opening of his trial in Jerusalem Magistrate's Court, addressing his remarks to Channel One and Channel Two television. He said Yehiel Horev, head of security for the Ministry of Defense, had made a mistake by prosecuting him because in doing so, he was confirming Vanunu's information regarding Israel's nuclear capacity. While waiting to enter the court building in Jerusalem's Russian Compound, Vanunu showed reporters copies of a letter he received, informing him that the head of the IDF's Home Front Command was considering extending the orders restricting his movements, which are due to expire on April 19. Interior Minister Ophir Paz-Pines has also informed the Association for Civil Rights in Israel that he was considering extending the order prohibiting Vanunu from leaving the country by another year. The orders restricting Vanunu's movements within Israel are based on the 1945 Emergency Defense Regulations. According to one of them, Vanunu may not maintain relationships or exchange ideas by any means with foreign citizens or residents nor participate in Internet chats. Last month, the state indicted Vanunu on charges of violating the orders 21 times. During Tuesday's hearing, Vanunu's lawyer, Avigdor Feldman, submitted a preliminary argument asking the court to reject the orders issued by "a general" on the grounds that they were extreme, unacceptable in other democracies and violated the law guaranteeing dignity and freedom. "In a system of law which includes the Basic Law: Human Dignity and Freedom there hides the head of the Home Front Command, who stretches out his long arm, lays his hand on Vanunu's shoulder and tells him he cannot meet with any foreign citizen or resident," said Feldman. Feldman added that efforts to abolish the Emergency Defense Regulations had failed, but they were still open to interpretation. Interpreting them as granting the army commander the power to restrict Vanunu's freedoms so severely was disproportionate and not for a good reason, he argued. Feldman asked the court to ignore the fact that the High Court of Justice had already ruled that the orders of the OC Home Front Command were proper. The ruling he referred to came in response to a petition stating the contrary by the Association for Civil Rights in Israel. Feldman argued that the High Court ruling was based on evidence provided by the state behind closed doors and not in the presence of the petitioners. According to the law, the lower courts may only rule on the basis of evidence that was available to both sides and could therefore not take the High Court ruling into account. The State Attorney's representative, attorney Dan Eldan, argued that the order of the head of the Home Front Command was valid not on the basis of "generals or colonels" but on the basis of the ruling of men "who were extremely sensitive to human rights." He added that the High Court justices had found the order "reasonable and balanced." Eldan also rejected another argument put forward by Feldman to the effect that the state had not proved that the people listed in the indictment as Vanunu's interlocutors were foreigners. Eldan said that none of the people appeared in the Israeli population registry, meaning that whoever they were, they were not Israeli citizens or residents. The court will convene on May 19 to hear Judge Yoel Tzur's ruling as to whether to accept the defense's arguments or proceed with the trial. After Tuesday's hearing, Vanunu told reporters he had no confidence in Israeli justice but added, "I won't be silenced. I will exercise my right to freedom of expression." ========= -end- Felice Cohen-Joppa Coordinator U.S. Campaign to Free Mordechai Vanunu POB 43384 Tucson, AZ 85733 Phone/Fax 520-323-8697 freevanunu@mindspring.com www.vanunu.com ***************************************************************** 7 AGI ENERGY: TABACCI, RESUME USE OF NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY Agenzia Giornalistica Italia - News In English [http://www.agi.it/] Wednesday April 13, 2005 h.04.41 Italian Prime Minister's office Venice, April 11 - The energy of the future is at the centre of a debate, which offers various solutions. Today in Venice at a Coldiretti forum, among the guests discussing this, were many experts and authorities in the sector, such as chairman of the House Industry Commission, Bruno Tabacci, Alessandro Ortis, chairman of the electricity and gas energy authority, Giampiero Maracchi of the CNR weather laboratory, Ermete Realacci, honorary chairman of the Legambiente. Coldiretti's proposal is for an energy future in which fuels come from agriculture, from recycling natural products, the use of photoelectric cells, and natural biomass. These systems may be able to assure Italy a saving of 10-12 million tons a year in oil consumption with a reduction of Co2 emissions of 30 million tons a year. Bruno Tabacci immediately entered the ongoing debate in Italy: "I would like to ask the country - said Tabacci in parliament - to abandon a certain frame of mind. We had the most advanced nuclear industry in the world. We have produced important facilities such as the one in Caorso, which you can find in ninety countries. The idea to abandon this technology based on a frame of mind, and then continue to import nuclear energy from other countries, is ridiculous. We need to gain access again to nuclear technology and not reject this a priori. I reckon it is still very useful in the light of what's happening on the oil market". Environmentalist Realacci's reaction was immediate: "Tabacci still believes in urban legends - said former Legambiente president - the truth is that new nuclear energy is not an option. There is only one country in the west that has built a nuclear plant, Finland. Nuclear energy only comes in handy if you ignore the safety of the environment and only if a country has already built a plant: plants cost a lot of money, and it is expensive to build them and to dismantle them again". Realacci also pointed out that in the US where private companies running the plants no new plants have been built for the past twenty years. Nuclear energy is only an option for certain countries with certain energy needs. (AGI) - 111909 APR 05 COPYRIGHTS 2002-2003 AGI S.p.A. [Invia questo articolo] ***************************************************************** 8 Experts Gather At UN Atomic Agency To Boost Nuclear Power Plant Safety Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 12:00:58 -0400 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.2 (2004-11-16) on pascal.ctyme.com X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ORG, SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.2 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com EXPERTS GATHER AT UN ATOMIC AGENCY TO BOOST NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SAFETY New York, Apr 12 2005 12:00PM As part of an effort to ensure the safety of nuclear power plants and prevent a repeat of a Chernobyl-style disaster, top officials from more than 30 countries are <"http://www.iaea.org/">meeting at the Vienna headquarters of the United Nations atomic watchdog agency to share information and upgrade precautions. Under the Convention on Nuclear Safety, of which the International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/">IAEA) is the depositary, parties meet every three years to “peer review” their national nuclear safety programmes. Countries submit reports covering, for example, the construction, operation and regulation of their civilian nuclear power plants. This is the third review meeting since the Convention entered into force in 1996. The catalyst for the treaty was the 1986 Chernobyl accident, when international implications of nuclear safety were magnified and interest intensified in internationally binding safety standards. Nearly 8.4 million people in Belarus, Ukraine and Russia were exposed to radiation when the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine blew up. Beyond the cancers and chronic health problems, especially among children, some 150,000 kilometres – an area half the size of Italy – were contaminated, while agricultural areas covering nearly 52,000 square kilometres, more than the size of Denmark, were ruined. During the two-week review meeting, parties will examine and discuss national reports about the safety of commercial nuclear plants in each country, covering the years 2002 to 2004. “This process allows the Convention’s contracting parties to share information freely, to more effectively improve safety measures within their respective countries and to identify ways in which international cooperation can improve worldwide nuclear power plant safety,” said the head of IAEA Nuclear Installation Safety, Ken Brockman. The Convention is an incentive-based agreement that does not rely on controls and sanctions but rather on self assessment, information sharing and active peer review. “Neither the IAEA nor the Contracting Parties, therefore, serve in compliance roles,” Mr. Brockman added. “Instead, the interactions of the peer review process serve to entice open communications and corrective actions. To date, this has been quite effective.” 2005-04-12 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 9 [NukeNet] Nuke Weapons/Nuke Power Presentation April 12 Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:19:28 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) 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." 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. 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." 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. _______________________________________________________________________ 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 Staff to Hold Public Meeting April 19 in Clinton, Ill. for Comments on Proposed Nuclear Plant Early Site Permit News Release - Region III - 2005-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region III No. III-05-013 April 12, 2005 CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov [opa3@nrc.gov] The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will hold a public meeting April 19 in Clinton, Ill., to receive public comments on its draft Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed issuance of an Early Site Permit for possible construction of a nuclear power reactor at a site about six miles east of Clinton. Exelon Generation Company currently operates a nuclear power plant at the site. The meeting will be at 7 p.m. in the Clinton Junior High School, 701 Illini Drive, Clinton. The meeting will be preceded by a one-hour open house during which members of the public may meet and talk with NRC staff members on an informal basis. (Note that this is the new junior high school, which is located on a new portion of Illini Drive that extends south beyond State Route 54.) The meeting had been previously scheduled to be held at the Vespasian Warner Library in Clinton but was moved to provide sufficient space for the public to attend. The preliminary conclusion in the draft Environmental Impact Statement is that the environmental impacts would not prevent issuing the permit. This conclusion is contained in NUREG-1815, Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit at the Exelon ESP Site. The draft EIS is open for public comment until May 25. The early site permit process allows an applicant to address site-related issues, such as environmental impacts, for possible future construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the site. The Clinton application was filed Sept. 25, 2003, by Exelon Generation Company. If approved, the permit would give Exelon up to 20 years to decide whether to build a new nuclear unit on the site and to file an application with the NRC for approval to begin construction. The NRC staffs conclusion is based on its independent review of a report submitted by Exelon, taking into account consultations with federal, state, tribal and local agencies and consideration of comments received during the public scoping process. The staffs preliminary conclusions include a finding that there are no environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites, and that any adverse environmental impacts from possible site preparation and preliminary construction activities at Clinton could be redressed. For planning purposes, anyone interested in attending or presenting oral comments at the April 19 meeting is encouraged to pre-register by contacting Harriet Nash at the NRC by telephone at (800) 368-5642, extension 4100, or by e-mail at ClintonEIS@nrc.gov [ClintonEIS@nrc.gov] . Interested persons may also register to speak at the start of the meeting. Time for individual comments at the meetings may be limited to accommodate all speakers. Written comments on the draft EIS will also be considered by NRC staff. Comments should be submitted either by mail (postmarked by May 25, 2005) to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail (sent no later than May 25, 2005) at ClintonEIS@nrc.gov [ClintonEIS@nrc.gov] . The draft EIS and related documents are available electronically on the NRCs Web site at: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/clinton.html. In addition, the Vespasian Warner Public Library in Clinton has agreed to make the draft EIS available for public inspection. At the conclusion of the public comment period on May 25, 2005, the NRC staff will consider and address the comments provided, and then issue a final EIS on the environmental acceptability of an early site permit at Clinton later in 2005. Last revised Tuesday, April 12, 2005 ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: Japan sets July deadline for deal with EU on nuclear reactor Tuesday April 12, 3:18 PM Photo: AFP TOKYO (AFP) - Japan and the European Union have agreed to reach a deal by July on the site of a revolutionary nuclear reactor amid a deadlock in talks on which side will host the multibillion-dollar project. The European Union wants to build the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) in France and has threatened to go it alone unless Japan drops its rival bid. Talks in Tokyo aimed at breaking the impasse led only to an agreement to make a decision before the July 6-8 summit in Scotland of the Group of Eight nations, which will be attended by the Japanese and French leaders. "We have agreed to reach an agreement on the site issue by July," Japanese Science and Technology Minister Nariaki Nakayama said after talks with visiting EU research commissioner Janez Potocnik. "We have come to the stage where we have to reach a political settlement," Nakayama told reporters. "We have to do it." Potocnik said he hoped the agreement by July would have the understanding of all six nations which are part of ITER. "We both agreed that we need to speed up our talks for the sake of reaching a solution. We need to do that as soon as possible," Potocnik said. The United States and South Korea support Japan's offer to build ITER in Rokkasho-mura, a northern village near the Pacific Ocean, while China and Russia back the bid of the southern French town of Cadarache. The European Union, which has repeatedly called on Japan to drop its bid, is due to hold a key ministerial meeting on ITER on April 18. But a Japanese science official who attended Tuesday's talks said Japan would not give in to the pressure. "It is now up to the politicians. There is a need for political judgment," he said. The official held out the possibility of another meeting between top European and Japanese officials on the issue before the G8 summit. Proposals have reportedly been made to let either Japan or the European Union be the site of the reactor itself with the other side hosting other key parts of the research. Copyright © 2002 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 12 NRC: Sunshine Act Meeting; Notice FR Doc 05-7368 [Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 19110] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12ap05-101] AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. DATES: Weeks of April 11, 18, 25, May 2, 9, 16, 2005. Place: Commissioner's Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Status: Public and Closed. Matters to be Considered: Week of April 11, 2005 There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of April 11, 2005. Week of April 18, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9 a.m. Discussion of Enforcement Issue (Closed--Ex. 5) 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1) Wednesday, April 20, 2005 9:25 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (Tentative) a. (1) Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Early Site Permit for Clinton ESP Site), Docket No. 52-007-ESP; (2) Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Early Site Permit for North Anna ESP Site), Docket No. 52- 008-ESP; (3) System Energy Resources, Inc. (Early Site Permit for Grand Gulf ESP Site), Docket No. 52-009-ESP; (4) Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (National Enrichment Facility), Docket No. 70-3103-ML; (5) USEC Inc. (American Centrifuge Plant), Docket No. 70-7004 (Tentative) 9:30 a.m. Meeting with Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) (Public Meeting) (Contact: Angela McIntosh, 301-415-5030) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] . 1:30 p.m. Briefing on Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Laura Gerke, 301-415- 4099) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] . Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1) Week of April 25, 2005--Tentative Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Grid Stability and Offsite Power Issues (Public Meeting) (Contact: John Lamb, 301-415-1446) This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address--http://www.nrc.gov [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov] . Week of May 2, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of May 2, 2005. Week of May 9, 2005--Tentative Wednesday, May 11, 2005 10:30 a.m. All Employees Meeting (Public Meeting) 1:30 p.m. All Employees Meeting (Public Meeting) Week of May 16, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the Week of May 16, 2005. * The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415-1292. Contact person for more information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415-1651. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/schedule.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-makin g/schedule.html] . * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g. braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail at aks@nrc.gov [aks@nrc.gov] . Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to dkw@nrc.gov [dkw@nrc.gov] . Dated: April 7, 2005. Dave Gamberoni, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-7368 Filed 4-8-05; 9:21 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 13 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Revealing hidden treasure | 04/12/2005 | [Members of the state Coastal Commission task force survey the now-closed land north of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant on Monday. ] Tribune photo by Joe Johnston A team of scientists and government officials is marking off a new trail within sight of Diablo nuclear power plant David Sneed The Tribune "This is why the commission wanted public access," said Peter Douglas as he stood Monday atop a windswept promontory north of Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. The land that Douglas, executive director of the state Coastal Commission, stood on lies beyond a chain-link fence out of the public's reach, where it has remained for decades. That will change within just over a year and a half. Small yellow wildflowers called goldfields blanket the rocky peninsula. To Douglas' right, cormorants nested on an offshore pinnacle. To his left, harbor seals frolicking in a cove poked their heads above the waves to watch the unusual human activity. Douglas heads the staff of the Coastal Commission. He is part of a team of 15 scientists and government officials who will design a trail to give the public access to three spectacular miles of coastline north of the power plant. The bluff-top trail will run from the southern boundary of Montańa de Oro State Park to Crowbar Canyon near Lion Rock, a prominent offshore pinnacle. The land and shoreline have been off-limits to the public for decades as part of the security buffer around the nuclear plant. The Coastal Commission required that plant owner Pacific Gas and Electric Co. build the trail as part of the utility's plans to construct an above-ground storage facility for highly radioactive used nuclear fuel. The commission frequently requires additional public access in exchange for approval of a coastal development. PG must open the trail to the public by Dec. 3, 2006. This leaves the task force and PG little time to inventory the plants and animals of the area and lay out the trail's path. "We have a very compressed timeline," said PG biologist Mike Fry. "We need to get the ball rolling rapidly." The scientific team, called the Diablo task force, toured the trail site Monday. Its job is to help PG design the trail so that the natural and agricultural resources of the area are not damaged by the increased public access. "I think the commission was interested in meaningful access balanced with resource protection and continued agricultural use," said Charles Lester, who directs the commission's Central Coast region. Cayucos rancher Bob Blanchard grazes cattle, sheep and goats on grasslands surrounding the future trail. Details on protecting the grazing operation as well as natural resources, such as tide pools and nesting shorebirds, have not been determined, Lester said. Fences are one option; occasionally realigning the trail if hikers are causing too much disturbance in one area is another. There are no plans to require that hikers be accompanied by docents, Douglas said. However, that requirement could be added, if considered necessary. Signs and other interpretive features will give trail users a sense that they are experiencing something rare -- a stretch of coastline that is unusually free of human impacts and supports an unusual diversity of wildlife, Douglas said. ***************************************************************** 14 News Journal: Hope Creek plant starts up again www.delawareonline.com / The News Journal 04/12/2005 Hope Creek nuclear power plant has resumed regular power generation after a nearly two-week shutdown for repairs. Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials said a review by PSEG Nuclear found that normal plant vibrations caused a flawed pipe weld to crack and leak small amounts of steam from the reactor coolant system. Some citizens groups have urged the NRC to review the incident, citing earlier concerns about vibrations from a large and potentially deteriorating pump that circulates cooling water inside the nearly 1,100-megawatt reactor. "The company says that over time the flaw increased due to normal system operation and grew enough to cause leakage," NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said recently. "In other words, vibrations from the 'B' reactor recirculation pump were not responsible for the cracking." Federal officials earlier this year agreed to allow PSEG to use the pump for one more fuel cycle, or roughly 18 months, before completing a major overhaul. Hope Creek and the twin Salem Units I and II make up the nation's second-largest nuclear generating station. The complex is part of a Public Service Enterprise Group Inc. operation now under consideration for a merger with Exelon Corp. © 2005 delawareonline.com/The News Journal ***************************************************************** 15 Daily Yomiuri: KEPCO exec testifies over accident The Yomiuri Shimbun The House of Councillors Economy, Trade and Industry Committee on Tuesday called on the chairman of Kansai Electric Power Co. to testify about the firm's corporate responsibility for a fatal steam blowout at the No. 3 reactor of its Mihama Nuclear Power Plant in August. Chairman Yoshihisa Akiyama was called as a witness for the first time, while KEPCO President Yosaku Fuji was summoned both by the upper house committee and its House of Representatives counterpart. Akiyama apologized at the meeting for the accident, saying: "We've been severely reprimanded for failing to spread the firm's safety-first policy to frontline workers. We're in a critical situation. I've been overwhelmed with shame as a corporate manager." Taking responsibility for the accident, Fuji will resign at the end of June. Akiyama will do so one year later. As Fuji will remain a board member, and Akiyama will not step down immediately, however, some observers say neither of the men have taken full responsibility for their mismanagement. "It's true that the chairman and the president should step down immediately as has been pointed out. "But we also need to reform our safety measures. It was a tough decision to take corporate responsibility," Akiyama said at the meeting. Copyright 2005 The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 16 NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc.; Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2; FR Doc E5-1675 [Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 19106-19107] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12ap05-97] Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix A, ``General Design Criteria For Nuclear Power Plants,'' General Design Criteria (GDC) 57, ``Closed system isolation valves,'' for Facility Operating License No. NPF-6, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee), for operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), located in Pope County, Arkansas. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action would provide an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix A, GDC 57, which requires that certain lines that penetrate containment have at least one containment isolation valve (CIV) which shall either be automatic, locked closed, or capable of remote manual operation. The licensee requests an exemption in order to operate at power with certain valves in the open position. Specifically, the proposed exemption would allow ANO-2 to operate at power with the applicable manual upstream CIVs associated with the emergency feedwater (EFW) steam trap and the atmospheric dump valve (ADV) drain steam trap (i.e., one applicable CIV per steam trap) in the open position. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application dated October 30, 2003, as supplemented by letters dated July 1, November 15, and December 3, 2004, and March 3, 2005. The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is needed to ensure the operability of the steam-driven EFW pump and to prevent inoperability due to condensate buildup, and to ensure that waterhammer does not damage the piping associated with the ADV due to condensate buildup. GDC 57 states, ``Each line that penetrates primary reactor containment and is neither part of the reactor coolant pressure boundary nor connected directly to the containment atmosphere shall have at least one containment [[Page 19107]] isolation valve which shall be either automatic, or locked closed, or capable of remote manual operation. This valve shall be outside containment and located as close to the containment as practical. A simple check valve may not be used as the automatic isolation valve.'' However, in the case of ANO-2, operating with the EFW steam trap upstream CIV closed and the ADV drain steam trap upstream CIV closed, could pose a potential challenge to the operability of the steam-driven EFW pump and could damage the piping associated with the ADV, due to condensate buildup. Operating with the EFW steam trap and ADV drain steam trap upstream CIVs open results in having only the secondary system pressure boundary inside containment as a barrier against the release of radioactivity to the environment through the steam trap piping. However, operating with the EFW steam trap upstream CIV closed and the ADV drain steam trap upstream CIV closed could compromise the operability of the EFW pump turbine and could damage the ADV piping, due to condensate buildup. The licensee has evaluated the effects of the EFW steam trap and ADV drain steam trap upstream CIVs being open during power operation, and has shown this to have no impact on the consequences of any of the events evaluated in the Safety Analysis Report (SAR). Therefore, the licensee is requesting an exemption from the requirements of GDC 57 to keep these valves open during operation. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that, in this case, it is not necessary for the subject CIVs to be locked closed, automatic, or capable of remote manual operation, as required in GDC 57, in order to achieve the underlying purpose of GDC 57. The effects of these valves being open during power operation has been evaluated and shown to have no impact on the consequence of any of the postulated events that are evaluated in the SAR. Thus, the NRC staff finds that the operation of ANO-2 with the subject CIVs open is acceptable, and that the requested exemption from GDC 57 is justified for ANO-2. The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the regulation. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released off site. There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent released off site. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. Installing remote manual operators on the CIVs was considered as an alternative to bring the CIVs into compliance with GDC 57. However, the staff believes that any potential safety benefit derived from installing remote manual operators on the subject CIVs would not be commensurate with the cost associated with such a modification. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2, NUREG-0254, dated June 1977. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on January 13, 2005, the staff consulted with the Arkansas State official, Dave Baldwin of the Arkansas Department of Health, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated October 30, 2003, as supplemented by letters dated July 1, November 15, and December 3, 2004, and March 3, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to [pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of April 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Thomas W. Alexion, Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-1675 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 17 NRC: Nuclear Management Company, LLC; Notice of Receipt and FR Doc E5-1676 [Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 19104-19105] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12ap05-95] Availability of Application for Renewal of Palisades Nuclear Plant; Facility Operating License No. DPR-20 for an Additional 20-Year Period The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has received an application, dated March [[Page 19105]] 22, 2005, from Nuclear Management Company, LLC, filed pursuant to Section 104b (DPR-20) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR Part 54, to renew the operating license for the Palisades Nuclear Plant. Renewal of an operating license authorizes the applicant to operate the facility for an additional 20-year period beyond the period specified in the current operating license. The current operating license for the Palisades Nuclear Plant (DPR-20) expires on March 24, 2011. The Palisades Nuclear Plant is a Pressure Water Reactor designed by Combustion Engineering. The unit is located near Covert, MI. The acceptability of the tendered application for docketing, and other matters including an opportunity to request a hearing, will be the subject of subsequent Federal Register notices. Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, 20582 or electronically from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room under accession numberML050940429. The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC's Web site at [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] In addition, the application is available at [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/lice nsing/renewal/applications.html] . , on the NRC's Web site, while the application is under review. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by email to [ pdr@nrc.gov] . A copy of the license renewal application for the Palisades Nuclear Plant, is also available to local residents near the Palisades Nuclear Plant, at the South Haven Memorial Library, 314 Broadway, South Haven, MI 49090. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of April, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-1676 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc.; Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear FR Doc E5-1677 [Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 19105-19106] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12ap05-96] Plant, Units 1 and 2; Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2; Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2; Exemption 1.0 Background The Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC or the licensee), is the holder of Facility Operating Licenses No. DPR-57, NPF-5, NPF-2, NPF-8, NPF-68, and NPF-81, which authorize operation of Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Hatch), Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Farley), and Vogtle Electric Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2 (Vogtle), respectively. The licenses provide, among other things, that these facilities are subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facilities consist of boiling water reactors located in Appling County in Georgia (Hatch), and pressurized water reactors in Houston County, Alabama (Farley), and Burke County, Georgia (Vogtle). 2.0 Request/Action Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 50, requires in Appendix E, Section E, that adequate provisions shall be made and described for emergency facilities and equipment, including a licensee onsite technical support center and a licensee near-site emergency operations facility (EOF) from which effective direction can be given and effective control can be exercised during an emergency. Additionally, 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3) states in part, `` * * * arrangements to accommodate State and local staff at the licensee's near-site EOF have been made * * *'' The Commission issued NUREG-0696, ``Functional Criteria for Emergency Response Facilities,'' and Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, ``Clarification of TMI Action Plan Requirements,'' to provide guidance regarding acceptable methods for meeting its EOF emergency preparedness requirements. In addition, NUREG-0654/FEMA-REP- 1, ``Criteria for Preparation and Evaluation of Radiological Emergency Response Plans and Preparedness in Support of Nuclear Power Plants,'' Evaluation Criterion H.2, states: ``Each licensee shall establish an Emergency Operations Facility from which evaluation and coordination of all licensee activities related to an emergency is carried out and from which the licensee shall provide information to Federal, State and local authorities responding to radiological emergencies in accordance with NUREG-0696, Revision 1.'' Both NUREG-0696, Table 2 and Supplement 1 to NUREG-0737, Table 1 specify that the EOF should be located between 10 and 20 miles from the site, but a primary EOF may be located closer than 10 miles if a backup EOF is located within 10 to 20 miles of the Technical Support Center. For cases where the licensee proposed an exception involving a greater deviation, and for all Corporate EOF (CEOF) proposals, the NRC staff is required to obtain Commission approval. In SNC's proposal dated October 16, 2003, and as supplemented on April 15 and August 16, 2004, the licensee requested approval to consolidate the near-site EOFs and back- up EOFs for Hatch, Farley, and Vogtle into a single EOF located at SNC's corporate location in Birmingham, Alabama. Prior requests by other licensees to relocate EOFs to a location greater than 20 miles from associated reactor sites did not result in the NRC staff requiring an exemption to 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix E, and 10 CFR 50.47. However, the licensee's proposal to locate the EOFs in Birmingham, AL, is 1\1/2\ to 2\1/2\ times farther than any previous NRC-approved distance. At this distance, the SNC common EOF can not reasonably be considered to be ``near-site.'' Therefore, the NRC staff determined that an exemption to the regulations that require an EOF to be near-site is required prior to implementation of the SNC CEOF. In order to ensure that NRC actions are timely, effective, and efficient, the staff is initiating this exemption request under 10 CFR 50.12. 3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when (1) the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. Under 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), special circumstances are present when application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule.The [[Page 19106]] underlying purpose of the 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E and 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3) is to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be implemented in the event of a radiological emergency. Specifically, adequate protective measures are those that provide effective direction and control, protective actions for the public, and coordination of the emergency response effort with Federal, State, and local agencies. The staff relied upon the licensee's submittals to evaluate whether the licensee's proposal to consolidate the EOF's for Hatch, Vogtle, and Farley meets the underlying purpose of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E and 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3). Advancements in communications, monitoring capabilities, computer technology, the familiarity of the NRC staff with the use of common EOFs, and the SNC's emergency response strategies will continue to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be implemented in the event of a radiological emergency. The common EOF in Birmingham, AL, meets the functional and availability characteristics for carrying out the functions of a ``near-site'' EOF. The remote location of the common EOF could aid in response to a security event as the licensee can effectively mobilize and manage its resources and communicate effectively with the site, Federal, State, and local emergency management. However, the former near-site EOFs or equivalent ``near-site'' facilities may be needed to accommodate an NRC site team. Therefore, as a condition of this exemption, SNC must provide a functional working space of approximately 75 square feet per person for up to 10 people; including NRC, State, and FEMA representatives at the former EOFs or equivalent ``near-site'' facilities. In addition, the licensee will maintain telecommunications and habitability provisions (i.e., standard office lighting, furniture, heating and ventilating systems, and electrical power outlets) at these facilities to support the 10 people. The NRC staff observed a dual-site drill on July 14, 2004, involving Farley and Hatch. The staff observed the licensee's notification process, staffing, communication, technical support, dose assessment, protective action recommendation process, coordination with offsite officials, and overall command and control. The licensee demonstrated the capability to respond to a dual-site emergency event. EOF staffing was in accordance with the SNC's procedures. The offsite agencies received timely and accurate information, and adequate protective measures were recommended to protect the public health and safety. In summary, the licensee's proposal to consolidate the near-site EOFs for Hatch, Farley, and Vogtle to SNC's corporate location in Birmingham, Alabama meets the underlying purpose of the rule, see 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). As evinced in SNC's submittals the new EOF location can perform all of the functions of a ``near-site'' location as contemplated by the regulations. Relocation of the EOFs to the proposed site will continue to provide reasonable assurance that adequate protective measures can and will be implemented in the event of a radiological emergency. Therefore, SNC has demonstrated that special circumstances exist such that an exemption is warranted. 4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, as specified herein, the Commission hereby grants Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., an exemption from the ``near-site'' requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section E.8. and 10 CFR 50.47(b)(3), subject to maintaining the functionality of the former near-site EOF or equivalent near-site facilities. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (70 FR 10417). This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of April 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ledyard B. Marsh, Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-1677 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 19 NRC: Notice of Decommissioning Workshop FR Doc E5-1678 [Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 19109-19110] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12ap05-100] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of public workshop. SUMMARY: The Decommissioning Directorate of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards is holding a Decommissioning Workshop on April 20 and 21, 2005, at The Shady Grove Center in Rockville, Maryland. The purposes of the Workshop are to: (1) Inform stakeholders of NRC's Integrated Decommissioning Improvement Plan (IDIP), including planned regulatory and program management improvements; (2) discuss the development of guidance resulting from the NRC staff's 2003 analysis of issues impacting the implementation of the License Termination Rule, and; (3) solicit feedback and suggestions from stakeholders on guidance, decommissioning lessons learned, and the decommissioning process in general. Public participation is encouraged at the Workshop to provide feedback and perspectives on issues of importance to the work of the NRC's Decommissioning Directorate. DATES: The workshop will be held from 8 a.m. to 5:15 p.m. on April 20, 2005, and from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. on April 21, 2005. ADDRESSES: The workshop will be held at The Shady Grove Center, The Universities at Shady Grove, 9630 Gudelsky Drive, Rockville, MD, 20874. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Derek Widmayer, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone (301) 415-6677; Fax (301) 415-5398; electronic mail at daw@nrc.gov [daw@nrc.gov] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Information on registering for the Workshop, finding overnight accommodations, an up-to-date agenda, and background information on some of the topics to be discussed at the Workshop, is at the following link on the NRC's Web site: http://www.nrc.gov/ [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/] [[Page 19110]] public-involve/conference-symposia/decommissioning.html. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of April 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Daniel M. Gillen, Deputy Director, Decommissioning Directorate, Division of Waste Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. E5-1678 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 20 NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Joseph M. Farley Nuclear FR Doc E5-1679 [Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 19107-19108] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12ap05-98] Power Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b and c for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-2 and NPF-8, issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC or the licensee), for operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Power Plant (FNP), Units 1 and 2, located in Houston County, Alabama. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. [[Page 19108]] Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action, as described in the licensee's application for a one-time exemption to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, dated December 13, 2004, would allow the licensee to postpone the offsite full-participation emergency exercise from 2004 to 2005. The licensee's letter dated December 13, 2004, requested an exemption from Section IV.F.2.e of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 regarding the full participation by each offsite authority having a role under the plan. The NRC staff determined that the requirements of Section IV.F.2.e are not applicable to the circumstances of the licensee's request and, accordingly, no exemption from those requirements is being granted. However, the NRC staff has determined that the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, Sections IV.F.2.b and 2.c are applicable to the circumstances of the licensee's request and that an exemption from those requirements is appropriate. The licensee also stated in it's December 13, 2004, letter that FNP will resume it's normal biennial exercise cycle in 2006. The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b and c is needed because the planned full-participation exercise originally scheduled for August 18, 2004, was not performed. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which normally participates in the evaluated full-participation exercise, and Alabama Emergency Management Agency were unable to provide the necessary resources for the exercise due to the impact of Hurricane Charley. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes that the proposed exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. The details of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the regulation. The action relates to the exercising of the emergency response plan, which has no effect on the operation of the facility. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated December 1974. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on January 6, 2005, the staff consulted with the Alabama State official, Kirk Whatley of the Office of Radiation Control, Alabama Department of Public Health, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated December 13, 2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of April 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Sean Peters, Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-1679 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company; Vogtle Electric Generating FR Doc E5-1680 [Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 19108-19109] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12ap05-99] Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b and c for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-68 and NPF-81, issued to Southern Nuclear Operating Company (SNC or the licensee), for operation of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 1 and 2 located in Burke County, Georgia. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact. Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action The proposed action, as described in the licensee's application for a one-time exemption to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, dated December 10, 2004, would allow the licensee to postpone the offsite full-participation emergency exercise until February 2005. The licensee's letter dated December 10, 2004, requested an exemption from Section IV.F.2.e of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 regarding the requirement to conduct a biennial full-participation exercise. The NRC staff determined that the requirements of Section IV.F.2.e are not applicable to the circumstances of the licensee's request and, accordingly, no exemption [[Page 19109]] from those requirements is being granted. However, the NRC staff has determined that the requirements of Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50, Sections IV.F.2.b and 2.c are applicable to the circumstances of the licensee's request and that an exemption from those requirements is appropriate. The licensee also stated in it's December 10, 2004, letter that VEGP will resume it's normal biennial exercise cycle in 2006. The Need for the Proposed Action The proposed exemption from 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix E, Section IV.F.2.b and c is needed because the planned full-participation exercise originally scheduled for September 22, 2004, was not performed by the end of calendar year 2004. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which normally participates in the evaluated full- participation exercises, informed the licensee that the Georgia Emergency Management Agency was unable to provide the necessary resources for the exercise due to the impact of Hurricanes Frances, Ivan, and Jeanne. Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and concludes the proposed exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety. The details of the NRC staff's Safety Evaluation will be provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the regulation. The action relates to the exercising of the emergency response plan, which has no effect on the operation of the facility. The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be released offsite, and there is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action and the alternative action are similar. Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use of any different resources than those previously considered in NUREG-1087, ``Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of the VEGP, Units 1 and 2,'' dated December 1985. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on January 6, 2005, the NRC staff consulted with the Georgia State official, Mr. Jim Hardeman of the Department of Natural Resources, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's letter dated December 10, 2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of April, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Christopher Gratton, Sr., Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate II, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-1680 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: Exelon Generation Company, LLC; Receipt of Request for Action FR Doc E5-1681 [Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 19104] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12ap05-94] Under 10 CFR 2.206 Notice is hereby given that by petition dated March 2, 2005, Mr. Barry Quigley (petitioner) has requested that the NRC take action with regard to Exelon Generation Company, LLC, the licensee for Byron Station, Unit 1. The petitioner requests enforcement action for failure to comply with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVI. As the basis for this request, the petitioner states that the 1C cold leg loop stop isolation valve (1RC 8002C) has been broken for at least six years and has not been repaired. The request is being treated pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 2.206 of the Commission's regulations. The request has been referred to the Director of the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. As provided by Section 2.206, appropriate action will be taken on this petition within a reasonable time. The petitioner communicated by telephone with the Nuclear Reactor Regulation petition review board on March 4, 2005, to discuss the petition. The results of that discussion were considered in the board's determination regarding the petitioner's request for immediate action and in establishing the schedule for the review of the petition. By letter dated April 5, 2005, the Director denied the petitioner's request for immediate action with respect to repair of the 1RC 8002C valve at Exelon Generation Company, LLC's Byron Station, Unit 1. A copy of the petition is available for inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html] . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov [pdr@nrc.gov] . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of April 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. J.E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-1681 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 23 Brattleboro Reformer: DPS: VY uprate may raise radiation limit April 12, 2005 Brattleboro, VT By CAROLYN LORIé Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- If Vermont Yankee begins producing 20 percent more power, the likelihood of exceeding the state's fence line radiation limit is higher than originally expected. The Department of Public Service alerted the Public Service Board of this possibility in a letter dated April 8. According to department commissioner, David O'Brien, the intent of the letter was to simply inform the board -- which still has an open docket on the case -- of this newly discovered information and not to request that any action be taken. In 2003, Vermont Yankee vice president Jay Thayer testified before the board that the radiation limit would not be exceeded if the plant increased power production. That statement, however, was based on a method of calculation that differs from that used by the state. "When the [Vermont] Health Department conversion factor is applied, the resultant estimated fence line dose for power uprate exceeds the state limit of 20 millirem per year," reads the letter. The fact that different methods in calculating fence line dosage were being used came to light recently when the state recorded higher levels at the property boundary than did Vermont Yankee officials. While the state uses monitors along the fence to record the radiation levels, plant engineers arrive at their figures by using levels inside the plant and calculating what it would be at the site boundary. State and plant officials have agreed to hire a third party -- paid for by the plant -- to determine the exact fence line dosage. If Vermont Yankee were in danger of exceeding the state limit, it would either have to build a radiation shield or decrease the amount of power produced to stay within the annual requirement. Though the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows the fence line dose to be 25 millirem per year, state law requires no more than 20. In testimony before the Public Service Board, plant officials agrees to abide by state limits. Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 24 York Daily Record: PPL CORP.: Reactor idled for repair - [ydr.com] [York Daily Record/Sunday News] Tuesday, April 12, 2005 PPL Corp. officials shut down the Unit 2 reactor at Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Luzerne County Sunday to repair a battery charger that is part of the site's electrical system. The plant's Unit 1 reactor continued to operate at 100 percent power. Allegheny Electric Cooperative and PPL Susquehanna jointly own the two-unit nuclear power plant, which has a 2,352-megawatt generating capacity. Copyright © York Daily Record 2005 122 S. George St., P.O. Box 15122 York, PA 17405, (717) 771-2000 ***************************************************************** 25 The Australian: Nuclear power is the problem, not a solution April 13, 2005] [http://australianit.news.com.au/] Helen Caldicott THERE is a huge propaganda push by the nuclear industry to justify nuclear power as a panacea for the reduction of global-warming gases. In fact Leslie Kemeny on these pages two weeks ago (HES, March 30) suggested that courses on nuclear science and engineering be included in tertiary level institutions in Australia. I agree. But I would suggest that all the relevant facts be taught to students. Mandatory courses in medical schools should embrace the short and long-term biological, genetic and medical dangers associated with the nuclear fuel cycle. Business students should examine the true costs associated with the production of nuclear power. Engineering students should become familiar with the profound problems associated with the storage of long-lived radioactive waste, the human fallibilities that have created the most serious nuclear accidents in history and the ongoing history of near-misses and near-meltdowns in the industry. z At present there are 442 nuclear reactors in operation around the world. If, as the nuclear industry suggests, nuclear power were to replace fossil fuels on a large scale, it would be necessary to build 2000 large, 1000-megawatt reactors. Considering that no new nuclear plant has been ordered in the US since 1978, this proposal is less than practical. Furthermore, even if we decided today to replace all fossil-fuel-generated electricity with nuclear power, there would only be enough economically viable uranium to fuel the reactors for three to four years. The true economies of the nuclear industry are never fully accounted for. The cost of uranium enrichment is subsidised by the US government. The true cost of the industry's liability in the case of an accident in the US is estimated to be $US560billion ($726billion), but the industry pays only $US9.1billion - 98per cent of the insurance liability is covered by the US federal government. The cost of decommissioning all the existing US nuclear reactors is estimated to be $US33billion. These costs - plus the enormous expense involved in the storage of radioactive waste for a quarter of a million years - are not now included in the economic assessments of nuclear electricity. It is said that nuclear power is emission-free. The truth is very different. In the US, where much of the world's uranium is enriched, including Australia's, the enrichment facility at Paducah, Kentucky, requires the electrical output of two 1000-megawatt coal-fired plants, which emit large quantities of carbon dioxide, the gas responsible for 50per cent of global warming. Also, this enrichment facility and another at Portsmouth, Ohio, release from leaky pipes 93per cent of the chlorofluorocarbon gas emitted yearly in the US. The production and release of CFC gas is now banned internationally by the Montreal Protocol because it is the main culprit responsible for stratospheric ozone depletion. But CFC is also a global warmer, 10,000 to 20,000 times more potent than carbon dioxide. In fact, the nuclear fuel cycle utilises large quantities of fossil fuel at all of its stages - the mining and milling of uranium, the construction of the nuclear reactor and cooling towers, robotic decommissioning of the intensely radioactive reactor at the end of its 20 to 40-year operating lifetime, and transportation and long-term storage of massive quantities of radioactive waste. In summary, nuclear power produces, according to a 2004 study by Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and Philip Smith, only three times fewer greenhouse gases than modern natural-gas power stations. Contrary to the nuclear industry's propaganda, nuclear power is therefore not green and it is certainly not clean. Nuclear reactors consistently release millions of curies of radioactive isotopes into the air and water each year. These releases are unregulated because the nuclear industry considers these particular radioactive elements to be biologically inconsequential. This is not so. These unregulated isotopes include the noble gases krypton, xenon and argon, which are fat-soluble and if inhaled by persons living near a nuclear reactor, are absorbed through the lungs, migrating to the fatty tissues of the body, including the abdominal fat pad and upper thighs, near the reproductive organs. These radioactive elements, which emit high-energy gamma radiation, can mutate the genes in the eggs and sperm and cause genetic disease. Tritium, another biologically significant gas, is also routinely emitted from nuclear reactors. Tritium is composed of three atoms of hydrogen, which combine with oxygen, forming radioactive water, which is absorbed through the skin, lungs and digestive system. It is incorporated into the DNA molecule, where it is mutagenic. The dire subject of massive quantities of radioactive waste accruing at the 442 nuclear reactors across the world is also rarely, if ever, addressed by the nuclear industry. Each typical 1000-megawatt nuclear reactor manufactures 33tonnes of thermally hot, intensely radioactive waste per year. Already more than 80,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste sits in cooling pools next to the 103 US nuclear power plants, awaiting transportation to a storage facility yet to be found. This dangerous material will be an attractive target for terrorist sabotage as it travels through 39 states on roads and railway lines for the next 25 years. But the long-term storage of radioactive waste continues to pose a problem. The US Congress in 1987 chose Yucca Mountain in Nevada, 150km northwest of Las Vegas, as a repository for America's high-level waste. But Yucca Mountain has subsequently been found to be unsuitable for the long-term storage of high-level waste because it is a volcanic mountain made of permeable pumice stone and it is transected by 32 earthquake faults. Last week a congressional committee discovered fabricated data about water infiltration and cask corrosion in Yucca Mountain that had been produced by personnel in the US Geological Survey. These startling revelations, according to most experts, have almost disqualified Yucca Mountain as a waste repository, meaning that the US now has nowhere to deposit its expanding nuclear waste inventory. To make matters worse, a study released last week by the National Academy of Sciences shows that the cooling pools at nuclear reactors, which store 10 to 30 times more radioactive material than that contained in the reactor core, are subject to catastrophic attacks by terrorists, which could unleash an inferno and release massive quantities of deadly radiation -- significantly worse than the radiation released by Chernobyl, according to some scientists. This vulnerable high-level nuclear waste contained in the cooling pools at 103 nuclear power plants in the US includes hundreds of radioactive elements that have different biological impacts in the human body, the most important being cancer and genetic diseases. The incubation time for cancer is five to 50 years following exposure to radiation. It is important to note that children, old people and immuno-compromised individuals are many times more sensitive to the malignant effects of radiation than other people. I will describe four of the most dangerous elements made in nuclear power plants. Iodine 131, which was released at the nuclear accidents at Sellafield in Britain, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Three Mile Island in the US, is radioactive for only six weeks and it bio-concentrates in leafy vegetables and milk. When it enters the human body via the gut and the lung, it migrates to the thyroid gland in the neck, where it can later induce thyroid cancer. In Belarus more than 2000 children have had their thyroids removed for thyroid cancer, a situation never before recorded in pediatric literature. Strontium 90 lasts for 600 years. As a calcium analogue, it concentrates in cow and goat milk. It accumulates in the human breast during lactation, and in bone, where it can later induce breast cancer, bone cancer and leukemia. Cesium 137, which also lasts for 600 years, concentrates in the food chain, particularly meat. On entering the human body, it locates in muscle, where it can induce a malignant muscle cancer called a sarcoma. Plutonium 239, one of the most dangerous elements known to humans, is so toxic that one-millionth of a gram is carcinogenic. More than 200kg is made annually in each 1000-megawatt nuclear power plant. Plutonium is handled like iron in the body, and is therefore stored in the liver, where it causes liver cancer, and in the bone, where it can induce bone cancer and blood malignancies. On inhalation it causes lung cancer. It also crosses the placenta, where, like the drug thalidomide, it can cause severe congenital deformities. Plutonium has a predisposition for the testicle, where it can cause testicular cancer and induce genetic diseases in future generations. Plutonium lasts for 500,000 years, living on to induce cancer and genetic diseases in future generations of plants, animals and humans. Plutonium is also the fuel for nuclear weapons -- only 5kg is necessary to make a bomb and each reactor makes more than 200kg per year. Therefore any country with a nuclear power plant can theoretically manufacture 40 bombs a year. Because nuclear power leaves a toxic legacy to all future generations, because it produces global warming gases, because it is far more expensive than any other form of electricity generation, and because it can trigger proliferation of nuclear weapons, these topics need urgently to be introduced into the tertiary educational system of Australia, which is host to 30 per cent to 40 per cent of the world's richest uranium. Helen Caldicott is an anti-nuclear campaigner and founder and president of the Nuclear Policy Research Institute, which warns of the danger of nuclear energy. © The Australian ***************************************************************** 26 Macleans.ca: N.B. premier seeking almost $1 billion in federal loans for nuclear plant CHRIS MORRIS --> April 12, 2005 - 19:29 CHRIS MORRIS FREDERICTON (CP) - Premier Bernard Lord will be looking for close to $1 billion when he meets with Prime Minister Paul Martin on Wednesday to discuss refurbishing Atlantic Canada's only nuclear power plant. Lord said Tuesday that given the uncertain future of the federal Liberal minority government, he also will meet with federal Conservative Leader Stephen Harper to make sure he is aware of what New Brunswick is seeking. Lord's Conservative government is looking for a major financial contribution from Ottawa to help fix up the province's aging Candu reactor at Point Lepreau, near Saint John, N.B. "We want the federal government to continue to support the nuclear industry and we want them to help with the refurbishment cost of Point Lepreau," Lord said. "The best way for them to do that is to provide an interest-free loan for 30 years." Lord said the loan would be for a minimum of $800 million. He also wants the federal nuclear agency, AECL, to refund $90 million NB Power paid for preparation work on a possible refurbishment. Lord said the Canadian nuclear industry at home and abroad has benefitted from research into the problems and benefits of refitting small Candu reactors, like the one at Point Lepreau, to keep them going another 25 or 30 years. "This is in the best interest of Canada," the premier said. "The decision the prime minister must make is whether or not the federal government still supports the nuclear power industry in Canada. If so, then it has an obligation to support Point Lepreau in New Brunswick." The 22-year-old reactor at Point Lepreau, the only nuclear power plant in Atlantic Canada, is nearing the end of its life and must be either mothballed or overhauled. Refurbishment would cost at least $1.4 billion, well beyond the province's ability to pay. The premier and Martin will meet in Ottawa on Wednesday afternoon in an atmosphere of political uncertainty created by testimony at the sponsorship inquiry. Officials in Lord's office say the premier is not trying to capitalize on the situation, but politics may play a role. There is strong support in New Brunswick from business, political, labour and academic leaders to refurbish the nuclear plant and keep the industry alive in the province. A monetary contribution from Ottawa could help solidify political support in the Maritime province. There are 10 federal seats in New Brunswick, all Liberal except for two. "They (the federal Liberals) should do it for political and logical reasons," said Energy Minister Bruce Fitch. "They were here when Point Lepreau started and they should be here for the refurbishment. From a political point of view, I think it would help them as well." However, as Lord prepared to travel to Ottawa, he said the revelations coming out of the Gomery inquiry into the sponsorship scandal, should lead to an election. "This will tarnish Liberals in general but it has an impact on everyone involved in public life," Lord said. "An election is probably the only way to clear the air." Lord said he will hedge his bets in the uncertain political environment and meet with Harper. "It's a very possible scenario," Lord said of the chances of a snap federal election. "I'll be meeting with the prime minister first then Mr. Harper to make sure he is fully aware of what we are doing and hopefully get his support." Copyright by Rogers Media Inc. ***************************************************************** 27 Las Vegas SUN: GAO: Nuclear Plants Must Track Materials By DAVID GRAM ASSOCIATED PRESS MONTPELIER, Vt. (AP) - Highly radioactive material could fall into the hands of terrorists because the nation's nuclear plants are not keeping close enough track of spent fuel, the Government Accountability Office said Monday. The attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, raised concerns that radioactive materials "could be diverted or stolen and used maliciously," said the report, which also questioned the level of plant oversight by the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. NRC spokesman David McIntyre called the risk of the spent fuel ending up in terrorists' hands "extremely low." The report was requested by Vermont's two U.S. senators and others following news a year ago 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. None of that fuel has been found. "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," said the GAO, which is the investigative arm of Congress. The 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. The NRC's McIntyre said the commission beefed up such controls and inspections beginning in November 2003. He said those efforts led to the discovery of pieces unaccounted for at Vermont Yankee and Humboldt Bay. He 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. The risk of the spent fuel ending up in terrorists' hands is negligible, he said, because it would be very difficult to get the material past the radiation alarms at nuclear plants. -- ***************************************************************** 28 [NUKES] A Fierce Debate on Atom Bombs From Cold War Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:19:27 -0500 (CDT) "... Although the government has denied that assertion, officials have disclosed that Washington is nevertheless considering replacing the W-76 altogether... This is the one we worry about the most," said Everet H. Beckner, who oversees the arsenal as director of defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration... Some arms-control advocates oppose the 10-year overhaul program, saying it could produce not only refurbishments but also deadly new innovations..." http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/03/science/03nuke.html?th&emc=th A Fierce Debate on Atom Bombs From Cold War By WILLIAM J. BROAD April 3, 2005 For over two decades, a compact, powerful warhead called the W-76 has been the centerpiece of the nation's nuclear arsenal, carried aboard the fleet of nuclear submarines that prowl the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. But in recent months it has become the subject of a fierce debate among experts inside and outside the government over its reliability and its place in the nuclear arsenal. The government is readying a plan to spend more than $2 billion on a routine 10-year overhaul to extend the life of the aging warheads. At the same time, some weapons scientists say the warheads have a fundamental design flaw that could cause them to explode with far less force than intended. Although the government has denied that assertion, officials have disclosed that Washington is nevertheless considering replacing the W-76 altogether. "This is the one we worry about the most," said Everet H. Beckner, who oversees the arsenal as director of defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration. Some arms-control advocates oppose the 10-year overhaul program, saying it could produce not only refurbishments but also deadly new innovations. They like the replacement option even less, saying it could prompt the government to conduct underground detonations that would undo the global ban on nuclear testing and start a new arms race. Moreover, some argue that nuclear weapons are dinosaurs that have little use in American military strategy and that it makes no real difference if the W-76 is ineffective. "That's why people are so passionate about this," said Daryl G. Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association in Washington. The W-76, developed in the early 1970's for destroying large targets like military bases, now sits packed in clusters of up to eight atop hundreds of missiles in a dozen nuclear submarines. While the exact figures are secret, federal officials and private weapons experts agree that it is the nation's leading weapon by virtue of sheer numbers. The experts say that of 5,000 active warheads in the arsenal, 1,500 are W-76's. Each is meant to be about seven times as powerful as the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima. The W-76's importance is rising as the nation's nuclear force relies more on submarines and less on bombers and land-based missiles. "It's by far the most numerous" warhead, said Hans M. Kristensen, a weapons expert at the Natural Resources Defense Council, a private group in Washington that monitors nuclear trends. "It's the workhorse in terms of targeting." Several factors lie behind the current worries and repair plans. The W-76 is one of the arsenal's oldest warheads. As warheads age, the risk of internal rusting, material degradation, corrosion, decay and the embrittling of critical parts increases. The overhaul to forestall such decay is scheduled to go from 2007 to 2017. In all, it is expected to cost more than $2 billion, say experts who have analyzed federal budget figures. Questions also surround the weapon's basic design. Four knowledgeable critics, three former scientists and one current one at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, which designed the W-76, have recently argued that the weapon is highly unreliable and, if not a complete dud, likely to explode with a force so reduced as to compromise its effectiveness. Federal officials, while denying that, disclosed in interviews that the warhead is being considered for a new program that intends to replace old warheads with more reliable ones. Congress and future administrations would have to approve a replacement for the W-76. Officials would give no estimate for that endeavor's cost or length of time. But they acknowledged that they have carefully weighed the W-76's potential problems and the alternatives for fixing them. "I've spent a lot of personal time on this," said Dr. Beckner, of the National Nuclear Security Administration. The W-76, and its troubles, were born during the cold war, when American bomb makers sought to win the arms race with designs that made nuclear arms lightweight, very powerful and in some cases so small that a dozen or more could fit atop a slender missile. Where most nuclear powers had to make do with weapons that were ponderous if dependable, the W-76 epitomized the American edge. It was a hydrogen warhead - known as thermonuclear because a small atom bomb at its core worked like a match to ignite the hydrogen fuel. Standing shorter than a man, it had undergone an extraordinary degree of miniaturization. "It was the tightest design we had," said one top nuclear scientist who did not want his name used for fear of retaliation for releasing confidential information. . "They crammed in everything with a shoehorn." Tensions ran high, especially for senior designers like Charles C. Cremer, the leader of thermonuclear design at Los Alamos. In 1974, as W-76 plans took shape, Mr. Cremer committed suicide. Richard L. Morse, a physicist at the weapons laboratory who directed advanced concepts for bomb design as well as a separate group devoted to laser fusion, said in an interview that much tension centered on the weapon's so-called radiation case. In usual fashion, it was to be made of uranium, which is nearly twice as heavy as lead. Leaders at Los Alamos wanted the case to be as lightweight as possible, so they envisioned it as extraordinarily thin - in places not much thicker than a beer can (albeit with plastic backing for added strength). Its physical integrity was vital. The case had to hang together for microseconds as the exploding atom bomb generated temperatures hotter than the surface of the sun, forcing it to emit radiation that kindled the thermonuclear fire. If the case deformed significantly or shattered prematurely, the weapon would fail, its thermonuclear fuel unlit. From 1978 to 1987, about 3,400 W-76's rolled off the production line, said Mr. Kristensen, of the defense council. The design was considered so good that Britain made a variant of the W-76 for its submarines. Even with their seeming success, arms designers continued to do underground tests to determine how cases would behave in the first milliseconds after the atomic blast. But in 1992, after the cold war, the United States joined a global moratorium on nuclear tests. It was no longer possible to detonate weapons to check their reliability. In secret, experts and officials say, debate on the W-76 began almost immediately after the test ban; suggestions included an alternative design that would thicken the radiation case and give the new warhead a much longer life. By 1995, the work had become formalized in a joint effort between the Navy and the nation's nuclear weapons complex. As the test ban persisted, American nuclear officials singled out the W-76 as the first warhead to undergo precautionary scrutiny. The program employed teams from Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, its archrival. Usually, the meetings were cordial. But a vocal dissenter emerged. It was Dr. Morse, who had left Los Alamos in 1976 for the University of Arizona but returned in 1996 and aided the W-76 assessment. Dr. Morse specialized in scientific explanations for the complex flows that curl through the extraordinarily hot gases known as plasmas, which lie at the heart of an exploding nuclear weapon. His main goal was to help scientists develop a giant laser that, in lieu of an atomic match, would fire on a tiny radiation case surrounding an even tinier pellet of hydrogen fuel, releasing a burst of nuclear energy. Heat from such miniature hydrogen bombs was envisioned as one day being used to make electricity. But Dr. Morse found that nature had erected tricky barriers to that goal. In particular, he documented how a form of turbulence known as Rayleigh-Taylor instability (named after the physicists Lord Rayleigh and Geoffrey Taylor) could perturb the expanding plasma of the very hot radiation case, forming waves, ripples and whorls that blocked ignition of the thermonuclear fuel. He also found that extremely small variations in the case were responsible for the onset of turbulence, making it hard to eliminate. In 1996, Dr. Morse brought similar analyses to bear on the W-76's thin case, arguing that it would probably fail. He said that for decades, officials had swept the issue under the rug and that Mr. Cremer, the designer, had struggled with the problem. In an interview, Dr. Morse said he was soon "disinvited" from the evaluation and left Los Alamos for Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque. But he added that concerns about the W-76 only grew. Dr. Beckner disagreed. He said the joint review found that the W-76 "looks like a pretty good weapon." Even so, the government began preparing for an extensive refurbishment of the warhead in a bid to extend its life by 30 years. The planning started around 2000 and foresaw the installation of new fuses, electronics, batteries, cables, valves and the conventional high explosives that light the atomic match. It also sought to increase the warhead's accuracy and flexibility in targeting. In 2003, amid preparations for the refurbishment, Dr. Morse once again sought to stir debate. He says he felt compelled to do so because of the W-76's rising importance to the nation's nuclear forces. At a secret meeting in March 2004 at Los Alamos, Dr. Morse led four critics who laid out their concerns to lab and federal officials, including Dr. Beckner. Dr. Morse characterized the discussion as acrimonious. "It was a verbal mud-wrestling match," he recalled. The lab and federal officials "would not be candid with us. We told them things they didn't know. It was very, very disappointing." In contrast, Dr. Beckner said the meeting and subsequent analyses left him with "high confidence that this nuclear weapon is a good design, was built properly and will function if required." In early July, news reports in New Mexico began to describe the dispute, and the director of Los Alamos days later scheduled a secret lab symposium to review the "technical challenges" to understanding how radiation cases act in the first microseconds of a nuclear blast, according to a synopsis of the planned meeting. As the number of news reports grew, officials denied that there was any problem with the W-76. They cited a history of detonations of the weapon at the Nevada Test Site. In late November, the dependability issue emerged nationally as Congress approved a small budget item that began a new weapons design effort known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead program. Its goal is to have weapons scientists design a new generation of nuclear arms that are more reliable and more durable, reversing the cold war trend of making small, lightweight, powerful weapons. If possible, the effort is to proceed without nuclear testing. Dr. Beckner, of the nuclear administration, said the W-76 is a candidate for redesign. The current work to extend the warhead's life, he said, could expand to include more fundamental design changes. "That is not the plan at present, but that could happen," he said, adding that he could not discuss the issue of thickening the radiation case. Thomas B. Cochran, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said a thicker, heavier case for the W-76 might force compensating cuts in the weight of the weapon's hydrogen capsule. And that, he added, would reduce the weapon's overall force. Dr. Morse applauded the new federal interest. "What's out there in those boats," he said, "is at best unreliable and probably much worse." Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company Sandra Blakeslee and Kenneth Chang contributed reporting for this article. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Search /RENEGADE/ for articles that mention nukes - http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?keywords=NUKES&increment=weeks&many=52 [only articles for the last one year will be indexed] /RENEGADE/ Search - GO TO: http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi? and just type in your topic. For differing results you may uncheck "article" and search on just "subject," etc. /RENEGADE/ also has "time-frame" in the search, so you can tailor your results that way, too. ----- -- Peace! *STRIDER* Sector Air Raid Warden at /RENEGADE/ Home: http://fornits.com/renegade/ DEDICATED TO SPIRIT, TRUTH, PEACE, JUSTICE, AND FREEDOM Articles posted in the last 10 days: http://fornits.com/renegade/peaars.cgi?search=Search&increment=days&many=10 Blog: http://striders-renegade.blogspot.com/ Bay_Area_Activist list ---- Membership by invitation only - moderated / archives for members only Contact bay_area_activist-owner@yahoogroups.com to request membership. EF! list --------------- earthfirstalert - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/earthfirstalert List-Subscribe: usenet: news:misc.activism.progressive e-mail: mailto:strider@fornits.com strider@fornits.com No War! No Nukes! Impeach! SOS! WHEN SPIDERS UNITE, THEY CAN TIE DOWN A LION -- Ethiopian Proverb ***************************************************************** 29 [southnews] Australia opposes US nuclear stance Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 18:24:47 -0500 (CDT) ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn. Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project. http://us.click.yahoo.com/4F6XtA/_WnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Australia is set to oppose the United States over its refusal to sign a new anti-nuclear treaty to ban the production of fissile material at an upcoming international conference. Australia opposes US nuclear stance AAP 13apr05 AUSTRALIA is set to oppose the United States over its refusal to sign a new anti-nuclear treaty to ban the production of fissile material at an upcoming international conference. Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said in an interview that the US, while not opposed to the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty, does not want to allow any verification mechanisms as part of the agreement, which Mr Downer said would render the pact meaningless. He foreshadowed a showdown over the issue during the seventh review conference of the 35-year-old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the United Nations Security Council in New York next month, Mr Downer acknowledged that getting the agreement of countries for a fissile material treaty was ambitious, particularly faced with the US opposition. The problem is the Americans say: `Well we would be in favour of a treaty but we don't want any verification system.' Well, if you don't have any verification system, it runs the risk of making the treaty a bit meaningless. Mr Downer also said one of the issues that would be up for discussion at the conference would be whether the Security Council should be given more teeth to deal with countries which pulled out of the non-proliferation treaty. At the moment you can just pull out and that's that. Should countries that do pull out of it be referred to the Security Council? He told the paper the nuclear non-proliferation regime was at risk of breaking down and that the future of the treaty had immense implications for Australia's national security. It's very important for us in the Asia-Pacific region other than China to keep it nuclear-free, and you've got quite a lot of countries in this part of the world which are nuclear capable that could build nuclear weapons programs, and we obviously don't want to see that happen. _____________________________________ Nobel Laureates, Organizations Appeal for Removal of Nuclear Weapons From 'Hair-Trigger' Status Tuesday, April 5, 2005 Global Security Newswire http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2005_4_5.html More than 30 Nobel laureates have joined hundreds of organizations and lawmakers in signing a statement to be released today calling for all strategic nuclear weapons to be taken off 'hair-trigger' and 'launch on warning' alerts (see GSN, June 22, 2004). The statement is to be released in Melbourne, Geneva, Hiroshima, San Francisco, London and the United Nations in New York, according to the Association of World Citizens, one of the organizations coordinating the project. Signatories include the Dalai Lama, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, U.S. Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), several members of the British and Australian parliaments, and other lawmakers and organizations from around the world. The European Parliament and Australian Senate also approved resolutions endorsing the statement, the Association of World Citizens said in a press release. A RAND Corp. report found that the United States and Russia have 4,000 warheads on hair-trigger alert that could be launched within minutes, theassociation said. The Statement of Endorsement calls on all known or suspected nuclear weapons powers 'to support and implement steps to lower the operational status of nuclear weapons systems in order to reduce the risk of nuclear catastrophe.' The United States, Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, Israel and North Korea should also 'implement in good faith their obligations under international law to accomplish the total and unequivocal elimination of their nuclear arsenals,' according to the statement. Non-nuclear nations are encouraged to push for nuclear disarmament through international forums (Association of World Citizens release, April 5). __________________________________ The archives of South News can be found at http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: southnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 30 Guardian Unlimited: Nuke Watchdog: N. Korea Is Top Problem From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday April 13, 2005 12:01 AM TIRANA, Albania (AP) - The head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency said Tuesday that North Korea is a more immediate problem for nuclear arms control officials than Iran. Mohammed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said both the North Korean and Iranian issues could only be solved through diplomacy. ``For us North Korea is a black hole,'' he said. He said unlike Iran, where negotiations were ongoing, in North Korea ``the parties are now dormant or in a frozen situation.'' ElBaradei said he hoped a way would be found to ``engage North Korea in a fully substantive discussion'' about issues associated with the nuclear problem, including regional security, economic sanctions, trade negotiations and humanitarian assistance. ``These two situations - Iran and Korea - are both complex (and) cover interrelated issues,'' he said during a visit to Albania to donate nuclear medical equipment to detect cancer. ElBaradei said he was optimistic that he would eventually be able to tell Tehran ``that it has the right to use nuclear energy for peaceful uses but also, at the same time, to assure the international community that the Iranian program is exclusively for peaceful purposes.'' Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 31 UPI: Nuclear scandal threatens alliance - (United Press International) April 12, 2005 By Anwar Iqbal UPI South Asian Affairs Analyst Washington, DC, Apr. 11 (UPI) -- Pakistan is a close U.S. ally in the war against terror, but this alliance continues to be fragile and is often tested by events that embarrass both. The indictment of a Pakistani businessman charged with illegally exporting nuclear-capable devices to his country has once again strained this alliance. On Friday, a federal grand jury in Washington charged 47-year-old Pakistani businessman Humayun A. Khan with attempting to illegally export oscilloscopes and high-speed switches, equipment that have both medical and military use. The most significant point in this indictment is the allegation that Khan contacted Israeli businessman Asher Karni in August 2002, and the two continued to try to bring the devices to Pakistan till Jan. 1, 2004. The allegation implies that even after joining the U.S. camp after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Pakistan tried to violate U.S. laws to enhance its nuclear program. If proved, this allegation can have a major negative impact on Washington's relations with Islamabad that began to thaw in late 2001 after a decade of tensions and strains. And if the relations deteriorate again, it will not be the first time that Pakistan's nuclear program adversely affects its ties to the United States. Pakistan was a key U.S. ally during the Afghan war, too, when from 1979 to 1989, it allowed U.S.-backed Afghan guerrillas to use its territory for attacking Soviet occupation forces in neighboring Afghanistan. It was also during this period that Pakistan sheltered more than 3 million Afghan refugees, many of whom are still living there, and allowed the CIA and other Western military and intelligence agencies to use its territory as a conduit for supplying weapons to the guerrillas. Although the war brought lucrative U.S. financial assistance to Pakistan, the influx of such a large number of refugees was a constant strain on an already impoverished economy. The war also brought guns to Pakistani guerrilla groups who first used them against the Russians, then against the Indians in the disputed Kashmir region and are now using it against the Pakistani establishment. The war also brought the drug culture to a region where heroin was not available before, and it affected Pakistan's already small middle class, which was the backbone of the Pakistani economy. The United States apparently realized the sacrifices that Pakistan had made during the Afghan war and was willing to help it as well, but during this period Pakistan also was engaged in an activity that the Americans did not like. Realizing that the Americans could not have defeated the Russians in Afghanistan without their support, the Pakistanis secretly expedited their efforts to make a nuclear bomb. Pakistan first decided to make an atomic bomb in 1974, years before the Russians entered Afghanistan. As in all bad and good things Pakistan does, the motivation came from its archrival India, which conducted a nuclear test in 1974. Soon after the Indian test, the then-Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto vowed to acquire a nuclear bomb even if the Pakistanis "have to eat grass" to do so. Pakistanis, who blame India for separating the former East Pakistan, now Bangladesh, in 1971, have never believed the Indian assurance that its nuclear program is not aimed at Pakistan. For them to have a nuclear weapon was "a question of life and death" as a former Pakistani President Ghulam Ishaq Khan often used to say, arguing that if Pakistan does not have a weapon to match, India would not hesitate to use its nuclear bomb against Islamabad. This Pakistani thinking forced Islamabad to devote whatever resources it had on its nuclear program, and by 1989, when the Soviets left Afghanistan, Pakistan was only "the turn of a screw away" from making a nuclear bomb, as the father of the Pakistani bomb, Abdul Qadeer Khan, used to say. The U.S. administration always knew what the Pakistanis were up to and increased its efforts to dissuade Pakistan from going nuclear when the Russians left Afghanistan in 1989. The Pakistanis ignored the U.S. advice, and in October 1990, the first Bush administration slapped sweeping sanctions on Pakistan on the grounds that Islamabad was secretly making a nuclear bomb. The sanctions crippled the Pakistani economy, grounded the Pakistani air force, which almost entirely depended on U.S. weapon supplies, and also adversely affected the Pakistani army and the navy. But instead of giving up their nuclear program, the Pakistanis decided to overcome their weakness in conventional weapons by making a nuclear bomb. Thus, when India tested its nuclear devices in May 1998, the Pakistanis were able to test their own devices exactly 17 days later. And it was no coincidence that Pakistan used the Afghan war to focus on its nuclear program or hid behind Indian nuclear tests to blunt international criticism of its own tests. Pakistanis have always believed that they were too weak a nation to pursue a nuclear policy on their own, and that's why they hid behind others to achieve their goals. But things have changed after Sept. 11, 2001. After those terrorist attacks, the United States is no longer willing to allow any group of individuals to indulge in any illegal activity in the United States that can threaten American lives and interests, particularly if it involves weapons of mass destruction. The indictment unsealed before a federal jury in Washington Friday makes it clear that the United States sees the activities of the Pakistani businessman not only as violating U.S. laws but also as a security threat and an act of terror. If proven, the charges could not only send the businessman to jail for a long time but could also jeopardize Islamabad's relations with the United States. The case could also prove a media disaster for Pakistan. Already several major U.S. newspapers are linking this to the network run by the disgraced Pakistani scientist, Khan, who confessed in February 2004 to selling nuclear technology to Iran, Libya and North Korea. Some media reports are also claiming that this network is as large and as dangerous as the one unearthed last year and might have already supplied nuclear-capable equipment to several countries. Karni, the Israeli businessman, reportedly told his interrogators that he had also supplied similar equipment to Indian government agencies dealing with nuclear and missile programs. He also confessed to supplying this equipment to other countries that were not identified in the indictment. Aware of the negative repercussions of these reports, Pakistani officials have strongly rejected any link to the businessman and his activities. A spokesman for the Pakistan Embassy in Washington said reports that Pakistan had tried to illegally buy nuclear devices from U.S. companies were "malicious and unfounded." The government of Pakistan was not involved at any stage, in any capacity and in any way, directly or indirectly," said Pakistan's deputy chief of mission, Mohammed Sadiq. "Humayun Khan was not involved in procuring triggers or other equipment for Pakistan's nuclear program." Sadiq said that while in Pakistan's case Karni only spoke of buying devices for a private businessman, in India he confessed to dealing with government agencies. "And yet no Indian individual or agency has been indicted or identified so far," said the Pakistani diplomat. "Other countries that Karni acknowledges dealing with are not even identified." "If you look at the indictment, you will see that it's U.S. companies that are selling certain devices to an Israeli citizen. Pakistan is not involved either in buying or selling of this equipment," he said. Such a strong reaction reflects Pakistan's fears of possible repercussions. For Pakistan, the indictment could not have come at a worse time. Pakistan is about to buy the much-needed F-16 fighter jets from the United States, which could once again revive its almost crippled air force. Pakistanis also remember that it was the nuclear dispute that led to the cancellation of a similar deal with the United States in 1990. Pakistan had even paid for the 32 F-16s it was then buying. But the first Bush administration not only cancelled the deal but also stopped supplying spare parts for the F-16s Pakistan already had. The Clinton administration continued the sanctions. Another scandal at this stage can once again lead to similar consequences. [UPI Perspectives] ***************************************************************** 32 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL]Roh tough on N. Korea 2005.04.13 After two frustrating years of seeing absolutely no progress in joint efforts with allies and neighbors to get North Korea to abandon its nuclear ambitions, President Roh Moo-hyun reveals he is not a man of limitless patience. His government has so far been on the softer side in the multilateral nuclear talks which brought together the United States, Japan, China, Russia and the two Koreas. The president, who has spent nearly a year vainly waiting for Pyongyang delegates to return to the negotiating table in Beijing, released his toughest words ever on the northern regime this week while visiting Berlin. Many who remember that former president Kim Dae-jung initiated his "sunshine policy" of engaging North Korea in a speech during his visit to Berlin in 2000 expected that Roh too would make yet another gesture of appeasement while in the German capital. But the president denounced Pyongyang first of all for violating the inter-Korean denuclearization agreement of 1991, in which the two Koreas pledged not to produce, receive, store, deploy or use nuclear weapons. He criticized North Korean leader Kim Jong-il for failing to keep his promise of a visit to Seoul, a key item in the 2000 joint declaration signed after summit talks in Pyongyang with Kim Dae-jung. Pointing to the North's breach of accords with the South, President Roh expressed his deep disappointment and stressed the futility of trying to engage a regime that ignores the "principles of dialogue... and abandons common sense and trust." Thus the president joined the leaders of the United States in making moral judgment of the Pyongyang leadership, though in somewhat milder words. For the past two years, President Roh has patiently followed the course laid by his predecessor to maintain the fragile ties with the North, continuing economic cooperation projects, including the development of the Gaeseong industrial estate in the border area. He had even showed a certain degree of sympathy with the North in remarks during his visit to Los Angeles last year that there was a "reasonable point" in the North's claim of nuclear development for self-defense, drawing harsh reaction from domestic critics and U.S. conservatives. However, Kim Jong-il has cold-shouldered him, especially since Seoul banned a southern group's participation in the 10th anniversary events of the death of Kim Il-sung last summer and brought in more than 400 North Korean refugees via a third country. While demanding 500,000 tons of fertilizer aid from Seoul, Pyongyang shunned official talks for its shipment. President Roh dismissed the North's declaration last Feb. 10 that it had nuclear weapons as a "political ploy or a strategic gambit" to gain some advantage in the six-way talks. Having once offered to play the role of an arbitrator between the United States and North Korea in the nuclear standoff, President Roh complained that Pyongyang still rejects Seoul as a party in the nuclear question. As he has taken a tough stand in dealing with Japan about the recent claims on the Dokdo islands and the approval of textbooks with rightwing views on recent history, the president appears to have chosen a more aggressive stance toward Pyongyang. And it seems to be not irrelevant with Washington's recent signs of taking a more hard-line position toward the North's nuclear blackmail. Combined with his frequent emphasis on the importance of the U.S. alliance these days, President Roh's remarks in Berlin could be a clear message to Pyongyang that Seoul would allow Washington greater freedom of action with regard to the nuclear program in the northern half of the peninsula. 2005.04.13 ***************************************************************** 33 Book Review: "Atomic Iran" - Carol Devine-Molin www.americandaily.com By Carol Devine-Molin (04/12/05) In this global “war on terror” with its morphing panoply of circumstances, we always need to be prioritizing and zeroing in on the most significant threat of the moment. Survival is paramount. That’s precisely why we, as Americans, need to closely scrutinize Iran’s nuclear ambitions at this juncture. In his new book, “Atomic Iran: How the Terrorist Regime Bought the Bomb and American Politicians”, author Jerome Corsi tells us all about the clever, yet downright diabolical, Mullahs of Iran, the ruling class of clerics that are now among the key players within the radical Islam movement. In short, the Mullahs are awful fanatics. This tome could just as well have been subtitled, “Everything you always wanted to know about the evil Iranian Mullahs and their quest for nukes, but were afraid to ask”. There’s no denying that the information conveyed by Mr.Corsi is very disconcerting, particularly because it’s quite evident that the Mullahs are planning to perpetrate nuclear strikes on civilian populations. The author was clearly on a nuclear fact-finding mission when he wrote this book. The Mullahs have made no bones about it: They despise America and Israel and seek to annihilate both nations. Moreover, Iran is an international powerhouse pursuant to its role as the premier state-sponsor of terrorism. In short, the Mullahs and their terrorist proxies are thoroughly intertwined and well capable of acting in concert. And it’s not much of a leap to think that the Mullahs are prepared to utilize terrorists to help carry out nuclear attacks, in an effort to maintain “plausible deniability” for Iran. Are New York’s days numbered? Maybe, according to Corsi who believes that New York City and Washington DC are at the top of Iran’s nuclear hit list. Why nuclear warfare? Well the Mad Mullahs and their terrorist cohorts would opt for the most deadly weapon, “one that could truly bring the civilized world to its knees in the space of one day”. And Corsi further explains “a good reason that the Mullahs and al-Qaeda might decide to work together is that the Mullahs are about to have plenty of enriched uranium and al-Qaeda has the operational network to deliver a bomb”. Hezbollah and Hamas will probably be part of the gig as well. If reports are accurate, Hezbollah and Hamas – which are already closely tied with Iran - now have operatives in place in the US. These and other well established terror organizations are all integral to the worldwide web of terror, and they’ve all been “bin Ladenized”, aiding in global Jihad. As to a New York hit, Corsi says, “assume that the weapon is a 150-kiloton HEU gun-type bomb… all terrorists on the weapons delivery mission are vaporized as the weapon detonates”. According to Corsi, ultimately, “the radiation effects will sweep across New Jersey for dozens of miles, with some seriously affected by radiation sickness as far away as 100 miles from ground zero”. It would be fair to say that the sword of Damocles hangs above the New York metropolitan region. Well what can be done to stave off possible Iranian nuclear attacks? Our overall plan involves both short term objectives and long term goals. In the short term, either America or Israel, or both acting in tandem, will have to bomb pivotal nuclear sites in Iran. Probably, Israel will do the actual bombing - more about that later. The long term goal, which arguably could take years, is to facilitate “regime change” in Iran, with a view toward generating democratic reforms and greater freedoms for all Iranians. The author underscored that the radical Mullahs and their terrorist surrogates are “hijacking Islam” and certainly don’t represent the views of most Iranians (a very young population indeed) who would like nothing better than to see the Mullahs ousted. Corsi stated: “hopefully this book will support what is developing as a movement of individuals and groups within America and around the world who want to see freedom in Iran. If we are to preserve freedom in America, we must also be committed to supporting the cause of freedom in Iran. The goal of this book is to bring down the Mad Mullahs currently ruling Iran”. No doubt about it, the political Left often extends a very strange simpatico toward Islamic extremists. In “Atomic Iran”, the author examined the Pro-Mullah Democrats and Pro-Mullah Lobbies, with one chapter entitled “Kerry-Edwards ’04 Endorses the Mullahs”. Imagine if the Democrats had won? Thank heavens America dodged that bullet! If the US had elected the Kerry-Edwards team to high office, it would have been tantamount to sleeping with the enemy. Corsi stated: “The Kerry-Edwards campaign went all the way, advocating not only that Iran be given nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, but also full economic and diplomatic recognition by the United States, plus an entry into the World Trade Organization (WTO)”. The author continued: “The Kerry-Edwards theme on Iran was hard to distinguish from Chamberlain’s approach to Hitler…Hitler was misunderstood; we weren’t sympathetic enough. Kerry’s approach to the Iranian problem was predicated on the assumption that within Iran was a responsible ruling group that could be trusted to make and keep agreements”. In an interesting turn of events, the Mullahs actually stated that they preferred President Bush and the Republicans over the Democratic team. But then again, the Mullahs seem to pride themselves on unpredictable behaviors and statements. That said, there never was any legitimate evidence that this tyrannical regime could be trusted. The Mullahs have consistently proven themselves to be fanatical and irrational. It’s truly amazing that about 48 percent of the electorate voted for these Leftist dolts, Kerry and Edwards, who blatantly reject the lessons of history and have no real grasp of human nature. Didn’t anyone ever tell them that it’s a waste of time to placate a bunch of murderous thugs! It doesn’t work. The Mullahs are gaming the west; they’re playing us for idiots. And, what’s even more disturbing is the fact that the Iranians are so obvious in their manipulations. Just look at how they’ve massaged the European socialists in current negotiations. This entire kabuki dance is so sleazy. In an April 10, 2005 article by Reuters, it states: “Iran will not abandon uranium enrichment, despite its negotiations with the European Union on its nuclear program, a senior official said on Sunday… Iran, which insists its atomic ambitions are entirely peaceful, has agreed to suspend uranium enrichment while the talks with the EU continue but insists the freeze is temporary”. Should we be surprised? The Iranians are engaging in a bit of double-talk. On one hand, they will soon resume uranium enrichment despite the protests of the west. On the other hand, their behaviors should be construed as totally acceptable since their motives are ostensibly good and their ambitions are “entirely peaceful”. But wait a second! The reason for the negotiations was to make the Iranian regime halt all uranium enrichment, which is clearly part and parcel of producing nuclear weaponry. This is cockeyed. Here’s the ultimate Iranian stance: They’re going to engage in uranium enrichment as they see fit, and we’ll just have to trust them because they’re acting in good faith. Yes, their intentions are good, and that’s what is important. So there. The bottom line is this: The Israelis are not going to put up with this nonsense when their lives are at stake, and neither are the Americans for that matter. In a section of the book designated as “Why Israel Strikes First”, Corsi stated: “Israel has sworn ‘never again’…Thought through from Israel’s perspective, Iran must never be allowed to possess nuclear weapons. Iran has made its intentions abundantly clear. Any stoppage to enriching uranium will only be temporary. Iran has announced to the world that the Mullahs will have atomic bombs. The only question is when”. In a subsequent section entitled “How Israel Strikes First”, Corsi noted: “One should assume that Israeli and US military planners have already worked out dozens of scenarios of possible military strikes against Iran…Israel would undoubtedly concentrate on hitting five or six of the sites. Clearly, the Soviet-built reactor at Bushehr is a logical target, as would be the heavy water reactor facilities at Arak. One additional target might be the underground uranium enrichment facility at Natanz. While a strike limited to a defined number of targets would not eradicate Iran’s nuclear capabilities, eliminating several key sites would represent a major setback”. And, of course, America and Israel want to delay Iran’s production of nuclear weaponry, if possible. This is another case that necessitates Bush’s policy of preemption. Overall, I found the book “Atomic Iran” to be interesting and insightful, rife with a tremendous amount of information. I would recommend it without reservation. Carol Devine-Molin has a BA in psychology from McGill University in Montreal, Canada, and an MA in forensic psychology (social psychology) from John Jay College of Criminal Justice (CUNY) in New York City.She resides in Westchester County, New York. Devine-Molin is a regular contributor to several online magazines. Design © 2003-2004 American Daily. Content © 2003-2004 of ***************************************************************** 34 Xinhua: US makes new pitch for N. Korea talks www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-04-12 10:30:46 BEIJING, April 12 -- The United States has no intention of invading North Korea and would deal with security guarantees in an appropriate way if North Korean government would return to the six-party talks. State Department Spokesman Richard Boucher says the United States continues to believe the right place for North Korea to seek to address its concerns is through the six-party talks. He said on Monday that North Korea still has not responded to the proposals the United States offered in June last year. In February, North Korea announced for the first time that it has nuclear weapons and has no interest in further talks. Three rounds of the six-party talks have been held to try to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula. (Source: CRIENGLISH.com) Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 35 Guardian Unlimited: Richard Norton-Taylor - A most dangerous message Analysis Contradictory US and British nuclear proliferation policies will lead other states to conclude that nuclear weapons earn respect and deter attack Richard Norton-Taylor Wednesday April 13, 2005 The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk] A few days before the general election, an international conference will confront one of the most pressing issues facing the planet. Its outcome will help determine the future security of states around the world, including Britain. It is a safe bet it won't get a mention during the election campaign. The issue is nuclear weapons. On May 2, representatives of 189 countries will gather in New York to discuss how to stop them spreading further. The nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) review conference comes at time when Iran is widely suspected of trying to acquire nuclear weapons, North Korea says it has nuclear weapons, western governments are warning about the threat of nuclear terrorism and the US administration is toying with the idea of building a new generation of "usable" mini-nukes. Britain too has a particular responsibility. Last year the government renewed, with no debate, the US-UK mutual defence agreement first negotiated in 1958 and regarded in Whitehall as a cornerstone of the special relationship. George Bush said the agreement helped Britain maintain a "credible nuclear force", giving weight to the argument put by the British American Security Information Council, an independent thinktank, that it is an "open-ended arrangement for two named states to 'disseminate' information, technology and materials in their pursuit of more sophisticated nuclear weaponry". Yet the purpose of the NPT, it points out, is "the pre vention of the wider dissemination of nuclear weapons". It also commits its signatories to work in good faith towards nuclear disarmament. Yet what is happening? The US is developing new nuclear warheads that don't need testing and can be stored much longer than existing ones. The Bush administration is not discouraging US nuclear scientists from asking Congress for money to develop a relatively low-yield bomb designed to attack underground bunkers - hiding places, in its view, for terrorists or the arsenals of "rogue states". Sophisticated equipment, including what is said to be the world's most powerful laser, is being installed at the atomic weapons establishment at Aldermaston as part of a Ł2bn scheme that will enable Britain, with US help, to produce a new generation of nuclear warheads, though the Ministry of Defence says there are no existing plans to do so. The technology will enable Britain to get around obligations imposed by the comprehensive test ban treaty. The government turns on its head the logic of the NPT. Britain cannot disarm, it suggests, precisely because such weapons will inevitably spread. As the MoD put it in its December 2003 defence white paper, the "continuing risk from the proliferation of nuclear weapons, and the certainty that a number of other countries will retain substantial nuclear arsenals, mean that our minimum nuclear deterrent capability, currently represented by Trident, is likely to remain a necessary element of our security". A decision on whether, or how, to replace Trident will have to be taken in the next parliament. Sir Alan West, the first sea lord, recently told the Commons defence committee: "There has got to be a decision made, an absolutely political decision: do we want to keep nuclear weapons?" Both the US and Britain are muddying the waters in ways that will scarcely make non-nuclear states feel more secure. The US has weakened the concept of "negative security assurances" - whereby nuclear states would not threaten or attack non-nuclear states with such weapons - by suggesting that it might use them in response to a biological or chemical attack, or even in other circumstances. Britain's defence secretary, Geoff Hoon, told MPs earlier this month that the government "would be prepared to use nuclear weapons only in extreme circumstances of self-defence". He continued: "A policy of no first use of nuclear weapons would be incompatible with our and Nato's doctrine of deterrence, nor would it further nuclear disarmament objectives... Our overall strategy is to ensure uncertainty in the mind of any aggressor about the exact nature of our response, and thus to maintain effective deterrence." Does that really amount to effective deterrence? Whitehall officials sometimes give the impression that the main reason no British government would give up nuclear weapons is because it would leave France as the only European nuclear power. In other words it is simply a matter of prestige and national pride. The Bush administration has suggested that the "13 steps" agreed at the last NPT review conference in 2000 is simply a "historical document". The steps included a commitment to arms control, lowering the nuclear threshold and reaffirming "the ultimate objective of complete nuclear disarmament". While freeing the US from any commitment, Bush wants other countries to make ever more binding ones. The NPT does not stop states using enriched uranium to produce nuclear energy, as opposed to weapons. He does not want them to have any enriched uranium. Without irony, Bush stated last month: "We cannot allow rogue states... to undermine the NPT's fundamental role in strengthening international security." His target was, of course, Iran. Iran, meanwhile, accuses the US and others of hypocrisy by turning a blind eye to the nuclear arsenal of Israel, which, unlike Iran, has not signed the NPT. The lesson non-nuclear states seem to be learning is that nuclear weapons earn you respect and deter foreign countries from attacking you. That is a very dangerous message, one that can't be allowed to go unanswered. · Richard Norton-Taylor [richard.norton-taylor@guardian.co.uk] is the Guardian's security affairs editor. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 36 [DU-WATCH] UNIFIED VETERANS COALITION HEALTH BULLETIN Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:21:39 -0500 (CDT) UNIFIED VETERAN COALITION Dear Friends and Fellow Veterans, I am a disabled Air Force veteran in search of some answers. I have a wide variety of health problems, many of which appeared so gradually that I may have failed to notice them at first. I entered the Air Force in June of 1989 at Lackland AFB in Texas. There I was given my overseas shots which would have included the anthrax vaccine. We were told to roll up our sleeves and walk down the line where we received multiple air injected groupings of somewhere around six shots in each arm. As I walked away, a mixture of fluid and blood was oozing out of the injection sites on both of my upper arms. We were not told what these shots were nor did we sign any consent forms or acknowledgement of any possible adverse effects. Thats because the military is under no obligation to inform our American soldiers whether they are taking part in an experimental vaccination program or not. They are technically covered from this by a little known document called the Feres Doctrine. I am asking for your help in repealing that law. If you go to the following link, you can find out more about this topic and have an opportunity to add your name to mine and many others who oppose this ruling because it allows for experimental vaccines to be used on our troops without their consent, knowledge, or reporting information about what to do if they have adverse reactions to these injections. As a layman, I have concerns based on reports of the health hazards that accompany any large grouping of vaccinations at the same time and reports of autoimmune reactions based on this practice alone ; regardless of what was in the shots. Here is the link. VERPAS PETITION TO STOP HUMAN TESTING ON SOLDIERS http://www.petitiononline.com/fd1950/ To find out more about the serious health consequences linked to the tainted anthrax vaccines made by Bioport, Inc. for the DOD; please visit the bulletin board area of THE UNIFIED VETERANS COALITION http://xsorbit27.com/users5/unifiedveteranscoalition/ All veterans, their spouses, health professionals, and concerned citizens are welcome to join with us to encourage the raising of awareness of veterans health and safety concerns in the news media. To that end, I have been tapped as a kind of public affairs liaison to help bridge the gap between soldiers and veterans who are aware of these hazards and unique symptoms and those like myself who up until just a few months ago had no inkling of a connection between my various health problems and my military service from 1989-1991. Symptoms of Gulf War Illness include ( but are not limited to the following ) : Joint and muscle pain ( including the spine ), arthritis, chronic fatigue, fibromyalgia, chronic sinusitis, bleeding gums or blood with stool, memory loss, irritability, kidney & liver problems, headaches & migraines, MS, acid reflux, acne, anxiety, convulsions ( I had to do first aid on a female airman who had convulsions at Chanute AFB in July 1989 and I was hospitalized for Bronchitis later that same month ), cysts, respiratory problems, rashes, thyroid problems, tremors, chest pain, angina, heart attack, death ( I am trying to doge this one ), depression, sweating - especially night sweats, ringing in the ears, irritable bowel, excessive gas, dry mouth - excessive thirst and many more. I would like to advise anyone who may have been in any branch of the military from any time from the mid-1980s onward who has even a few of these sometimes subtle and slow developing symptoms to go immediately to your local VA and sign up for your VA medical card and consider registering yourself in the Gulf War Registry. If you had an adverse reaction to any of your immunizations you are entitled to go online or by mail to fill out an adverse reactions form which may help your case and provide the powers that be with critical feedback from these earlier programs in which the maker of the anthrax vaccine was cited repeatedly for a variety of violations. NO VETERAN LEFT BEHIND: MANDATORY ANTHRAX VACCINE INVESTIGATION PETITION http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/346670507 TO SUBMIT COMPLAINTS REGARDING YOUR MILITARY VACCINATIONS. FDA COMMENTS fdadockets@oc.fda.gov [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Give the gift of life to a sick child. Support St. Jude Children's Research Hospital's 'Thanks & Giving.' http://us.click.yahoo.com/3iazvD/6WnJAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 37 [du-list] non-chelation, antioxidant therapies for uranium Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 15:51:50 -0700 Because of the petition forwarded below, I will soon have the opportunity to present advice pertaining to treatments of uranium poisoning to people able to implement them. These people are already aware of chelation therapies, so there would be no point in trying to produce a review of human uranium chelation. One of the things that caught my attention, in the past eight months that I have been studying uranium combustion product inhalation poisoning, is that A. Miller, et al.[1] at the U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, have described the toxicity of uranium poisoning as primarily a genotoxicity, which explains its teratogenic properties cited at the end of the petition below. They explain the genotoxicity of uranium as resulting from oxidative DNA damage and catalytic production of hydroxyl radicals in cells. This suggests the use of antioxidant therapy, or its new cousin, antioxidant production stimulation therapy, e.g., Protandim[2], which contains extracts of milk thistle (silybum marianum) seed[3], ashwagandha (withania somnifera) root[4], bacopa monnieri aerial part[5], and turmeric (curcuma longa) rhizome[6]. Three questions: Are there any reasons that antioxidant production stimulation therapy would not be an appropriate co-treatment for uranium poisoning? Are there any known viable treatments for uranium poisoning, other than chelation? What are the most effective uranium poisoning treatments of which you are aware? Thank you for your kind help. References: [1] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12121782 [2] http://www.protandim.com/html/about_the_science/protandim_solution.htm [3] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12059045 [4] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11116534 [5] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12093601 [6] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=11712783 Sincerely, James Salsman ---- forwarded message ---- > Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 05:40:53 -0700 > From: James Salsman > To: LAR1 at NRC.GOV > CC: jofu at icehouse.net, maryann.parkhurst at pnl.gov, ... > Subject: 10 CFR 2.206(a) request to modify uranium munitions licenses Luis A. Reyes Executive Director for Operations U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission BY EMAIL AS PER 10 CFR 2.206(a) Dear Mr. Reyes: Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, I request that all licenses allowing the possession, transport, storage, or use of pyrophoric uranium munitions be modified to impose enforceable conditions on all such licensees in order to rectify their misconduct as described below, and any other corrective action as deemed proper. The basis for this request is the gross negligence on the part of the licensees, as documented by the as yet undisputed facts set forth in NRC allegation number RI-2005-A-0035 below. This is an exceptionally grave issue involving significant safety and environmental issues. It is clear on the face of the allegations that a result materially different from the issuance of the existing licenses would have been likely had uranyl nitrate fume emission from uranium munitions been considered upon the initial applications for the licenses allowing them. Because this request involves the conduct of military functions, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.301, I ask that the Commission provide an alternative procedure for adjudication allowing the immediate issuance of orders to protect the health of United States armed forces currently at risk of exposure to uranium munition combustion products. This request for an alternative procedure includes but is not limited to: foreshortening of the Commission's customary time limits in accordance with 10 CFR 2.307(a), the expedited issuance of an initial order in accordance with 10 CFR 2.339(a), and/or the use of expedited proceedings in accordance with 10 CFR sections 2.1400 through 2.1407. Please confirm receipt by return email with the case file number assigned to this request. Thank you. Sincerely, James Salsman ---- NRC ALLEGATION NUMBER RI-2005-A-0035 ---- Wednesday, 16 March 2005 Commissioner Nils Diaz Chair Nuclear Regulatory Commission and staff Dr. Jofu Mishima and colleagues URANYL NITRATE ALLEGATION FACTS Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: This message is intended to clarify and supplement my "Allegation and Emergency Report" sent to the NRC on 12 March 2005. As yet there has been no dispute of my allegations. However, my earlier message was somewhat difficult to read because it preserves the format of several messages of included correspondence. This is the essence of my allegations: 1. The primary U.S. scientist responsible for the study of depleted uranium munitions safety from no later than 1979 through at least 1999, was Dr. Jofu Mishima, who has worked with several colleagues at Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, under contract from the Department of the Army. 2. Dr. Mishima is an author of the following and related publications: Parkhurst, M.A., J.R. Johnson, J. Mishima, and J.L. Pierce, "Evaluation of DU Aerosol Data: Its Adequacy for Inhalation Modeling," PNL-10903, Richland, WA: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, December 1995 Gilchrist, R.L., J.A. Glissmyer, and J. Mishima, "Characterization of Airborne Uranium from Test Firings of XM774 Ammunition," PNL-2944, Richland, WA: Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, November 1979 Parkhurst, M.A., J. Mishima, and M.H. Smith, "Bradley Fighting Vehicle Burn Test," PNNL-12079, Richland, WA: Battelle Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, February 1999 3. In email correspondence this year, Dr. Mishima wrote that he was unaware of the fact that uranium reacts with nitrogen. 4. Accordingly, Dr. Mishima indicated that he was unaware of any attempt to detect uranyl nitrate in the combustion products of DU ordnance by the Army. This is consistent with all of the published literature and summaries of classified documents I have been able to find describing the combustion products of uranium munitions. However, European scientists did detect uranyl ion in an enclosed burn last year: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvrad.2004.04.001 5. The basic fact that uranium reacts with nitrogen gas at 700 degrees Celsius has been published in scientific literature since at least the 1950s. Many introductory chemistry texts which mention uranium point out that uranium reacts with most all of the elements except the noble gases. The fact is well known in the nuclear power industry, which has been using airborne uranyl nitrate detectors in places where uranium might react with air since at least the 1970s. I have no reason to believe that Dr. Mishima or his associates deliberately suppressed the basic fact, and his apparently forthright email responses, and his reaction to the Salbu et al. paper linked above makes me think that he was actually, somehow, simply unaware of it. However, for anyone with responsibilities he and his colleagues shouldered, there is absolutely no excuse for not knowing any fact so vital to his specific research and general field of study. As a layman, it took me less than two days of library research to learn the reaction temperature. 6. Uranyl nitrate has a very low melting point compared to any of the uranium oxides, and it has a very high vapor pressure, and precipitates as a film. I haven't been able to determine exactly how long it stays dissolved in air under different atmospheric conditions yet. (But I have reason to believe that there are molecules of uranyl nitrate from DU munitions used in Iraq currently in your lungs as you read this. Those who know the magnitude of Avogadro's Number might not be as impressed with that fact as others.) Uranyl nitrate is much more poisonous than any of the oxides. The extent of the toxicities involved need to be determined. 7. In conclusion, because of Dr. Mishima and his colleagues' omissions, everything the U.S. government has ever said about the safety of pyrophoric DU munitions is invalid. Essentially all contemporary uranium ordnance safety studies must be redone in order to determine the extent of uranyl nitrate combustion product emissions. Sincerely, James Salsman ---- additional commentary, excerpts, and references ---- It seems to me that since uranium will accumulate in testes, this explains the increase in birth defects observed in children fathered by Gulf War veterans, several years after exposure. See, e.g.: "Overall, the risk of any malformation among pregnancies reported by men was 50% higher in Gulf War Veterans (GWV) compared with Non-GWVs" -- http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/content/full/33/1/74 "Infants conceived postwar to male GWVs had significantly higher prevalence of tricuspid valve insufficicieny (relative risk [RR], 2.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-6.6; p = 0.039) and aortic valve stenosis (RR, 6.0; 95% CI, 1.2-31.0; p = 0.026) compared to infants conceived postwar to nondeployed veteran males. Among infants of male GWVs, aortic valve stenosis (RR, 163; 95% CI, 0.09-294; p = 0.011) and renal agenesis or hypoplasia (RR, 16.3; 95% CI, 0.09-294; p = 0.011) were significantly higher among infants conceived postwar than prewar." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12854660&dopt=Abstract Here are some quotes with their full citations from "A review of the effects of uranium and depleted uranium exposure on reproduction and fetal development," in Toxicology and Industrial Health, vol. 17, pp. 180-191 (2001), which is temporarily at: http://www.bovik.org/du/reproduction-review-2001.pdf "In rats, there is strong evidence of DU accumulation in tissues including testes, bone, kidneys, and brain." Pellmar, T.C., Fuciarelli, A.F., Ejnik, J.W., Hamilton, M., Hogan, J., Strocko, S., Edmond, C., Mottaz, H.M. and Landauer, M.R. "Distribution of uranium in rats implanted with depleted uranium pellets," Toxicol Sci, vol. 49, pp. 29-39 (1999.) "Degenerative changes in the testes resulting in aspermia in the testes and epididymis ... apparently a result of uranyl nitrate" Maynard, E.A., Downs, W.L. and Hodge, H.C., "Oral toxicity of uranium compounds," in Voegtlin, C. and Hodge, H.C., editors, Pharmacology and Toxicology of Uranium, Volume 3 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953), pp. 1221-1369. "uranium exposure causes morphologic changes in the rat testes possibly as the result of a uranium-induced autoimmune response. ... Average testes weight was significantly (P<0.05) decreased in rats exposed to uranyl nitrate.... Titers of testicular autoantibodies were described as fairly high for rats with chronic exposure to uranium and the authors relate this finding to the possibility that the observed testicular changes are an autoimmune response to protein confirmation changes as a result of uranium-protein interactions. Four other references are cited ... as evidence of an interaction between uranium and the testes or thyroid but are not reviewed here." Malenchenko, A.F., Barkun, N.A. and Guseva, G.F., "Effect of uranium on the induction and course of experimental autoimmune orchitis and thyroiditis," J Hyg Epidemiol Microbiol Immunol, vol. 22, pp. 268-277 (1978.) "The number of female mice impregnated successfully was significantly reduced at all levels of uranium exposure as compared with negative controls." Hu, Q. and Zhu, S., "Induction of chromosomal aberrations in male mouse germ cells by uranyl fluoride containing enriched uranium," Mutat Res, vol. 244, pp. 209-214 (1990.) Testicular injection with ... uranyl fluoride ... resulted in a dose-dependent increase in chromosomal aberrations (i.e., DNA breakage, SCEs) in spermatogonia, primary spermatocytes, and mature sperm of adult mice." Zhu, S.P., Hu, Q.Y. and Lun, M.Y., "Studies on reproductive toxicity induced by enriched uranium," Zhonghua Yu Fang Yi Xue Za Zhi, vol. 28, pp. 219-222 (1994.) "existing data indicate that implanted DU translocates to the rodent testes and ovary, the placenta, and fetus.... DU has been shown to be genotoxic...." Benson, K.A., Evaluation of the health risks of embedded depleted uranium (DU) shrapnel on pregnancy and offspring development, Annual Report No. 19981118 065 (October 1998.) That quote also cites Pellmar, et al., as above, and A. Miller et al., from the U.S. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, whose work can be found on MEDLINE. ---- end of 3 April 2005 request to NRC Exec. Dir. for Ops. ---- ------------------------ 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/ ***************************************************************** 38 [DU-WATCH] NICHOLS: Articles on Uranium Weapons Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2005 10:21:42 -0500 (CDT) All, Recent articles. Regards, Bob Nichols ________________________________________________________ US Military, President Out of Control What Does "Mildly Radioactive" Mean, Anyway? By Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner (Oklahoma, Red State, Land of the Free) The Russians just recently stopped a weightlifter coming across the border with about 100 pounds of "highly radioactive depleted uranium." The guy said he was using it for dumbbells in weightlifting. The American Department of Defense and other government departments all are unanimous in calling so-called depleted uranium "mildly radioactive depleted uranium." They like to use it for bombs, shells and heavy caliber bullets. http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_15814.shtml ______________________________________________________________________ Oklahoma No 1 in War Crime Weapons Fallujah Leveled by Uranium Weapons from Oklahoma By Bob Nichols (Oklahoma City) The US Military's genocidal operation in Iraq is trucking off whole destroyed cities and acres of dirt to dumps in the desert. This is to obscure the tell-tale and eternal radiation and the chemical residues from the use of banned and illegal weapons by our kids and friends in the US Military. http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/article_15479.shtml _______________________________________________________________ Heads Roll At The Veterans Administration: Mushrooming Depleted Uranium (DU) Scandal Blamed By Bob Nichols, Project Censored Award Winner The Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter today charged that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions (DU) in the Iraq War. Writing in the Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter # 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, Executive Director of the Veterans For Constitutional Law Center in New York stated that "The real reason for Mr. Principis departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Morets naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the Gulf War Syndrome has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military. http://www.axisoflogic.com/cgi-bin/exec/view pl?archive=85&num=15334&printer=1 ________________________________________________________________ [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/V_qgJD/3MnJAA/xGEGAA/Sj.0lB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> [Brought to you by HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-watch/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: du-watch-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ ***************************************************************** 39 Las Vegas RJ: Idaho senator seeks to expand program for downwinders Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Republican waiting on scientific report By REBECCA BOONE THE ASSOCIATED PRESS BOISE, Idaho -- U.S. Sen. Mike Crapo said he is poised to introduce legislation designed to expand to Idaho a federal program compensating people for diseases linked to fallout from Cold War-era testing in Southern Nevada. But the Idaho Republican is still waiting on a report from the National Academies of Science to decide just how much of Idaho should be included in the legislation. The report, looking at the adequacy of the 1990 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, was expected to be released by March 31. But Isaf Al-Nabulsi, the senior program officer with the national academies' Board on Radiation Effects Research, said the study was still under peer-review and is now expected to be released by the end of this month, two months before the June 30 deadline mandated by Congress. "As you may know, I have concluded that the evidence exists to expand RECA to include four counties in Idaho, and I am committed to introducing legislation," Crapo wrote in a letter to the academies. "However, it is my expectation that the ... report will provide evidence that expansion beyond those four counties will be warranted." J Truman, the director of Downwinders, an organization for Idaho residents believed to be suffering from radiation-related health problems, said Crapo's legislation could open the door to states from Idaho to the East Coast. "There's a group of Montana thyroid cancer victims on their way to Washington this week to badger their delegation for legislation, and a group from Arizona is demanding that they be included. The fallout hit most of Iowa and Missouri, even parts of upstate New York," Truman said. "It's a sad situation, when we still haven't got justice and it's 54 years and counting." The Idaho downwinders said they should be eligible for the $50,000 payment that the federal government gives to other victims of the 1950s atmospheric nuclear weapons-testing fallout. The nuclear tests sometimes left parts of southern Idaho covered with radioactive ash, contaminating food and likely causing thyroid cancer and possibly other deadly diseases. Idaho state legislators have already passed a bill urging Crapo and the rest of the delegation to support adding at least Blaine, Gem, Custer and Lemhi counties to the federal compensation list. U.S. Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, said he wants to see the results of the study but will support Crapo's legislation. "Preferably it will include the state of Idaho and not just the four counties," Simpson said. Spokesmen for Rep. Butch Otter and Sen. Larry Craig, both R-Idaho, held their cards closer. "Congressman Otter is very concerned about the pain and personal tragedy that has been visited upon Idaho families," Otter spokesman Mark Warbis said. "Congressman Otter also believes that decisions must be based on science and not on politics. If this were going to be a political decision, there was no need for a scientific study." Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 40 Guardian Unlimited: No Major Radiation Leak for Lost H-Bomb From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday April 12, 2005 8:16 PM By RUSS BYNUM Associated Press Writer SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) - Government testing for possible signs of a nuclear bomb lost off the Georgia coast in 1958 found no significant radiation, the Air Force said in a letter to a Georgia newspaper. Last September, government scientists took radiation readings and soil samples in waters near Tybee Island after a retired Air Force pilot who has searched privately for the bomb reported finding possible radioactive clues. The government has not released a final report, but a letter by Air Force Col. James DeFrank, written in response to a story by The Associated Press, said government tests did not match radiation levels reported by Derek Duke. ``Since the interagency team did not find the `significant' radiation levels Mr. Duke's team reported, the focus shifted to the arduous task of analyzing data to determine what the samples did contain,'' wrote DeFrank, the Air Force deputy director of public affairs. The letter was sent April 4 to the editorial page of The Macon Telegraph, one of the newspapers that published the AP story. The newspaper did not publish the letter, but the Air Force provided the AP with a copy Tuesday. The H-bomb was dumped at sea in 1958 by a damaged B-47 bomber during a training flight after the plane collided with a fighter jet. The Air Force says the Mark-15 bomb lacks the plutonium capsule needed to trigger an atomic blast. Still, it contains about 400 pounds of conventional explosives and an undisclosed amount of uranium. Duke said he was perplexed by the government's finding. ``There's no question in my mind that the day we reported those readings, they existed,'' he said. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 41 DesMoines Register: State Govt.: Middletown workers face new setback [http://www.desmoinesregister.com] About 4,000 workers assembled and tested weapons at the Middletown plant from 1947 to the mid-1970s. Hundreds have made claims to the government that the work made them sick because of radiation exposure. Many former employees have died. The claims have languished for years. An advisory board says it must review more information, so compensation for ill employees remains on hold. By REGISTER WASHINGTON BUREAU April 12, 2005 Washington, D.C. - Former workers at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Middletown thought they had won their long quest to obtain help from the U.S. government for radiation exposure while building Cold War weapons. They were disheartened Monday when they were confronted with yet another delay. Bob Anderson, a former plant security guard and advocate for the workers, said the new delay was deeply frustrating. The workers had thought they would soon receive compensation checks after a pivotal Feb. 9 meeting of a federal advisory board. "When the plant closed in 1974, the average age of the workers was 54. Do the math," he said. "Frankly, the funeral parlors are going to take care of it." Ed Webb, a 78-year-old former worker from Burlington, said he's skeptical that compensation will ever be approved. "If they ever recognize a cancer claim from this institution, I'll buy dinner," he said. "It looks like everybody's trying to scratch each other's backs and dragging this out." Put in limbo was the Feb. 9 decision by a federal advisory board on radiation and worker health to speed up medical care and compensation to workers, many of whom have contracted cancer or have died from the disease. Under legislation approved by Congress, $150,000 in compensation and medical care is to be given to those found to have been made ill by their work with nuclear weapons components. From 1947 to the mid-1970s, about 4,000 workers assembled and tested weapons at the Middletown plant, and hundreds of their claims have been languishing for years. After the February meeting, the next step would have been for the board recommendation to be forwarded to Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt, who would have had 30 days to take action. Congress then would have another 30 days in which it had to act. But that same advisory board voted Monday during a three-hour teleconference meeting to review additional information provided by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health that was not available at the Feb. 9 meeting. Board members said the delay is until a meeting later this month, but Anderson was doubtful. "In my view, there was no new information," he said. The information is connected with controversial dose reconstructions needed to estimate the likelihood and amount of radiation for each claim. The question is whether it is possible to make such reconstructions. Board member Michael Gibson of Ohio said he was not happy about the situation. He said that the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health should have more quickly informed the board of the new information "and not just to be left in the dark." Pushed by Gibson, the board agreed to draft a letter to the former workers expressing regret over the new delay. "They got their hopes up," he said. "I think the agencies that are supposed to be providing us with information put us in a bad light in the public eye." The delay prompted dismay from both of Iowa's senators. "The workers who got sick from their work at the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant have waited too long to get the compensation they deserve, and this most recent delay is very disheartening," said Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa. Maureen Knightly, a spokeswoman for Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa, said, "These people have waited too long. They should be compensated." Rep. Jim Leach, an eastern Iowa Republican, also was critical. "While there is always a case for thoroughness, this process is now in its fourth year, and some 400 people died in the last year alone," Leach said. "For these last victims of the Cold War, justice delayed is justice denied." The board is expected to next meet April 25-27 in Cedar Rapids, with much of the time devoted to discussing the Iowa claims. Webb, who worked in the plant from 1950 to 1975, has had cancer of the prostate and kidney, and has difficulty breathing. He said he is unhappy the board is meeting later this month in Cedar Rapids, a two-hour drive from Middletown. "If they are going to have a conference on this installation, why in Sam Hannah don't they have it here?" he said. On the Web For more information on the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 and the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, visit [http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas] Staff Writer Erin Jordan contributed to this article. Copyright © 2004, The Des Moines Register. ***************************************************************** 42 KTVB.COM: Crapo pushing federal add Idaho downwinders to fallout compensation 08:31 AM MDT on Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Associated Press BOISE -- U.S. Senator Mike Crapo wants Idaho to be part of a federal program that compensates people for diseases linked to fallout from Cold War-era nuclear testing in Nevada. But his legislation is on hold. He's waiting on a report from the National Academies of Science to decide just how much of the state should be included in the legislation. Crapo says at least four counties in Idaho -- maybe more -- could be included under the 1990 Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. The Downwinders group consists of Idaho residents who believe they're suffering from radiation-related health problems. They say they should be eligible for payments that the government has given to victims of fallout from 1950's atmospheric nuclear weapons testing. J Truman, the director of Downwinders, says Crapo's legislation could open the door to states from Idaho to the East Coast. More KTVB MEDIA GROUP [http://www.belointeractive.com] ***************************************************************** 43 Scotsman.com News: 'Gulf War Syndrome' Final Review Tue 12 Apr 2005 By Louise Barnett, PA The chair of the UK’s public inquiry into so-called Gulf War syndrome will today address a final review of research into the condition. Evidence from both sides of the Atlantic will be put before the hearing, in the Queen’s Robing Room at the House of Lords. The UK’s independent public inquiry, headed by former law lord Lord Lloyd of Berwick, said in its final report last year that there was “every reason” to accept the existence of Gulf War syndrome. Lord Lloyd’s inquiry concluded that health problems suffered by an estimated 6,000 veterans were a direct result of their service in the 1991 conflict. It found that illnesses suffered by the veterans were likely to be due to a combination of causes. These included multiple injections of vaccines, the use of organophosphate pesticides to spray tents, low level exposure to nerve gas, and the inhalation of depleted uranium dust. The inquiry called on the MoD to set up a special fund to make compensation payments to those veterans who had suffered because of their service in the war to liberate Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. But a Ministry of Defence review of more than 100 previously rejected claims for a war pension from veterans of the first Gulf conflict later found irregularities in only six cases. James Binns, who chaired the US Research Committee inquiry into the Gulf War veterans’ illnesses, will put evidence uncovered in the US before today’s hearing. ***************************************************************** 44 Scotsman.com: 'Gulf War Syndrome' Factfile Tue 12 Apr 2005 By Louise Barnett, PA Research into Gulf War syndrome from both sides of the Atlantic will be put before a hearing in London today. There have been three major reports into Gulf War illness in the last 12 months. These included the findings of the UK’s independent Lloyd Inquiry, and in the US the reports of both the Government Accountability Office and the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans’ Illnesses. The UK’s Gulf War Illnesses public inquiry published its final report last November. It later said its findings had been “largely discredited” by the UK Government. The UK’s independent public inquiry was launched as a result of pressure from the Royal British Legion and various Gulf War veterans associations. The MoD refused to allow serving officials or military personnel to appear before the inquiry although it did submit written evidence. The inquiry found that Gulf veterans were twice as likely to suffer ill health than if they had been deployed elsewhere overseas or remained in the UK. The inquiry said multiple injection of vaccines, including anthrax and plague, could be the cause of the veterans’ illnesses. Organophosphate pesticides used to spray tents, low level exposure to nerve gas, and the inhalation of depleted uranium dust were other possible causes. The inquiry found that a combination of these factors against a background of stress were the most likely causes of veterans’ illnesses. It recommended that the MoD should set up a special fund to make ex gratia payments to veterans suffering Gulf War syndrome. And it called for the MoD to review the 272 cases of veterans who had lodged claims for a war pension. A Ministry of Defence review of more than 100 previously rejected claims for a war pension from veterans of the first Gulf conflict later found irregularities in only six cases. ***************************************************************** 45 Guardian Unlimited: Scientist Got Paid for Yucca Assignment From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday April 12, 2005 9:16 PM By ERICA WERNER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - A scientist who wrote e-mails about falsifying work on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste project was paid $4,900 for a Yucca assignment he got after the e-mails became known, the U.S. Geological Survey said Tuesday. Last week, the Energy Department said the scientist - a USGS hydrologist identified by USGS Tuesday as Joe A. Hevesi - never billed for the work. Hevesi was a principal author of e-mails written between 1998 and 2000 by scientists studying how water moved through the proposed waste dump 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. In the e-mails to colleagues, Hevesi discussed making up facts, deleting inconvenient data and keeping two sets of files - ``the ones that will keep (quality assurance) happy and the ones that were actually used.'' USGS Director Charles Groat assured lawmakers at a hearing last week that the scientists involved were no longer working on Yucca Mountain. A day later, USGS and the Energy Department disclosed that Hevesi had actually been given a new, 40-hour assignment in March, several days after Energy learned of the e-mails. An Energy spokeswoman said last week that Hevesi never actually billed any hours for the assignment. On Tuesday, USGS spokeswoman A.B. Wade said officials had learned that Hevesi had in fact completed the 40 hours of work on the assignment, which was to help reconstruct a computer file needed to run models of water infiltration through the proposed dump site. Hevesi was paid his normal weekly salary of $4,900 for the work, and USGS is billing the Energy Department for the amount, Wade said. Energy spokeswoman Anne Womack Kolton said the department was still gathering information and she couldn't comment further. A message for Hevesi left at his USGS office in Sacramento, Calif., was not returned. USGS scientists validated Energy Department conclusions that water seeped relatively slowly through the proposed dump site, which would result in less radiation release - a finding disputed by Yucca critics. Meanwhile, a congressional panel chaired by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., was pushing forward with plans to seek testimony from Hevesi and two other USGS scientists involved with the e-mails. The Interior Department last week turned down a request for the scientists to testify before Porter's House Government Reform federal work force and agency organization subcommittee. The department cited ongoing criminal investigations by the FBI and inspectors general at the Energy and Interior departments. Yucca Mountain is planned as a national repository for 77,000 tons of high-level commercial and defense nuclear waste, to be buried for 10,000 years and beyond in the Nevada desert. The project is strongly opposed by Nevada officials, and the most recent completion date of 2010 was recently abandoned by the Energy Department. --- On the Net: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management: http://www.ymp.gov Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects: http://www.state.nv.us/nucwaste Nuclear Regulatory Commission: http://www.nrc.gov Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 46 Buffalo News: 150 salaried jobs cut at West Valley nuclear site BUFFALO.COM April 12, 2005 MATT GLYNN News Business Reporter West Valley Nuclear Services (WVNS) plans to cut up to 150 salaried positions as the West Valley Demonstration Project moves into a new phase. The company, a subsidiary of Washington Group International (WGI), is offering salaried workers an opportunity to leave with full separation benefits, said Terry Dunford, a WVNS spokesman. The affected workers have 45 days to decide whether to accept the offer. After that period of voluntary separations ends, WVNS will decide whether "involuntary staff reductions" are necessary, he said. WVNS currently employs about 460 people, roughly 300 of whom are salaried workers. The remaining "blue collar" employees are unaffected by the reductions plan outlined on Monday. Dunford described the planned reductions as another step in a project whose employment has declined from a peak of 970 people. If 150 salaried jobs are cut, total employment at WVNS would drop to 310 people. "Any project, by its very nature, has a beginning and an end," Dunford said. The West Valley project, he added, is "closer to the end than to the beginning." Project workers are continuing the decontamination of on-site radioactive facilities and the shipping of low-level waste in preparation for decommissioning, Dunford said. WVNS manages and operates the project for the Energy Department. The site was once a commercial nuclear fuels reprocessing center. Since January 2004, 23 WVNS workers have been transferred within Washington Group International, another 23 workers left for other opportunities, and two additional workers retired, Dunford said. While the project is in Cattaraugus County, its economic impact is felt across the region. When WVNS still had 476 employees, they received total wages and benefits worth $38 million, spread among the four congressional districts in Western New York, according to data from WVNS, the Energy Department and the New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Under the offer made to salaried workers on Monday, employees who leave would receive severance pay based on their number of years of service, extended health care and retraining support. WGI will also make efforts to transfer employees into WGI job openings locally or elsewhere, Dunford said. "The skill sets here are in demand in other parts of the country." WGI has also established a regional office for its Washington Safety Management Solutions subsidiary in Orchard Park. WGI hopes to use that office to tap into other business opportunities with government, industry and institutions. Rep. Randy Kuhl, R-Hammondsport, whose district includes the West Valley project, said he opposes the planned job cuts at WVNS. "These layoffs are unnecessary and are the direct result of the Department of Energy refusing to work with the state of New York to agree on the future of the site," Kuhl said in a statement. Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a statement that she will continue to work with other members of Congress "to ensure that West Valley has the necessary funding to complete this important work." Michael Waldron, an Energy Department spokesman, defended the department's decisions concerning West Valley. "As the work is completed on the site, the work force and skill set needs also change," he said. Making adjustments in the size of the work force as that work progresses represents the best use of taxpayer dollars on the project, Waldron said. e-mail: mglynn@buffnews.com ***************************************************************** 47 AP Wire: WIPP shipments fail to meet expectations | 04/12/2005 | Associated Press ALBUQUERQUE - The U.S. Department of Energy had a plan to hasten nuclear waste cleanup around the nation by doubling radioactive waste shipments to an underground dump in New Mexico, but the shipments have lagged. The Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad receives about 18 shipments per week - less than the 34 per week planned when the accelerated cleanup was proposed in 2002, the Albuquerque Journal reported Tuesday. Ines Triay, acting head of DOE's Carlsbad Office, acknowledged that the program has not met its goals. The main reason is difficulties with testing required at the cleanup sites before drums of waste can be shipped, she said. Shipments from two sites were halted. The plan to increase shipments to WIPP was part of a broad initiative by the federal government to save money by speeding up work on the multibillion-dollar cleanup of the nation's nuclear weapons complex. Stacks of waste drums had accumulated for years at sites such as Los Alamos National Laboratory and the old Rocky Flats plutonium factory in Colorado. The original plan called for WIPP getting 17 shipments per week, and Triay said she's proud of her staff for achieving that. But she and others have been pressing to increase that number to cut years and hundreds of millions of dollars off the cleanup cost. There has been success at Rocky Flats, where the last of more than 2,000 truckloads of waste is scheduled to head toward WIPP sometime this month. But every other major site sending waste to WIPP is behind schedule. The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory shipped 38 of a planned 271 shipments for the fiscal year that ended last September, while the Los Alamos lab made none of its scheduled 192 shipments. The Hanford site in Washington state made 72 of a scheduled 109 shipments, and the old Savannah River plutonium factory in South Carolina made 239 of a scheduled 271 shipments. "WIPP doesn't come close to meeting its performance measures," said Don Hancock, a longtime critic with the Southwest Research and Information Center in Albuquerque. Problems with testing at the sites have been the primary reason for the delays, Triay said. Staff at the sites where the drums are stored must perform a series of tests, such as X-rays and chemical samples, to ensure the waste meets WIPP regulations. Shipments from the Los Alamos lab were shut down in October 2003 because of problems with testing equipment, and a lab shutdown last summer further delayed the process. Shipments are scheduled to resume Wednesday. More serious problems were found at Idaho, where officials discovered waste had been shipped to WIPP without proper testing. The shipments have resumed, but at a fraction of the planned rate. Despite the problems, Triay said the goal is the same 33 to 34 shipments per week. The sites are taking steps to speed up the process of getting waste to WIPP. "We're always going to be challenging the sites to do more," Triay said. TheState.com | ***************************************************************** 48 Las Vegas RJ: BLM mandates land use input Monday, April 11, 2005 New rules let local governments, tribes help decide grazing, mining, recreation issues By SAMANTHA YOUNG STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Local officials in the West are being offered a seat at the table when federal managers devise rules for how millions of acres of public land can be used. The Interior Department is promoting the initiative as part of a Bush administration outreach to communities. "If they take advantage of it, it gives them more control over what happens with the public land," Assistant Secretary Rebecca Watson said last week. The Bureau of Land Management last month began requiring field offices to invite local elected leaders and Indian tribes to help decide where to allow grazing, hard rock mining, utility and water lines, recreation and other activities in public land. The invitation comes with a cost. Local governments and Indian tribes that accept the offer must provide staff to attend dozens of planning sessions typically involved in a process that produces phone book-thick technical documents. Though county leaders welcome the opportunity, some worry that part-time elected leaders in rural areas might not have the time or resources to participate in extensive land use planning. "Most counties dominated by public lands have the least tax base," said Paul Beddoe, associate legislative director at the National Association of Counties. "Their county commissioners are part time, and they are expected to play in the same field as a massive agency." Beddoe said the association is encouraging BLM to loan technical staffers to rural governments and boost annual federal payments to counties that contain large amounts of public land. In Nevada, federal officials for the past three years have been working alongside local counterparts to rewrite 13 Resource Management Plans that govern allowable activities on the public lands. The Nevada BLM has consolidated the 13 plans to nine and has completed half of them, including rules for Clark County. The agency is also writing specialized plans for the management of Sloan Canyon National Recreation Area and Red Rock Canyon National Conservation Area. "We have had a lot of changes over time," said Meg Jensen, deputy state director for resources, lands and planning for BLM Nevada. "We are Las Vegas' back yard and as Las Vegas grows and develops, more and more people are looking to recreate on the public lands." Controversial decisions remain in rural Nevada over where to designate a railroad line that would transport nuclear waste to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Under the new rule, city, county and state governments will have a larger role in rewriting public land blueprints. "A diversity of viewpoints really helps us balance the breadth of needs in the community," Jensen said. "We've made better decisions because we've taken into consideration a number of concerns." While some BLM branches, like the one in Nevada, had been working with locals for some time, the new directive makes such cooperation mandatory. "By putting it into the rule, it takes away the uncertainty and makes clear to everyone that this is standard operating procedure," Beddoe said. To help local governments step up their involvement, the BLM has organized a May 24 training workshop in Arizona. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 49 Las Vegas RJ: Scientist in e-mail flap returned to Yucca project Tuesday, April 12, 2005 By SAMANTHA YOUNG STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- A scientist who authored some of the controversial Yucca Mountain e-mail messages under investigation returned to work for five days last month despite earlier government statements he had no more involvement with the project. The hydrologist, who works for the U.S. Geological Survey, spent 40 hours in March helping the Department of Energy and its contractor reconstruct an electronic file needed to run computer models of research he had performed previously, said A.B. Wade, a USGS spokeswoman, on Monday. "The work has been completed," Wade said, identifying the worker as Joe A. Hevesi. "The work will be charged to the Yucca Mountain Project and paid by the Department of Energy." Under an arrangement between the agencies, DOE will be billed $4,900 for Hevesi's work, which took place March 16-18 and March 21-22, Wade said. Wade said the information was uncovered as USGS was gathering personnel records at the request of a House Government Reform subcom- mittee. The panel, led by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., is investigating e-mail messages in which Yucca scientists spoke of possibly falsifying research documentation for the project. The Energy Department said last week that the USGS scientist was authorized to be reassigned to the Yucca project on March 15 but that the arrangement ended Wednesday without the assignment being completed and without the worker collecting pay. Energy Department spokeswoman Anne Womack Kolton said Monday that DOE was still collecting its records involving the individual and would decline to comment. The disclosure Monday marks the second time the government has changed its story on the workers connected to the e-mail controversy. At a House subcommittee hearing last week, USGS Director Charles Groat told lawmakers that workers tied to the e-mails no longer were working on the Yucca Mountain program. The next day, USGS officials told the subcommittee that Groat had been unaware that three workers were still on the project. Porter said the changing version of events illustrates a "culture of mismanagement" on the repository program. "They can't figure out who's working where, at what time," Porter said. "If we can't trust them to give the right information about whether an individual is working for them, what about the facts surrounding Yucca Mountain?" Hevesi was assigned as a consultant to help Yucca workers rebuild a missing computer file. The file was needed to run water infiltration models for determining the safety of storing 77,000 tons of nuclear waste in the proposed repository, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The work dates disclosed by USGS suggest that Hevesi was back on the job even as Groat and Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced the controversial e-mails on March 16 and vowed to investigate. Wade said Monday that records show Hevesi had finished his work when the DOE order came down to discontinue the consulting agreement. Inspectors general for the Energy Department and the Department of Interior are investigating e-mail messages written between 1998 and 2000 in which workers spoke of making up dates and names and using "fudge factors" to satisfy quality assurance requirements for their research on climate and water infiltration. Porter has sought to question three scientists he said were e-mail authors: Hevesi, Alan L. Flint and Lorraine E. Flint. All three are USGS research hydrologists who worked at the Nevada nuclear waste site in the 1990s. The Flints, who are married, and Hevesi now work for the USGS in Sacramento, Calif. Attempts to contact the scientists Monday were unsuccessful. Porter said he still is trying to organize a subcommittee hearing for Wednesday to question the Yucca Mountain scientists. The Interior Department, citing the investigations, has declined to compel their appearance. "We're still encouraging employees to voluntarily be a part of the process," Porter said. "I am prepared and will subpoena them if necessary." One of the scientists Monday sent the subcommittee an e-mail message declining to appear on the advice of investigators with the inspectors general, said Chad Bungard, deputy staff director and chief counsel for the House panel. Bungard declined to specify which worker had responded. Late Monday, Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency chief Bob Loux said in a statement that rehiring one of the figures in the e-mail flap to work on the same computer model and files that were suspect is proof that the Department of Energy should not be allowed to investigate itself. "The only way we will get to the bottom of this mess is to take the matter entirely out of DOE's hands and make sure the department and its contractors are not able to compromise evidence and obstruct the investigations," Loux said. Review-Journal staff writer Keith Rogers contributed to this report. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 50 New Bellona response: Integration of hazardous waste into the Waste Framework Directive The Bellona Foundation strongly recommends the integration of a directive on hazardous waste into the EU Commission’s Waste Framework Directive, which has traditionally dealt only with that refuse that supposedly poses no immediate danger to human health.Bellona has published its opinion in a new public response on its site at the link listed below. Gunnar Grini, 2005-04-11 17:30 The EU-Commission has submitted a request for opinions with questions regarding directive 91/689/EEC on hazardous waste. The Bellona Foundation acknowledges the strong connection between waste and hazardous waste and recommends the integration of the directive into the Waste Framework Directive, which is due for revision. The boundaries between what substances are to be considered harmful to human health and the environment are constantly changing. Examples of this are the use of brominated flame-retardants and PCB. The Bellona Foundation supports the idea of integrating hazardous substances in the environmentally appropriate treatment of the different waste fractions. This might be especially important for historical waste originating from products with a long life span. Historical waste can be defined as waste with origin in products with a long life span, for instance buildings that have a life span of 50 to 100 years. The problem considering boundaries between different types of waste is especially probelmatic considering the large amount of historical waste that was considered harmless to health and the environment at the time the product was made—and which must be treated as hazardous waste in the years to come. Bellona also addresses in its position paper mixing of different wastes as a problem. Mixing of hazardous waste with other kinds of waste could be used as a strategy for dilution. This lowers the concentration of harmful substances in emissions to soil, water and air, and makes it difficult to track down actors that profit from irresponsible hazardous waste handling and treatment policies The Bellona Foundation recommends the development of specific guidelines for what treatment is acceptable for the different waste categories, and that emission allowances are developed with regard on the guidelines for what is current the best available technique (BAT) for waste treatment within that category, according to the IPPC directive. Read Bellona’s response to the consultation here Publisher: Bellona Foundation [bellona@bellona.no] , President: Frederic Hauge [frederic@bellona.no] Information: info@bellona.no [info@bellona.no] , Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no [webmaster@bellona.no] Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 51 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Yucca probe intensifies LAS VEGAS SUN Rep. Jon Porter, chairman of a House subcommittee investigating the falsifying of scientific documents at the Yucca Mountain project, has scheduled what could be an important hearing for Wednesday. Porter, a Nevada Republican, wants three scientists who exchanged e-mails about doctoring work on the Yucca Mountain project to testify before his subcommittee. But the Interior Department doesn't want U.S. Geological Survey scientists, who were conducting quality assurance work for the Energy Department's Yucca Mountain project, to appear. The Interior Department contends in a letter to Porter that, in light of the "potentially serious implications" for the scientists, "it is inappropriate to require the individuals ... to testify in a public hearing about matters under active investigation." The Interior Department and the Energy Department are conducting their own investigations, as is the FBI. But Congress has just as important a role, which is letting the American people know the truth about how pervasive the fabrication was at Yucca Mountain, where the federal government wants to permanently bury 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste. Indeed, just how many scientists and managers falsified documents? Was other scientific work fudged as well? These are questions, along with many others, that demand to be asked -- and answered -- in public as soon as possible, not months or years later once all these investigations are finished. Porter's subcommittee is walking a tightrope. He doesn't want to antagonize the scientists, causing them to refuse to provide useful information to the subcommittee, particularly if scientific documents were doctored because of pressure from project managers higher up in the chain of command. Gaining the scientists' cooperation in the probe is a critical consideration in determining just how hard to push them to testify publicly. One thing is certain: We can't count on agencies such as Interior and Energy -- in a version of the fox watching the hen house -- to conduct their own internal investigations to ferret out the truth. Congress is an equal partner in investigating this matter and shouldn't be shut out from obtaining information about any efforts to falsify data to gain approval to build a dump containing man's deadliest waste. ***************************************************************** 52 Las Vegas SUN: Scientist continued work despite probe By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- More research within the U.S. Geological Survey found that scientist Joe Hevesi completed 40 hours of work on the Yucca Mountain project last month, despite being under investigation for possibly falsifying documents. Hevesi did $4,900 worth of work for the Energy Department in March to help find computer files he helped create, despite the Interior Department's assurances to lawmakers that after investigations were launched into e-mails that indicated false information had been submitted none of the subjects of the probe were still working on the project. The latest news about Hevesi's work also contradicts federal agency statements that Hevesi's brief assignment was not completed. At a House hearing last week, USGS Director Charles Groat told the House Federal Workforce and Agency Organization subcommittee that no one under investigation for possibly falsifying data was still working on the project. The USGS clarified his statement with the subcommittee, of which Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., is chairman, later that week saying one scientist did go back to the project in March to help find a computer file. To review documents possibly affected by the alleged falsification, the Energy Department needed a missing computer file and tapped Hevesi to help find or create a new one, officials said. The department said that the work was not complete and would not be billed, but based on further research by USGS staff of employment records, prompted by Porter's requests for detailed employment histories of those under investigation, the USGS found that Hevesi completed 40 hours of work from March 16 through 18 and March 21 through 22, after the department announced it had found e-mails suggest scientific data was changed. Hevesi is one of several workers that Porter has asked to testify about the controversial e-mails. USGS spokeswoman A.B. Wade said initially the agency used accounting information to check the status of Hevesi's work, which showed nothing had been billed, but further research found the work had been completed. She said she does not know if the Energy Department received the information it needed, but that Hevesi did work for 40 hours for the department. He is still a USGS employee, but his work for the Energy Department would need to be paid for by the Energy Department. Wade said the Energy Department called for a halt of the contract last week after it learned Hevesi's was reassigned, but the contracted work was already done. The Energy Department is still investigating the exact details, according to department spokeswoman Anne Womack Kolton. The Sun has gotten no respones to e-mail messages and calls to the scientists' homes and offices. The Energy Department announced last month that it discovered e-mail sent by U.S. Geological Survey employees between May 18, 1998, and March 20, 2000, that suggest they falsified scientific data while working on the proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. The scientists were working on water infiltration projects, which look at how water moves through the mountain. Water studies are critical to the mountain's safety because water can corrode storage containers holding the waste, allowing radiation to escape, and water contaminated by radiation can trickle down into the groundwater under the mountain. Porter is chairman of House Federal Workforce and Agency Organization Subcommittee, which can investigate government employee problems. The subcommittee held a hearing last week with Nevada, Energy Department and Interior Department officials. Porter plans to hold a second hearing Wednesday, but exact plans are still unknown because it is not clear who will come to testify. The Interior Department told Porter on Friday that it would be "inappropriate" for three employees, including Hevesi, to appear before the subcommittee while investigations were under way. The reassignment is a clear example of how the department is running the project, said Bob Loux, director of Nevada's Agency of Nuclear Projects. "They did this knowing he was involved," Loux said. "Apparently he is the only one who knows how the model works and it is still central. That tells you everything you need to know about the integrity of DOE's (the Energy Department's) program." The Nevada congressional delegation and state officials want an independent commission to review the Yucca Mountain project. "The only way we will get to the bottom of this mess is to take the matter entirely out of DOE's hands and make sure the department and its contractors are not able to compromise evidence and obstruct the investigations," Loux said. "You can only do this by assuring the complete independence of whatever entity is doing the investigating." ***************************************************************** 53 washington post: Nuclear Plants Not Keeping Track of Waste GAO Study Faults Federal Government for Failing to Implement Safeguards By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, April 12, 2005; Page A19 Pervasive problems plague the control of radioactive waste at the nation's nuclear power plants, in part because the federal government has been sluggish in instituting and enforcing safeguards, according to a federal report issued yesterday. The Government Accountability Office's indictment of the nuclear facilities and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission is the most comprehensive reckoning to date of problems that have begun to emerge at a number of plants in recent years. ** [ BORDER=] Vermont Yankee is one of three nuclear power plants reporting missing or unaccounted-for spent fuel in recent years. (Vermont Yankee Corp. Via AP) ** Inadequate oversight and gaps in safety procedures have left several plants unsure about the whereabouts of all their spent fuel, the GAO said, and problems in tracking the materials suggest that radioactive rods could be missing from more than the three plants that are widely known to have problems. "NRC inspectors often could not confirm that containers that were designated as containing loose fuel rods in fact contained the fuel rods," the report said. "The containers, in some cases, were closed or sealed and, in other cases, the contents were not visible when looking into the spent fuel pool. Thus, spent fuel may be missing or unaccounted for at still other plants." The commission said it agreed with the GAO's findings of "uneven" control of spent nuclear fuel. NRC spokeswoman Beth Hayden said the agency had been forced to prioritize safety concerns after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, and that this had caused delays in implementing security measures to safeguard the spent fuel rods. The nuclear industry pointed out that the GAO had not found evidence of adverse health consequences. Problems in accounting for the fuel are being addressed, said Steven Kerekes, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute. Critics, however, said close ties between federal regulators and the commercial facilities they supervise has dulled the edge of oversight. "I would respectfully remind the NRC that the 'R' stands for 'regulatory,' " said Sen. James M. Jeffords (I-Vt.), who, with other members of Congress, had asked the GAO to study the issue. Rep. Bernard Sanders (I-Vt.) added: "The days of letting the nuclear industry self-regulate without proper federal oversight must come to a long overdue end." Three plants have reported missing or unaccounted-for spent nuclear fuel in recent years: Millstone in Connecticut, Vermont Yankee, and Humboldt Bay in California. The report said federal regulations do not make clear how plants should conduct physical inventories of spent fuel, nor how they should control and account for loose fuel rods and fragments. Plants had different notions about how to monitor their inventories of spent fuel, consisting of highly radioactive rods that have been removed from reactors and are generally stored in large swimming pool-like structures. Some plants had failed to match paper records with the contents of spent fuel containers, the report said. The GAO said the government has sufficient warning of the scope of the problem to begin implementing changes, but the NRC's Hayden said the agency is still in the process of getting the information it needs. "Until we have that detailed information, we can't just go out and do additional inspections or levy additional requirements," she said. "When we are dealing with nuclear safety and security, we need to move in a very careful and deliberate way." Hayden said the requirement that the agency fund 90 percent of its budget from fees on the industry in no way compromises its independence. But Arjun Makhijani, president of the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research, a nonprofit group that studies energy issues, said GAO surveys of commission inspectors showed that the public ought to be concerned: Despite the range of problems identified, 28 inspectors said the agency does not need to exercise more oversight, while only 24 said increased control is needed. Paul Gunter, director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, a nonprofit clearinghouse opposed to the use of nuclear power, said the GAO report is the latest in a string of independent assessments that have found fault with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's oversight of commercial facilities. "The consistency of these findings suggests the NRC is more interested in shielding production margins at power stations than it is in prioritizing public health and safety," he said. The Washington Post Company: Information [http://washpost.com/] ***************************************************************** 54 Brattleboro Reformer: Report raps NRC on waste [Brattleboro Reformer] April 12, 2005 Brattleboro, VT By CAROLYN LORIé Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- The Government Accountability Office, the investigatory branch of the U.S. Congress, has called on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to tighten its oversight of spent fuel at the nation's 103 nuclear power plants. In a report issued this month, the GAO instructed the regulator to specify how loose fuel rods or rod segments will be accounted for and exactly how plant officials will conduct physical inventories. It also recommended that the NRC develop a way to insure that industry officials are abiding by the established requirements. The GAO launched the investigation last year at the request of Vermont's congressional delegation and U.S. Rep. John Olver, D-Mass., after two segments of spent nuclear fuel turned up missing from Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant in April 2004. According to the report, efforts by the industry to "control and account for their spent fuel is uneven." The matter is made worse by the fact that "NRC regulations do not specifically require plants to control and account for loose rods or segments of rods." Between 2000 and 2004, three nuclear power plants reported fuel missing from the spent fuel inventory. In 2000, as they prepared to move their spent fuel from their fuel pool into dry cask storage, officials at the Millstone nuclear power plant in Connecticut discovered two full-length fuel rods missing. Despite a lengthy investigation by the plant's owner, Northeast Utilities, and the NRC, the fuel was never found. Both the regulator and plant officials concluded that the rods were most likely shipped to a low-level nuclear waste site in Barnwell, S.C. In June 2002, the NRC fined Northeast Utilities $288,000. Last April, Vermont Yankee officials announced that two segments of a fuel rod believed to be in a special canister in the fuel pool, were missing. After several months of reviewing documents, interviewing personnel and searching the fuel pool with special video equipment, the rods were found in the pool. The search at Vermont Yankee allegedly cost the plant -- which is owned by Entergy Nuclear of Louisiana -- "millions of dollars." According to Vermont Yankee spokesman Rob Williams, the incident triggered a change in record-keeping procedures and policies having to do with the spent fuel pool. Although almost a year has passed since the fuel was reported missing and 10 months have elapsed since it was found, the NRC has yet to take enforcement action. Neil Sheehan, spokesman for NRC Region I, said the matter "is actively being worked on," but that no date has been set for a final decision. The regulator could respond in a number of ways, including fining the plant owners. The third instance of fuel reported missing to the NRC occurred July 2004 at the Humboldt Bay nuclear power plant in California. Three 18-inch fuel rod segments remain unaccounted for and an investigation into their whereabouts continues. That plant has been shut down since 1976. In each case, the missing fuel was a segment of a fuel assembly that was removed due to problems. The report stressed the need to improve the accountability of "loose" fuel. It also noted that other plants may have fuel that is missing or unaccounted-for fuel because of the current regulatory practices. Prior to 1988, the NRC had more stringent regulations regarding the inventory of spent fuel. Those regulations were relaxed because the NRC considered spent fuel to be "self-protecting," meaning that their size, weight and radioactivity made them extremely difficult to steal. In a press release, the Vermont congressional delegation urged the NRC to heed the report's advice. "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," said Sen. James Jeffords, I-Vt. "I would respectfully remind the NRC that the 'R' stands for 'regulatory.'" That sentiment was echoed by Rep. Bernard Sanders, I-Vt., who added that implementing the recommendations was the least the NRC could do. "The days of letting the nuclear industry self-regulate without proper federal oversight must come to a long overdue end," said Sanders. Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., ***************************************************************** 55 Scotsman.com: Victory for Britain in EU Nuclear Waste Case Tue 12 Apr 2005 By Geoff Meade, PA Europe Editor, in Brussels European judges today backed the British Government in a legal battle with Brussels over the disposal of radioactive waste. The European Commission had insisted the Government was legally obliged, on environmental grounds, to give EU officials advance warning of how it was handling the disposal of waste from the dismantled Jason nuclear reactor at Greenwich Royal Naval College. But the Luxembourg judges backed Britain’s case that such rules do not apply to military sites, on grounds of national security. The European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) Treaty says all EU governments must provide disposal plans to the Commission so it can assess the risk of radioactive contamination of the water, soil or airspace of another EU country. The Commission took the Government to court after the decommissioning of the Greenwich plant went ahead without such plans being notified, and despite the Government’s insistence that such requirements under EU law did not apply to military installations. The Jason nuclear reactor was used from 1962 until closure in 1996 for training and research purposes as part of a Ministry of Defence nuclear propulsion programme for Royal Navy submarines. The Commission insisted in court that the Euratom Treaty applied equally to military and civil nuclear plants. Today the judges disagreed, backing the Government in a judgment declaring that “activities falling within the military sphere are outside the scope of that (the Euratom) Treaty”. That means there was no obligation on the Government to give the Commission any information on decommissioning. The Jason reactor was decommissioned after a closure application was approved by the Environment Agency for England and Wales. The Commission was only informed in 1998, and demanded full details of the accompanying plans to remove any radioactive waste from the site. The judges emphasised today that their decision that the Government was not obliged to inform the Commission about its radioactive waste disposal plans “does not by any means reduce the vital importance of the objective of protecting the health of the public and the environment against the dangers related to the use of nuclear energy, including for military purposes”. Today’s ruling was a rare victory for a member state – last year the Commission won all but 11 of the 155 cases it brought against various EU governments for alleged breaches of EU rules. [http://www.scotsman.com/] | ***************************************************************** 56 KLAS: Yucca Mountain Investigation April 12, 2005 It should be known this week whether the results of a county investigation into Yucca Mountain will be forwarded to Congress. The investigation began in earnest early last week following the release of e-mails between two employees of the U.S. Geological Survey. Those e-mails suggest USGS scientists "made up" information to meet quality assurance goals set by the Department of Energy. Those e-mails come as no surprise to Irene Navis, Clark County's liaison to the Yucca Mountain Project. She has been reviewing government reports, some of them previously classified, concerning the geological survey's history at Yucca Mountain. She has uncovered a 23-year pattern of mistakes, everything from mislabeling and losing important environmental testing materials to significant problems with software used to manage Yucca Mountain computer systems. Navis wants to know how the USGS could make so many mistakes and still be allowed to continue with the project. z Navis has forwarded a report detailing this new information to County Manager Thom Reilly and every member of the Clark County Commission, urging them to forward the report to Nevada's delegation in Washington. This Wednesday, Nevada Congressman Jon Porter will chair a second congressional hearing concerning Yucca Mountain. Navis is hopeful this information will lead to some tough questions for the geological survey. The USGS says it is cooperating with congressional investigators. Brian Allen, Reporter Exclusive: New County Information on Yucca Mountain Eyewitness News reporter Brian Allen has the exclusive details of a county investigation that has uncovered new, potentially damaging information in the Yucca Mountain e-mail controversy. [http://www.worldnow.com] All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 57 Japan Times: Japan to push fast CTBT activation at nuclear talk Tuesday, April 12, 2005 Japan will propose that participants at a forthcoming international nuclear conference include a statement urging an early implementation of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in a final document to be adopted at the end of the meeting, according to government officials. Outlining Japan's negotiations strategy for the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty review conference that begins May 2 in New York, the officials said Japan, as the only nation to suffer an atomic attack, will urge the participating nations to reduce "nuclear armaments of all kinds." The strategy has also been set in light of the 60th anniversary this year of the atomic bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. Tokyo intends to persuade the United States, which has voiced opposition to the inclusion of the statement, of an early implementation of the treaty, they said. A senior Foreign Ministry official said: "There is no country other than the United States that is against CTBT ratification. There is a possibility for the United States to make a concession." As for the CTBT, the U.S. side will stress that its suspension of nuclear tests since 1992 on the basis of possible resumption in the future is not intended to pave the way for the 1996 treaty to come into effect. The Japanese government intends to jointly propose the statement with Austria, as they did in the previous NTP review conference in 2000, and is currently adjusting the wording in the statement to be proposed in the coming NTP meeting, expected to last about one month. The May meeting will be held to restudy the NPT adopted five years ago in which the signatory countries clearly pledged to abolish nuclear arms. The meeting will focus on nuclear arms reduction by nations that possesses such arms and prevention of proliferation to countries without atomic weapons as well as peaceful use of atomic energy. Japan will also urge a reduction in tactical nuclear weapons as well as a cutoff treaty for fissile materials at the May meeting. The Japan Times: April 12, 2005 (C) All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 58 DOE: Office of Science; Biological and Environmental Research FR Doc 05-7293 [Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 19065] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12ap05-49] Advisory Committee AGENCY: Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of open meeting. SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee. Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of these meetings be announced in the Federal Register. DATES: Wednesday, April 20, 2005, 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., Thursday, April 21, 2005, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. ADDRESSES: American Geophysical Union, 2000 Florida Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20009. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. David Thomassen (301-903-9817; david.thomassen@science.doe.gov [david.thomassen@science.doe.gov] ), or Ms. Shirley Derflinger (301-903- 0044; shirley.derflinger@science.doe.gov [shirley.derflinger@science.doe.gov] ), Designated Federal Officers, Biological and Environmental Research Advisory Committee, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Office of Biological and Environmental Research, SC-70/Germantown Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290. The most current information concerning this meeting can be found on the Web site: http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/berac/announce.html [http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/leaving.cgi?from=leaving FR.html&log=linklog&to=http://www.science.doe.gov/ober/berac/anno unce.html] . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Meeting: To provide advice on a continuing basis to the Director, Office of Science of the Department of Energy, on the many complex scientific and technical issues that arise in the development and implementation of the Biological and Environmental Research Program. Tentative Agenda Wednesday, April 20, and Thursday, April 21, 2005 Comments from Dr. Raymond Orbach, Director, Office of Science Report of Subcommittee on The Need for Enhanced Research on Cloud Parameterization Methods and Abrupt Climate Change Status Report on Restructuring of Aerosol Research Program Discussion of new charge to review Terrestrial Carbon Cycle Research Report by Dr. Ari Patrinos, Associate Director of Science for Biological and Environmental Research Discussion on Opportunities in Neural Prosthesis Research Status of GTL Roadmap and Facility solicitation Update on Environmental Remediation Sciences Division restructuring EMSL update Status of upcoming EMSL review Discussion of BER Long Term Performance Goals Science talk New business Public comment (10 minute rule) Public Participation: The day and a half meeting is open to the public. If you would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda, you should contact David Thomassen or Shirley Derflinger at the address or telephone numbers listed above. You must make your request for an oral statement at least five business days before the meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly conduct of business. Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule. This notice is being published 15 days before the date of the meeting due to programmatic issues. Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC., between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Issued in Washington, DC on April 6, 2005. Carol Matthews, Acting Advisory Committee Officer. [FR Doc. 05-7293 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 59 DOE: Agency Information Collection Extension FR Doc 05-7294 [Federal Register: April 12, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 69)] [Notices] [Page 19064-19065] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12ap05-48] AGENCY: U.S. Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice and request for comments. SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995), intends to establish for three years, an information collection package with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) concerning a paperwork and reporting burden associated with a requirement for internal audit procedures for management contractors who manage Department of Energy facilities. Reports would consist of an internal audit implementation design, a summary of the previous year's audit activities, and an audit plan for the next fiscal year. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance [[Page 19065]] of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for OMB approval of this information collection; they also will become a matter of public record. DATES: Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before June 13, 2005. If you anticipate difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed below as soon as possible. ADDRESSES: Written comments may be sent to: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Procurement and Assistance Management, Attn: Richard Langston, ME-61, 1000 Independence Ave., SW., Washington, DC 20585 or by fax at (202) 287-1339 or by e-mail at richard.langston@hq.doe.gov [ richard.langston@hq.doe.gov] and to Sharon Evelin, IM-11, U.S. Department of Energy, 19901 Germantown Road, Germantown, Maryland 20874, or by fax at 301-903-9061 or by e-mail at Sharon.evelin@hq.doe.gov [ Sharon.evelin@hq.doe.gov] . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Richard Langston at the address listed in ADDRESSES. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This package contains: (1) OMB No.: 1910- XXXX; (2) Cooperative Audit Requirements; (3) Type of Review: Initial Review; (4) Purpose: To establish internal audit procedures and reporting requirements for management contractors: (5) Respondents: There are 27 management contractor respondants; (6) Estimated Number of Burden Hours: There is an estimated burden of 270 hours. Statutory Authority: Sections 644 & 646 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7254 and 7256. Issued in Washington, DC on April 4, 2005. Sharon Evelin, Director, Records Management Division, Office of the Chief Information Officer. [FR Doc. 05-7294 Filed 4-11-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ***************************************************************** 60 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Groups want money for nukes shifted to Hanford cleanup [seattlepi.com] Tuesday, April 12, 2005 By CHARLES POPE SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT WASHINGTON -- A $6.6 billion program to develop a new generation of nuclear weapons and modernize existing warheads should be scaled back and the money used for cleaning up the Hanford Nuclear Reservation and other highly contaminated sites, an interest group said yesterday. The division between spending on new weapons and cleanup is especially stark this year, officials for the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability said. The group, a coalition of groups pushing for faster and more thorough cleanup of nuclear weapons plants across the nation, noted that the White House has proposed cutting funding for cleanup by $566 million. "If the U.S. doesn't have enough money to clean up the mess we've made, it is because we're spending too much money making a bigger mess by generating more contamination through the building of even more weapons," said Erin Hamby, of the Rocky Mountain Peace and Justice Center. More than half the cut -- $297 million -- comes from Hanford, a reduction that state officials say could cause the federal Energy Department to miss legally binding cleanup milestones. "This is just the tip of the iceberg," said Gerald Pollet, executive director of Heart of America, a Seattle-based group pushing for a quick and thorough cleanup of Hanford. "The Department of Energy's priority is really clear and it is not to clean up Hanford." The Energy Department disputed suggestions that it is backing away from promises to clean Hanford and other sites. An official said there is no connection between the money spent on weapons development and cleanup. Spokesman Mike Waldron said the amount of money requested for Hanford is sufficient to meet all cleanup milestones in the tri-party agreement. That agreement is a legally binding blueprint signed in 1989 by the state of Washington, the Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. Waldron added that funding last year for Hanford was a record $2 billion and that the most urgent health and environmental risks are being addressed. Hanford, which produced plutonium for the first nuclear bombs, is regarded as the most contaminated place in the United States. In all, Hanford, in Benton County, holds about 53 million gallons of highly radioactive waste in 177 tanks. Most of the waste was generated in a period stretching from World War II to the end of the Cold War when the United States was aggressively producing thousands of nuclear warheads. The expensive consequence of that work is now being addressed. Cleaning up Hanford alone is projected to cost $50 billion and take decades to complete. Maintaining funding for Hanford is a priority among Washington lawmakers and the proposed budget for the next fiscal year has been sharply criticized. Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., said the budget "imposes draconian cuts" that "jeopardizes the federal government's commitment to adequate cleanup." Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., was even more blunt, suggesting that the cut for Hanford was connected to Washington's refusal to accept a lower cleanup standard pushed by the Energy Department. "This fact, combined with the absolute lack of sound rationale for the majority of Hanford budget cuts, can easily lead one to believe Washington state was targeted by the Department of Energy," Murray told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee last month. The alliance, whose members are blanketing Capitol Hill this week to argue for more cleanup funding, disputed the Department of Energy's assertion that developing new weapons does not siphon money from cleanup costs. The new weapons aren't needed now that the Cold War is over, the group said, ridiculing the administration for triggering "a one-nation arms race with itself." Complicating the question even more are legal and political disputes over the fate of a nuclear waste initiative overwhelmingly approved in November by state voters and what standard the Energy Department must meet for cleaning Hanford. The federal government has filed suit seeking to overturn Initiative 297, which bars the U.S. Department of Energy from sending any more waste to the Hanford site until all existing waste there is cleaned up. The initiative has not been enforced pending resolution of the lawsuit. On another front, DOE has advocated leaving some of the highly radioactive waste in tanks, arguing that the cost of removing them far outstrips the environmental and health protections it would achieve. South Carolina and Idaho have agreed that DOE can leave some waste in the tanks, but Washington stridently opposes that approach, citing the Tri-Party Agreement, which calls for at least 99 percent of the waste to be removed. P-I Washington correspondent Charles Pope can be reached at 202-263-6461 or charliepope@seattlepi.com [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com ©1996-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 61 Tri-City Herald: DOE to slash Hanford, group claims This story was published Tuesday, April 12th, 2005 By Les Blumenthal and Annette Cary, Herald staff writers WASHINGTON -- Over the next five years, the Department of Energy wants to cut in half the annual cleanup budget at Hanford 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 America Northwest. "The Department of Energy's priorities are clear," Pollet said. "They don't want to clean up Hanford." DOE refused to discuss budget projections out to 2011 on Monday, but Mike Waldron, a spokesman for DOE in Washington, D.C., said agency remains committed to cleaning up Hanford. 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 federal agency is trying to pressure Washington state into agreeing to a DOE plan to leave more radioactive waste at the reservation in aging underground tanks. In addition, Pollet said DOE 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 until a thorough cleanup is finished. That includes completely emptying the tanks, Pollet said. "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 in tanks so less 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 radioactive waste at Hanford, strontium and cesium capsules stored in pools, never will 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, he said. Gov. Christine Gregoire has sent a letter to DOE reminding it of its legal requirement to take all reasonable steps needed to obtain funding to meet the terms of the agreement. She is "very disappointed with the administration's potential retreat from its commitments and obligation to clean up Hanford," she wrote. "We've made significant progress at Hanford," DOE's Waldron said. "We believe the fiscal 2006 budget will provide adequate funding to meet the cleanup milestones." About 27 percent of DOE's overall cleanup budget would be spent at Hanford next year, a 20 percent increase since fiscal 2001, he said. "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. Civiak 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. © 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 62 Tri-Valley Herald: Sandia chief to battle UC for lab Article Last Updated: 04/12/2005 09:31:25 AM Longtime leader to step aside to head up Lockheed Martins effort By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER The longtime head of Sandia National Laboratories is stepping aside and leading Lockheed Martin's effort to wrest operation of Los Alamos National Laboratory away from the University of California. If Lockheed succeeds, physicist and former arms-control negotiator C. Paul Robinson would return to Los Alamos, where he began his defense science career in the mid-1960s, as the lab's chief executive. The move fleshes out a struggle between the nation's largest research university and largest defense contractor, as well as others, over who will run the birthplace of the bomb and be responsible for most of the nuclear explosives in the U.S. arsenal. Ever since former Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham opened Los Alamos' operating contract to competitive bid, roughly a dozen engineering and defense firms have lined up for the $60 million-a-year contract. But only Lockheed Martin has a track record of operating large nuclear weapons labs, including Sandia sites in New Mexico and Livermore, and, as part of a consortium, the United Kingdom's Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. "It's a really savvy bid on the part of Lockheed Martin. It's a way of bringing experienced nuclear-weapons people in from New Mexico," said Hugh Gusterson, an MIT cultural anthropologist who has studied the bomb labs and written extensively about their adjustments to the end of the Cold War. The notion of Sandians running Los Alamos marks a turn of fortunes for the two labs. Sandia National Laboratories was born in 1946 as a division of Los Alamos, and the chief mission of Sandia's main site in Albuquerque remains engineering the non-nuclear components of Los Alamos' bombs and warheads. Sandia's Livermore site performs the same work on explosives designed at Lawrence Livermore lab. Sandia changed managers in the mid-1990s from AT but retains the most button-down, corporate culture of the nation's three labs, next to Los Alamos' collegiate feel and Lawrence Livermore's freewheeling air, influenced by Silicon Valley. Gusterson isn't sure Los Alamos is ready to be governed by Sandians. "If they were to win and bring in a team, it would cause a lot of discontent at Los Alamos," he said. "There's this very cautious Sandia culture, they do things by the book. It keeps them very scandal-free, but it also keeps them in danger of becoming science-free." Robinson disagrees. He's been director and president of Sandia for 10 years, one of the longest tenures for a weapons lab chief. Los Alamos wouldn't be another Sandia under Lockheed, he said. "I would consider that a very unlikely outcome. I was thinking I might do away with the wearing of ties up there," he joked. "The (three weapons) labs are and will remain very different entities than their management and operating contractors." What Robinson does plan to bring from Sandia is competent, day-to-day operations and a balance of applied weapons work with open-ended science and technology. "I've been arguing that good operational support is not a hindrance to doing good research but probably a precursor to doing research well," he said. Effective April 29, Tom Hunter will take over as director and president of Sandia. For five years, Hunter has been senior vice president for Sandia's defense programs, commanding the 60 percent of the lab that works on nuclear weap- ons. Before Robinson tapped him for that job, Hunter led Sandia-California, a lab employing about 800 in Livermore. Contact Ian Hoffman at Tri-Valley Herald All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 63 lamonitor.com: Sandia director to head Lockheed's bid for LANL The Online News Source for Los Alamos [http://www.lac-nm.us] CAROL A. CLARK, lanews@lamonitor.com [lanews@lamonitor.com] , Monitor Staff Writer News of Sandia National Laboratories Director Paul Robinson leaving his post to head up Lockheed Martin Corp.'s bid to management and operate Los Alamos National Laboratory has spread fast. Rep. Jeannette Wallace, R-Los Alamos, expressed strong opinions about the fairness of the RFP process to date in an interview this morning. "DOE keeps imposing rules that I think work against the University of California," Wallace said. "Lockheed Martin certainly has a right to bid and Paul Robinson is certainly a nice person and he's run Sandia well for several years but I think DOE's extending deadlines and changing rules is working against UC." Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., praised Robinson's abilities as Sandia director. "I believe Paul Robinson's decision is significant because of the expertise he will bring to the Lockheed Martin bid," Domenici said in a news statement Monday. "Paul has worked at Los Alamos, and he has been a terrific director at Sandia. I'm sad he's leaving Sandia, but his departure and new role certainly tells me that Lockheed Martin is intent on putting together a competitive bid. I think he will play a formidable role, and I think he helps Lockheed Martin's proposal immensely." Domenici said the contract will be competitive and that his ultimate interest is in having the new contract end up being the best for the lab workers, pensioners and the lab in its totality. He added that he thinks UC, Lockheed Martin and possibly other interested parties are working toward this goal. "I look forward to working with Tom Hunter as the new director at Sandia," Domenici said. "This is a superb choice, and I think his experience in heading the weapons program at Sandia puts him in a good position do well as director." Domenici called Robinson's decision to leave Sandia and the expertise he will bring to the Lockheed Martin bid "significant". Paul has worked at Los Alamos, and he has been a terrific director at Sandia, Domenici said. "I'm sad he's leaving Sandia, but his departure and new role certainly tells me that Lockheed Martin is intent on putting together a competitive bid," he said. "I think he will play a formidable role, and I think he helps Lockheed Martin's proposal immensely." Robinson has headed Sandia National Laboratories for 10 years with little controversy. He says he knew his expertise was needed elsewhere when the company that runs Sandia (Lockheed Martin) announced plans to seek the federal contract to manage LANL. Robinson will step down as Sandia's director April 29. "Somebody asked me to do it, and I looked at the pros and cons and thought, 'If I don't do it, who will they get to do it?"' Robinson said. Robinson spent 18 years at Los Alamos after college, including six years running the nuclear weapons programs, he said. His experience at both labs is beneficial but he knows better than to get confident in a bid process. "It will be hard-fought, regardless of what happens," Robinson said. The University of California has held the contract to operate Los Alamos since the lab was established in 1943. But a series of security, safety and financial problems in recent years led the Department of Energy to decide in 2003 to put the management contract up for bid. The UC Board of Regents hasn't voted on whether to bid for the Los Alamos job but has told staff to prepare as though it will bid. The University of Texas, which had previously voted to withdraw from the bidding, has reportedly been in talks with both UC and Lockheed Martin. "We have great respect for Paul Robinson and Tom Hunter," said Chris Harrington of the UC President's Office in Washington, D.C., this morning. "We don't want to comment further at this time (on Robinson's move to Lockheed Martin). Harrington confirmed that UC also is having discussions with UT. Since UT's February decision to withdraw, DOE doubled the potential performance-based management fee to $60 million annually. DOE Secretary Sam Bodman said Robinson has served his country well. "He has provided strong stewardship of the nuclear weapons complex and has helped Sandia build its technology base to respond to emerging threats," Bodman said. A lab critic, Robert S. Norris thinks the Los Alamos contract might be better left in the hands of a university. "On one hand, those things shouldn't have gone on at Los Alamos. It should have been managed in a more efficient way. On the other hand, I've always felt that with the university running those two laboratories (Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore), there's been some semblance of academic freedom," Norris said, a senior research associate for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington. Norris was also concerned about the idea of Lockheed Martin operating more than one lab. "I'm not sure that monopoly is beneficial," he said. But Robinson said, "there's very little threat" of that because of his key instructions by Lockheed Martin when he took over as Sandia director. "Don't ever let anybody try to put corporate interests before what you and your people think are the national interests," Robinson said he was told. Hunter has been with Sandia since 1967, most recently as senior vice president of defense programs overseeing nuclear weapons work. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************