*****************************************************************
04/27/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.96
*****************************************************************
   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 AFP: Iran wants clear response from Europe on nuclear proposal -
2 UK The Times: Inspectors give up on hunt for WMD
3 Minjok-Tongshin: How Many Nukes in North Korea's Arsenal?
4 US: Las Vegas SUN: Bush Lays Out Energy Plan As Prices Soar
5 US: E&P: Gallup: 50% of Americans Now Say Bush Deliberately Misled T
6 US: L.A. Times: Bush Touts Technology to Help Solve Energy Woes 
7 US: Bush/Energy: Response from Sierra Club to Bush Energy Speech
8 US: KLAS: Federal Judge Considering Western Shoshone's Plea
9 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA Delays ElBaradei Reappointment
10 Guardian Unlimited: Blix insists there was no firm weapons evidence
11 Bellona position paper: The EU launches initiative on energy efficie
12 ePolitix.com: Salmond warns on 'nuclear madness'
13 AFP: IAEA nuclear chief ElBaradei seeks third term, US may give relu
14 ITAR-TASS: Hungarian police free Russian environment activists
15 AFP:IAEA postpones vote on new chief in order to get US onboard
16 St. Petersburg Times: Where's the fuel of the future?
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
17 [NYTr] Chernobyl: Land of the Dead
18 US: SONGS DEIR / Steam Generator Replacement Project (follow-up
19 US: [NukeNet] Net Loss From Nuclear Power - Energy Audit
20 [NukeNet] Chernobyl 19th Anniversary - Resources
21 US: [CMEP] Bush drive for new nukes is unwise
22 US: [NukeNet] [Know_Nukes] Nuclear power remains emotional issue
23 US: [NukeNet] star-ledger on pseg-exel-not merger
24 US: Sun News: Grant funds boat patrols on lake near nuclear site
25 US: AP Wire: Officials to consider new nuclear plant for South Carol
26 Utne: Chernobyl Revisited (News) Grace Hanson
27 US: Las Vegas SUN: Panel told nuke plants should be built
28 Platts:Russia must close 12 nukes to boost power exports to EU - EC
29 US: toledoblade.com: What about the NRC?
30 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet May 5-
31 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
32 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
33 Korea Times: Chernobyl Disaster Blamed for Cancer Surge in Women 
34 US: Monticello Times: NRC meeting draws light crowd
35 US: NRC: Sunshine Act; Meetings
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
36 [southnews] 'Nothing': US WMD Inspector Finishes Iraq Work
37 [du-list] Illegal USUK attack  hits Bliar one week before
38 EXPOSED: Leaked UK Memo on Illegal Invasion of WMD-Free Iraq
39 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Ban tells North no concessions will be made
40 Bellona: Radioactive container found in Kazakhstan
41 BBC: N Korea nuclear talks 'in doubt'
42 BBC: Early Iraq
43 presstrust.com: Pakistan has been playing with nukes for 30 years
44 Independent: Search for Iraqi WMD 'has been exhausted', says report 
45 Xinhua: No signs of DPRK preparing for nuke test - Security advisor 
46 MehrNews.com: Right to nuclear energy is comparable to nationalizati
47 Mos News: Russia to Get 2 Newly Equipped Nuclear Submarines in 2006 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
48 US: [southnews] A Global Pact Against Depleted Uranium
49 [du-list] DU "death sentence"
50 SABCnews.com: 'High' Pelindaba nuclear levels being probed - NNR
51 US: Hawk Eye Newspaper: Panel hears criticism for delay 
52 US: Hawk Eye Newspaper: Emotions come out 
53 US: Tri-Valley Herald: Oakland port gets radiation detectors
54 US: Public Citizen: Closure of Irradiation Plant Is a Victory for 
55 Election 2005 news : Salmond demands answers on depleted uranium
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
56 US: Brattleboro Reformer:  Dry cask question heats up
57 US: San Bernardino County Sun: Water district, Rialto join to fight 
58 Lahontan Valley News: Yucca Mountain revelations erode public confid
59 US: Deseret News: Dugway and TAD at risk 
60 US: Las Vegas SUN: Nevada resolution urges Washington to reject nucl
61 US: Rutland Herald: Nuclear storage becoming showdown
62 JTW News - Preventing Radioactive Contamination of the Ferghana Vall
63 US: Lincoln County News: Maine Yankee Resumes Dumping at Utah Site  
64 US: AFP: U.S. Energy Corp. Acquires Various Uranium Properties in Ut
65 US: Tri-Valley Dispatch: California town's water tainted by perchlor
66 US: NRC: Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material;
67 US: EPA: Transuranic waste headed to WIPP
68 US: NEWS.com.au: Dusting off old prospects hoping for slice of yello
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
69 Tri-City Herald: FFTF's end is days away 
70 DOE: Notice; Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding: To
71 lamonitor.com: Council hears lab security updates 
72 lamonitor.com: It's official, LANL RFP delayed 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 AFP: Iran wants clear response from Europe on nuclear proposal -
    
Wednesday April 27, 08:06 PM

TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran expects a clear answer from Europe to its
proposal to continue uranium enrichment as part of its
controversial nuclear programme, a member of the negotiating
team said. "The last meeting was positive and we want to be
optimistic about Friday's meeting. We expect a clear response to
our proposals from the Europeans," Ali Agha-Mohammadi told AFP.

Iran and the European Union, represented by Germany, Britain and
France, have been involved in lengthy negotiations, with the EU
demanding that Tehran abandon nuclear fuel work to guarantee it
will not make atomic weapons. Iran suspended enrichment last
November as a confidence-building measure to start the talks
with the EU, which is offering Tehran trade, security and
technology rewards if it makes the suspension permanent. 

It repeated Sunday it will one day resume its controversial 
uranium enrichment programme regardless of the result of 
negotiations with the European Union on its nuclear activities. 
"It is obvious that the suspension cannot last too long," said 
foreign ministry spokesman Hamid Reza Asefi. 

"If Iran feels the EU is tending to kill time to prolong the 
negotiations, Iran will obviously not wish to continue the 
negotiations." The next round of negotiations is set for Friday 
in London. The United States backs the EU initiative but is not 
party to the talks. 

It charges that Iran is secretly developing nuclear weapons and 
must be kept from enriching uranium -- a process which makes fuel 
for nuclear power reactors but also the explosive core of atom 
bombs. 

Iran denies it is seeking to develop nuclear weapons. Diplomats 
have said Iran has proposed to limit its enrichment activities, 
but the country has refused a total halt.

A resumption of enrichment activities without any wider agreement 
could see Iran referred to the UN Security Council, something the 
United States has been pushing for. Iran has attributed the 
international pressure to what it sees as "double standards", 
given that it has signed the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
(NPT) while arch-enemy Israel -- an undeclared nuclear power -- 
has not. 

"Israel has unfortunately jeopardized peace and security in the 
region. If the big powers want to do something, they have to take 
Israel to the Security Council," Asefi said.     

Copyright © 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 2 UK The Times: Inspectors give up on hunt for WMD
 
April 27, 2005                         
 
By Tim Reid
		   		 		
THE United States’s chief weapons inspector in Iraq declared 
yesterday that his hunt for illicit weapons is over and that none 
has been found. 

In his final report, Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey 
Group, formed in May 2003, added that he had found no evidence 
that illegal weapons were smuggled from Iraq to Syria before the 
US-led invasion. 

“After more than 18 months, the WMD (weapons of mass
destruction) and debriefing of the WMD-related detainees has
been exhausted,” he concluded. 

The US and Britain used allegations that Iraq possessed weapons
of mass destruction as a key justification for invading the
country in 2003. 

Another was the introduction of democracy to a country
terrorised by the regime of Saddam Hussein. The ousting of the
dictator led to the country’s first free elections for decades
and last night, three months after the polls, officials said
that the Prime Minister had completed talks to form his cabinet
and would ask Parliament to approve it today. 

Presenting his WMD report yesterday, Mr Duelfer issued several
warnings. He said that Saddam had wanted to restart WMD
programmes and had created a pool of weapons experts, many of
whom would be seeking work. Most would probably turn to the
“benign civil sector”, but the danger remained that “hostile
foreign governments, terrorists or insurgents may seek Iraqi
expertise”. 

He said that forces in Iraq may find a few degraded chemical
weapons, most likely abandoned after the 1991 Gulf War. In an
insurgent’s hands, “the use of a single even ineffectual
chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than deadlier
conventional explosives”. He added that potential
nuclear-related equipment was “missing from heavily damaged and
looted sites”.   	 		

							   	 	
Copyright The Times - timesonline.co.uk
*****************************************************************
 3 Minjok-Tongshin: How Many Nukes in North Korea's Arsenal?

 By Lee Wha Rang, KWW

 2005-04-27 - Lee Wha Rang, Updated April 26, 2005

It is now accepted that North Korea has the technical expertise
and the parts to make nuclear weapons. What is not clear is i
how many nukes North Korea has on hand. 

The US CIA says North Korea may have one or two or up to five
"crude" nukes. Some intelligence sources of South Korea, Russia
and China cite a larger number - as high as 100 nukes or more.
How can the intelligence estimates vary so widely? In order to
answer this question, one needs to trace the history of North
Korea's nuclear program and study the basics of nuclear bomb
design principles. 

Contrary to the common belief, the only reactor North Korea
received from the Soviets was a tiny 0.1 megawatts thermal (MWt)
reactor at Yongbyon. This reactor went into operation in early
1960s. Its primary function was isotope production for
biomedical research. 

A few years before its collapse, the Soviet Union agreed to
build two nuclear reactors for power generation, about 1,000
megawatts electric (MWe) each, provided that North Korea joined
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Accordingly, North
Korea joined the NPT but it never got the reactors. Unable to
find other sources, North Korea designed and built a 5MWe
reactor on its own. This reactor, code-named Reactor I, was
based on a 1950 MAGNOX technology (graphite moderator,
aluminum-magnesium clad natural uranium fuel , CO2 gas cooling).
The reactor was completed in 1984 and activated in February 1987
under Prof. Ha Kyong Won, a Korean physicist educated in the
United States. This reactor can generate more than 30 MWt of
energy. 

A 50 MW MAGNOX-type reactor (Reactor II) was started in 1984. N
Korea built a military nuclear complex next to this reactor.
This complex was completed in 1989 and the reactor was
tentatively activated in 1992. A 200 MWe MAGNOX-type reactor was
started at Taechon, 60 miles north of Pyongyang in 1988. A
600-800 MWe reactor was also started at Taechon. A third
reactor, 635 MWe, based on a German design was under
construction at Simpo. The completion of these reactors was on
hold in accordance with the 1994 Agreed Framework until the
current nuclear crisis began. It is believed that North Korea is
working to complete these reactors post haste.. 

A plutonium separation facility ("Radiological Research Lab")
was built at Yongbyon in 1987. This plant is capable of handling
several hundreds of tons of fuel a year, enough to handle fuel
from all of the reactors. The plutonium factory for the nuclear
weapons is a single story building constructed on top of the
main plutonium reprocessing facility, deep underground. In 1993,
N Korea completed a second plant, doubling its capacity for
plutonium production to more than 100 lbs per year.

It is believed that North Korea removed about 30 lb of plutonium
from Reactor I in 1988, and 60 lbs more in 1989-1991. If these
figures are correct, North Korea would have about 90 lbs of
plutonium. According a Russian source, North Korea bought 120 lb
of plutonium from a former Soviet block country in 1992. In
addition, North Korea may have acquired additional nuclear
materials or nuclear weapons from the former Soviet republics.
North Korea has conducted several hundred "cold explosion" tests
of nuclear bombs. In a "cold" explosion, an actual nuclear bomb,
with a limited amount of fissile matter, is detonated. 

In addition to the plutonium bomb, North Korea is believed to
have perfected an implosion uranium bomb design. This design
requires only enriched uranium and no plutonium is used. The
Pakistani bomb is of a similar design. North Korea has a large
reserve of uranium ores and enriched uranium for nuclear bombs
can be produced in large volume using small devices that can be
hidden in underground chambers. Bomb grade uranium can be made
by separating out U-235 by mass separation or charge separation.
In the latter method, laser beams ionized U-235 atoms and
high-voltage fields extract U-235 ions. The former method
separates U-235 using centrifugal force. 

There are two basic designs of nuclear bomb: gun-type assembly
and implosion. As shown in the figure below, in the gun-type
design, two blocks of uranium enriched to about 80% U-235 are
shot into each other by conventional high-explosives.

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima, the Little Boy, was of this
design. It had 64.1 kg of uranium enriched to about 80% of
U-235. It had the explosive power of 15,000 tons of TNT and
killed about 200,000 people. “Tampers?are made of U-238 blocks
that hold in high pressure and temperature and reflect neutrons
back to the fissile blocks. Other than the United States, South
Africa is the only nation that has built gun-type nukes.

The implosion type uses a spherical geometry ?see the figure
below. High explosives or other firing means are placed evenly
on the surface and fissile materials ?uranium and/or plutonium
?are placed at the center. The trigger implodes the sphere and
the surface collapses squeezing the fissile matter into a state
of high density, high pressure and temperature. If things are
set right, nuclear explosions occur.

The bomb dropped on Nagasaki (the Fat Man) was an implosion
type. It had 6.2 kg of plutonium and the destructive power of
22,000 ton of TNT. About 70,000 residents of Nagasaki were
killed.

The US CIA says North Korea may have made 1 or 2 “crude?bombs.
The basis of this estimate is as follows. A crude plutonium bomb
requires 35.2 lbs (16 kg). The US CIA estimates that North Korea
has at least 70 lbs (31.5 kg) of plutonium and so it could
theoretically have made 1-3 (31.5 kg / 16 kg) plutonium bombs.

The ‘critical mass?of fissile matter drops sharply with the
fissile density as the inverse square of the density - that is,
even the tiniest amount of fissile matter can be made critical
if squashed hard enough. The Nagasaki bomb had 6.2 kg of
plutonium and North Korea could have built as many as five
Nagasaki bombs. Modern plutonium nukes of China, Russia and the
United States contain as little as one kg of plutonium. Using
this figure, North Korea may have or could produce as many as 32
nukes from the Reactor I plutonium alone. If the report of North
Korean acquisition of plutonium is true, then this figure goes
up by a factor of 2 or 3 - in another word, North Korea may have
or could have one hundred or so nukes..

The picture gets much more complicated when you take into
account the possibility that North Korea may know how to make
thermonuclear bombs ?the H-bomb. The basic physics of the H-bomb
is that high-energy neutrons can break apart the abundant U-238,
and so the basic design principle is to produce high-energy
neutrons using nuclear fusion. Since the probability of
explosion increases with particle density, extremely high
pressure is created inside the bomb. In brief, a small fission
bomb is used to triggers nuclear fusion, which creates
high-energy particles, which in turn, creates high pressure and
temperature that lead to nuclear fission of U-238.

A simplified diagram of the H-bomb is shown. A small amount of
LiD (Lithium-6 deutride) placed in the inner core of an
implosion bomb can significantly boost the bomb yield. LiD
powder turns into Li, D, and tritium gases that undergo fusion
releasing fast neutrons, which in turn enhance nuclear fission
of plutonium, U235 or U-238. Any nation that can make implosion
bombs can make fusion ‘booster?bombs.

Referring to the figure below, one can see that in the H-bomb
design, an implosion bomb is used as a trigger, which ignites
fusion on a larger scale than in a booster bomb. Fusile
substances surround the implosion bomb trigger and another much
larger implosion bomb, and the whole thing is placed inside an
explosion bomb made of a uranium-238 casing. U-238 nuclei
fission if bombarded by high-energy neutrons, photons and alpha
particles.

The secondary stage is made of a hollow lithium-6 deutride
cylinder or ellipsoid case in by a layer of U-238. At the core
of the cylinder is a Pu-239 or U-235 rod about one inch in
diameter. The casing is wrapped in a layer of plastic foam and a
plug of U-238 separates the secondary from the trigger.

The Teller-Ulam bomb is often called a "2-stage bomb" because
the fission trigger ignites the fusion stage. Since the shock
wave dies out in a few microseconds, a 2-stage bomb has a limit
on the bomb yields and additional stages are required for super
bombs. 

Photo: The US Mk-28 H-bomb, dating back to 1958, is still an
active weapon system. It is capable of a ground or air burst and
may be carried internally or externally, with a free-fall or
parachute retarded drop, depending upon its configuration. MK-28
can be carried on bombers, submarines or ground vehicles.

The rule of thumb is each stage can be 10-100 times the previous
stage in explosive power. It is believed the Soviets had a
design for the Dooms Bomb ?a large freighter stuffed full of
fissile materials. Such a super-bomb would have destroyed much
of the world, as we know it.

It should be clear by now the significance of North Korea’s
enriched uranium program. It is most likely that North Korea has
the technical expertise to manufacture the H-bomb. Using
enriched uranium in the nuclear trigger, North Korea would not
need any plutonium. Furthermore, the spent rods ?in the
thousands ?in the storage pool may be used in the H-bomb with
any reprocessing for plutonium extraction.

Copyright © 1999-2005 Minjok Tongshin
*****************************************************************
 4 Las Vegas SUN: Bush Lays Out Energy Plan As Prices Soar

Today: April 27, 2005 at 16:00:40 PDT 

 By H. JOSEF HEBERT ASSOCIATED PRESS 

WASHINGTON (AP) - 

President Bush, facing economic and political damage from
soaring gas prices, offered proposals Wednesday to speed
construction of nuclear power plants and oil refineries and
boost sales of energy-efficient vehicles. 

Bush outlined his initiatives in his second energy speech in a
week, reflecting growing concern in the White House that high
energy prices are beginning to slow economic growth and undercut
the president's approval rating. 

Speaking to small business leaders, Bush lamented that he was
powerless to cut gas prices. "I wish I could," he said. "If I
could, I would." 

"This problem did not develop overnight and it's not going to be
fixed overnight. But it's now time to fix it," he said. Bush
said the problem is that energy supplies are not growing fast
enough to meet the growing demand in the United States and in
other countries. 

"See, we've got a fundamental question we got to face here in
America," Bush said. "Do we want to continue to grow more
dependent on other nations to meet our energy needs? Or, do we
need to do what is necessary to achieve greater control of our
economic destiny?" 

America has not ordered a new nuclear power plant since the
1970s. Bush said that France has built 58 plants in the same
period and today France gets more than 78 percent of its
electricity from nuclear power. 

"It's time for America to start building again," he said. 

Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid called Bush's initiatives
"little more than half measures and wrongheaded policies that
will do nothing to address the current energy crisis or break
the stranglehold that foreign oil has on our nation." 

He said Senate Democrats will offer a much larger package of tax
incentives - double the $8 billion approved by the House - and
funnel more of the money to renewable energy sources and energy
efficiency measures. 

Bush urged using closed military bases as sites for new oil
refineries. The Energy Department is being ordered to step up
discussions with communities near such bases to try to get
refineries built. He said the United States has not built a new
oil refinery since the 1970s. 

Bush also called on Congress to provide a "risk insurance" plan
to insulate the nuclear industry against regulatory delays if it
builds new nuclear power plants. And he endorsed giving federal
regulators final say over the location of liquefied natural gas
(LNG) import terminals. LNG terminal projects have been stymied
in some regions by local opposition, even though the need for
more LNG imports has been widely accepted. 

As he did last week, he called on Congress to give him an energy
bill by this summer. 

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who is trying to put together an
energy package that can pass the Senate, said he welcomed some
of the president's proposals. He is "making it clear that energy
remains a top priority of this president," said Domenici in a
statement. 

Bush's support for giving the federal government clear authority
in locating LNG terminals comes after the House included such a
provision in the energy bill it passed last week. Some lawmakers
strongly opposed the measure, arguing it would deprive states
and communities of a say in locating LNG import terminals, even
in heavily populated areas. 

Nuclear power accounts for about 20 percent of the country's
electricity. Some utilities have expressed interest in building
a new reactor, perhaps as early as 2010, but want assurance of a
smooth regulatory process to get financing. 

To address their concern, the president is directing the Energy
Department to develop a federal "risk insurance" plan that would
kick in if there were lengthy delays in licensing a new reactor.
Such a program would need congressional action, and White House
officials would not speculate on its cost. 

The president also wants the Energy Department to discuss with
local communities the possibility of building refineries on
closed military sites. A shortage of U.S. refining capacity has
been blamed in part for the high gasoline prices, most recently
by Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Abdullah at a meeting this week
with Bush. 

The president's call for a tax credit for gas-electric hybrid
automobiles and for use of clean diesel is similar to a proposal
in his budget earlier this year. The hybrid tax break was left
out of the energy bill passed by the House last week. 

Such a credit would provide $2.5 billion in tax incentives over
10 years, White House officials said. Consumers would get a
credit, up to $4,000, depending on the level of a vehicle's fuel
efficiency, if they purchase a hybrid or clean-diesel vehicle. 

-- 


 
*****************************************************************
 5 E&P: Gallup: 50% of Americans Now Say Bush Deliberately Misled Them on WMDs

By E&P Staff 

Published: April 26, 2005 11:45 AM ET 

NEW YORK Half of all Americans, exactly 50%, now say the Bush
administration deliberately misled Americans about whether Iraq
had weapons of mass destruction, the Gallup Organization
reported this morning. 

"This is the highest percentage that Gallup has found on this
measure since the question was first asked in late May 2003,"
the pollsters observed. "At that time, 31% said the
administration deliberately misled Americans. This sentiment has
gradually increased over time, to 39% in July 2003, 43% in
January/February 2004, and 47% in October 2004."
 
Also, according to the latest poll, more than half of Americans,
54%, disapprove of the way President Bush is handling the
situation in Iraq, while 43% approve. In early February,
Americans were more evenly divided on the way Bush was handling
the situation in Iraq, with 50% approving and 48% disapproving. 

Last week Gallup reported that 53% now believe that the U.S.
invasion of Iraq was "not worth it." But Frank Newport, editor
in chief at Gallup, recalled today that although a majority of
the public began to think the Vietnam war was a mistake in the
summer of 1968, the United States did not pull out of Vietnam
for more than five years, after thousands of more American lives
were lost. 

E&P Staff (letters@editorandpublisher.com)                 

letters@editorandpublisher.com.

© 2005 VNU eMedia Inc. All rights reserved. Terms 
*****************************************************************
 6 L.A. Times: Bush Touts Technology to Help Solve Energy Woes 

[Los Angeles Times - latimes.com]         

  5:06 PM PDT, April 27, 2005

By Warren Vieth and Edwin Chen, Times Staff Writers

 WASHINGTON -- President Bush, under pressure to do something
about high energy prices, called Wednesday for expanded efforts
to harness the "transformational power of technology" to wean
the nation from its dependence on oil and gas.
 
Bush, making his second major energy policy address in a week,
proposed several initiatives that he said would help address the
supply and demand imbalances contributing to high gasoline and
crude oil prices in recent months.
 
They include government-provided risk insurance for new nuclear
power plants, expanded federal authority to approve liquefied
natural gas terminals, possible construction of oil refineries
on closed military bases, and a tax break for people who buy
diesel-powered cars.
 
But for the most part, the president expressed confidence in the
ability of the private sector to expand energy supplies and
promote conservation through innovation, with only a modest
amount of government involvement to get things rolling.
 
"In the years ahead, technology will allow us to create entirely
new sources of energy in ways earlier generations could never
dream," Bush said. "Technology . . . is this nation's ticket to
greater energy independence."
 
Bush's remarks appeared to reflect a delicate political
balancing act on the part of the White House.
 
"He's trying to convey to the public a sense that he's on the
job, that he's concerned about high prices ... and that he's
trying to find a way to get more energy to the country as
quickly as possible," said Stuart Rothenberg, an independent
political analyst in Washington.
 
"It's a tough place to be if you're a politician," said Kim
Wallace, chief political analyst for Lehman Brothers, a Wall
Street company. "It's probably tougher for this president
because he's a market-oriented president and an energy-oriented
president. The sensitivities are a little bit higher."
 
Speaking at a Washington conference hosted by the Small Business
Administration, Bush cited a long list of administration
proposals contained in the comprehensive energy strategy drafted
by Vice President Dick Cheney in 2001.
 
He criticized Congress for not enacting his plan, and urged the
Senate to begin work soon on its version of energy legislation
passed by the House last week. The House measure contains many
of the administration's initiatives.
 
Bush acknowledged that none of his proposals, including the new
measures he outlined Wednesday, would have much immediate effect
on prices at the gas pump. But he said they would help lead the
way toward a more diversified energy supply and reduced U.S.
reliance on foreign crude oil.
 
Bush cited the administration's efforts to promote the
development of hydrogen as a fuel source for cars and trucks.
 
"We're developing new technologies that will change the way we
drive," he said. "See, I know what we're going to need to do for
a generation to come. We need to get on a path away from the
fossil fuel economy."
 
Bush spoke two days after a meeting at his Texas ranch with
Saudi Crown Prince Abdullah that raised questions about the
president's willingness to take steps to bring down oil and
gasoline prices.
 
In that meeting, Bush neither sought nor received a commitment
from the Saudis to increase oil production. Afterward, Secretary
of State Condoleezza Rice and national security adviser Stephen
J. Hadley told reporters that Bush was taking a longer view,
with an eye on changing the fundamentals of the market.
 
Earlier Wednesday, White House spokesman Scott McClellan
rejected suggestions that Bush's initiatives were quickly
drafted in an attempt to portray the president as responding to
expressions of public concern about energy.
 
McClellan characterized Bush's proposals as part of the
president's "ongoing consultations" with staff. He said Bush in
"recent weeks" asked aides about additional measures that might
be taken. 

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times
*****************************************************************
 7 Bush/Energy: Response from Sierra Club to Bush Energy Speech
 
Sierra Club

 27 , 2005     CONTACT:
Brian O'Malley 202-675-6279
   
Bush Energy Plan Fails To Offer Real Solutions To America's
Energy Problems 

Statement by David Hamilton, Director of the Sierra Club's
Global Warming and Energy Program 

In his Washington speech today, President Bush is expected to
offer up "new" energy ideas that are anything but new - they are
old, outdated, obsolete energy policies that depend on
last-century technology and polluting sources of energy. 

At least they are being consistent in Washington: The President
is making this speech exactly one week after the House of
Representatives passed the Energy Policy Act - a bill that
threatens to open up our coasts and special places to oil
development, lets big business polluters off the hook for
cleaning up the messes they make, funnels billions of dollars in
subsidies to outdated dirty industries like coal, oil and
nuclear power, and fails to offer the clean, visionary solutions
that Americans want 

Despite repeated promises by the President and Congress to move
America into the 21st century -- Washington once again has
failed to offer us an energy policy that lowers energy prices,
creates jobs, and curbs our dependence on foreign oil. Instead
they are serving up energy programs that help industry, step on
state's right and thumb a nose at sound science: 

 -  At a time when oil companies are making record profits, the
federal government does not need to subsidize the construction
of new refineries. The current lack of refinery capacity is the
result of a conscious decision by the oil industry in the 1990s
to limit the supply to increase profits. The lack of refinery
capacity is not due to environmental regulations, as some
reports say - it is due to the oil industry itself. The only
long term solution to lowering how much consumers pay at the gas
pump is to reduce demand. The good news is that we have the
technology today to make all vehicles - from sedans, to SUVs to
pickup trucks - go farther on a gallon of gas. 

 -  The President's plan would take power away from states and
communities to site liquefied natural gas ports and put it in
the hands of federal agencies. This is wrong - states and local
communities deserve a say to decisions that affect the health
and security of their families. 

 -  At a time when the Bush administration's own scientists are
saying that Yucca Mountain is not safe, it does not make sense
to build a new generation of nuclear power plants when we have
no place to store the waste, and we have cheaper, cleaner ways
to provide electricity for our families. 

This week the President met with the crown prince of Saudi
Arabia, and today he is offering handouts to polluting energy
industries - while Americans are still left without an energy
plan that reduces our oil dependence, curbs global warming,
lowers gasoline and natural gas prices, or increases our
security. 

It's time to re-energize America with a smarter, safer, cleaner,
and cheaper energy policy. We can light and heat our homes with
safer, cleaner wind or solar power. We have the technology to
make all cars go 40 miles per gallon within ten years, saving
more oil than the U.S. currently imports from the Persian Gulf
or could ever take from the National Wildlife Refuge, combined.

We can improve the energy efficiency of our homes, businesses
and appliances - putting money in our wallets and keeping the
environment clean. We can protect our children from the air
pollution that spews from cars and power plants. We can protect
our coasts and the wildlands left to us for safekeeping. All we
need now is leaders who will put people ahead of corporations
and act now to create a legacy that we will be proud to leave
our children. 

# # # 

*****************************************************************
 8 KLAS: Federal Judge Considering Western Shoshone's Plea

April 27, 2005   

A federal judge is considering whether an Indian tribe's 19th
century claim to vast stretches of Western land should stop
government plans for a national nuclear waste dump at Yucca
Mountain. 

After arguments today, he says he'll rule on the Western
Shoshone request as quickly as possible. 

The tribe says only specified uses of its ancestral homelands
are allowed under the Ruby Valley Treaty of 1863. A nuclear
waste dump isn't one of them. 

But a lawyer for the tribe focused today on disclosures last
month that e-mails suggested workers falsified data about the
Yucca project. 

A government lawyer calls the tribe's challenge of the Yucca
project "a direct contradiction of a congressional mandate." 

President Bush and Congress picked the Yucca Mountain site in
2002 as the site for to entomb 77-thousand tons of the nation's
most highly radioactive material. 

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)   

Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KLAS. All Rights Reserved.

*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: IAEA Delays ElBaradei Reappointment
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Thursday April 28, 2005 1:01 AM

AP Photo MU101 

By GEORGE JAHN 

Associated Press Writer 

VIENNA, Austria (AP) - The United States opposed the
reappointment of the U.N.'s top nuclear inspector Wednesday
because of his views on Iran and prewar Iraq, prompting the
atomic watchdog agency to delay its decision to avoid a
confrontation with Washington and other members. 

The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency has until
June to decide whether to reappoint Mohamed ElBaradei to a third
term. At a brief meeting Wednesday, the board postponed a
decision on the reappointment. 

Wednesday's deferral was aimed at avoiding a vote that would pit
the United States against most of the 34 other board nations.
Traditionally, decisions are reached through consensus. 

U.S. officials refused to comment on the meeting. But a Western
diplomat familiar with the U.S. position said they were weighing
their options before June and hoping to swing traditional allies
to muster the minimum of 12 votes needed to block ElBaradei. 

The issue of who controls the IAEA is key for Washington, which
is opposed in principle to heads of U.N. agencies serving a
third term but also wants someone sharing its view of which
countries represent nuclear threats and what to do about them. 

ElBaradei has challenged those views - particularly over Iran
and prewar Iraq, both of which President Bush labeled part of an
``axis of evil'' with North Korea. 

ElBaradei first disputed U.S. assertions that Saddam Hussein had
an active nuclear weapons program - claims that remain unproven.
He then refused to endorse assertions by Washington that Tehran
was working to make nuclear weapons. Iran says its nuclear
program is for generating electricity. 

The Bush administration called on him to step down after
completing a second term, but a direct attempt to unseat
ElBaradei fizzled last year when the United States could not
find anyone to challenge him for a third term by the Dec. 31
deadline. 

Support for ElBaradei increased during the meeting, one diplomat
said on condition of anonymity. Thirty-four of the 35 IAEA board
member countries supported a third term for ElBaradei, he said. 

Another diplomat who attended the meeting said its chairwoman,
Canadian diplomat Ingrid Hall, spoke of ``strong and broad
support'' for ElBaradei. 

Representatives of China and Russia voiced strong support for
ElBaradei, and the Russian delegate spoke of ``full support
(for) and deep satisfaction'' with ElBaradei, the diplomat said. 

The Russian called for his reappointment ``the sooner the
better,'' she said, adding that a delegate for Luxembourg,
speaking for the European Union, urged further consultations to
achieve consensus. 

Diplomats in Vienna said Wednesday the Americans still had no
candidate. 

Wednesday's meeting was called earlier this month at the request
of developing nations on the 35-nation board to support a
reappointment of ElBaradei. 

``We're quite confident that the meeting is going to be a
constructive one and it will be an additional step toward
ensuring the reappointment of Dr. ElBaradei,'' Egypt's chief
delegate, Ramzy Ezzelin Ramzy, said before the meeting. 

At the time Wednesday's meeting was set, diplomats hinted that
developing nations hoped their cause would benefit from changes
in the U.S. State Department that have left a key position
temporarily in flux. 

Former U.S. Undersecretary of State John Bolton, a key ElBaradei
critic, is waiting for U.S. Senate confirmation as his nation's
new ambassador to the United Nations. His designated successor,
Bob Joseph, also must be approved by the Senate. 

^--- 

On the Net: 

International Atomic Energy Agency: http://www.iaea.org	 
		 	 	   



                    
                    



        
        

 Privacy policy  |  Terms & conditions  |  Advertising guide  | 
                  A-Z index  |  About this site
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
 
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: Blix insists there was no firm weapons evidence
 
Full text: summary of attorney general's legal advice on
March 7 2003

[UP] 
                                                                
Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Thursday April 28, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
The head of the United Nations weapons inspectors in the run-up 
to the Iraq war, Hans Blix, last night undercut one of the main 
grounds offered by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, in his 
legal advice to Tony Blair. 

Lord Goldsmith said there would have to be evidence that Iraq was 
not complying with the inspectors. 

But Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors 
found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or 
was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been 
only small infractions by Iraq. 

"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake 
about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling 
evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The 
government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light 
of what the inspectors found. 

"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass 
destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by 
US and British intelligence and not found anything." 

In a key passage in the legal advice written by Lord Goldsmith on 
March 7 2003, the attorney general said that UN resolution 1441 
could only be sustainable as a justification for war "if there 
are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to 
take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be 
able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and 
non-cooperation." 

He said the views of Unmovic, the UN inspectorate body, and the 
International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, will 
be "highly significant" and "you will need to consider very 
carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and 
non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling". 

Mr Blix and his team returned to Iraq in December 2002 after a 
four-year absence and remained until the week before war began in 
March 2003. More than 200 inspectors crisscrossed Iraq, checking 
out possible sites for the production or stockpiling of weapons 
of mass destruction: chemical, biological or nuclear. 

Mr Blix's first monthly report to the UN security council in 
January was mainly negative about the Iraqi government, 
complaining about lack of cooperation. A month later he adopted a 
more neutral stance, pointing out some infringements but finding 
no significant stockpiles. 

On March 7, the day Lord Goldsmith drew up his report, Mr Blix 
gave his final report and this was the most favourable yet from 
Iraq's point of view. 

Asked if this final report amounted to the compelling evidence 
that Lord Goldsmith considered crucial, Mr Blix said: "One cannot 
say so. There were infractions, you can say. In March, they (the 
Iraqis) cooperated like hell. They were pro-active. In December 
and January, no. That is why I gave a critical account on January 
27. In February, it was more balanced." 

On March 7, Mr Blix pleaded for more time to complete his mission 
and reported that lethal weapons such as Samoud 2 missiles were 
being destroyed. 

Mr Blix said last night: "The things found were all small things. 
We found dozens of munitions for chemical weapons. They were 
empty and in a site declared. In relation to Samoud that went 
beyond 150 kilometres, they (the US and Britain) said it was 
beyond the permitted limit but I did not feel particularly 
indignant about that." 

On the same day, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, 
reported that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any 
nuclear weapons or was in the process of acquiring them. Mr Blix 
said: "By then, Mohamed ElBaradei revealed that Niger was not 
authentic." British intelligence falsely claimed Iraq had been 
trying to acquire uranium from Niger. 

Mr Blix said Mr ElBaradei had also challenged US claims that 
aluminium tubes found were for WMD purposes. Mr Blix himself also 
expressed scepticism to the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, 
about alleged evidence of WMD. 

The Iraq Survey Group, set up by the US to search for WMD, found 
none. 

In Britain, inquiries into the route to war have been held by 
MPs, Lord Hutton and Lord Butler. The intelligence service was 
criticised for not re-evaluating its assessments in the light of 
Mr Blix's reports. 
	
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 11 Bellona position paper: The EU launches initiative on energy efficiency
 
The Council of the European Union (EU) is currently negotiating 
the proposition for a new Directive under which Member States 
will be obliged to reduce their total energy use by at least one 
percent each year from 2007 until 2012.

  Shedding light on the Energy Efficiecy directive in Bellona's
new position paper.   

  Bellona Archive   

Gunnar Grini, 2005-04-26 11:28

The European Commission presented a draft for a Directive on the
promotion of End-use efficiency and Energy Services on December
10th 2003. The Luxembourg Presidency of the EU set forth a new
version of this proposition for the EU Council on February 8th
2005. 

The purpose of the Directive is to enhance cost-effective
improvement of energy end-use efficiency by providing the
necessary targets, initiatives, and financial and legal
framework to remove existing market barriers for the efficient
end-use of energy. In addition, it aims to a developed a market
for energy services and for the delivery of other energy
efficiency improvement measures to end-users. 

Energy efficiency as an important means for reaching Kyoto
targets 

The Bellona Foundation welcomes the Commission’s initiative.
Bellona considers that promoting energy efficiency is the
cleanest way of making alternative energy available . Indeed,
initiatives encouraging energy efficiency contribute neither to
increasing global warming potential nor to an increase in
pollution to soil, water, or air, or the disturbance of local
biotopes. 

In addition, initiatives supporting energy efficiency will often
be cheaper to implement than the production of new fossil or
renewable energy because they do not demand investment in new
infrastructure or in delivery networks. Increasing energy
efficiency is essential to comply with the Kyoto protocol and
meet the challenges of safety of energy supply in Europe. 

The proposed Directive contains a proposal instructing Member
States to achieve a one percent energy reduction each year over
five years, but allows Member States to account for energy
efficiency improvements initiated in previous years that that
were achieved since 1995 in the calculations of the annual
emissions reductions. 

The Bellona Foundation disagrees with this approach, and
believes that the same demands should be imposed on all Member
States regardless of their pre-1995 energy reduction efforts,
meaning the proposed directive would start all Member States
with a clean slate. All Member States have a large potential for
developing energy efficiency irrespective of what they have, or
have not, accomplished before. A proposition allowing previous
efforts to be accounted for will be less of an incentive to
promote energy efficiency investments, and allow certain Member
States to maintain the status quo in their effort toward
sustainable use of energy. 

New financial and political instruments necessary 
In the proposed Directive as revised by the Council, the target
of a one percent annual reduction is presented as an indicator
rather than an absolute. This contrasts with the original
proposal that was presented by the Commission in December 2003.
The Bellona Foundation believes that the target of at least a
one percent energy end-use reduction should be made mandatory in
order to push the implementation of new financial and political
instruments necessary to realise the full potential of the
energy efficiency initiative. 

Making the targets mandatory would clearly instruct Member
States to undertake the necessary measures—such as the
implementation of new political and legislative instruments—if
the goals of energy saving are not reached via the existing
measures. 

White Certificates 

The promotion of investments supporting energy efficiency
initiatives might be accomplished through the implementation of
national funding programmes, tax rebates, encouragement of third
party financing, or introduction of a market of white
certificates, that is, a tradable proof of a reduction in energy
end-use. 

A white certificate market would work as follows: Producers and
distributors of electricity, gas, and oil must purchase a
certain amount of white certificates each year, corresponding to
a pre-defined percentage of their total energy deliverance. A
white certificate might be obtained by investment in certain
technologies that reduce the need for energy end-use compared to
the need for energy that does not require the investment. Such
technologies could take the form of solar panels, energy
efficient equipment, increased use of insulation in buildings,
an other energy saving measures. 

A market for white certificates was introduced in Italy in March
of 2005, making it mandatory for electricity and gas
distributors and producers to purchase certificates. In Great
Britain, energy suppliers are obligated to help end-users to
reduce their need for delivered energy by making direct
investments promoting energy savings. This initiative, referred
to as the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) programme, began in
April 2002. 
By the end of the second year, UK suppliers had met more than
three quarters of the overall 62 TWh energy efficiency target. 

The Bellona Foundation supports introducing measures into the
proposed Directive that would underpin a long-term market for
energy efficient alternatives. Furthermore, if targets for
energy efficiency are to be met under the proposed Directive,
they should be represented in the Directive’s language as
absolutes rather than indicators. Should the current language
remain, Bellona forecasts that the need to advise Member States
on how to introduce specific market-based energy reduction
measures will arise. 

Download Bellona’s new position paper here.   

  Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge 
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: 
webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 
38 38 62  * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 12 ePolitix.com: Salmond warns on 'nuclear madness'
 
  SNP: Scotland's environment "at risk"   

Alex Salmond has warned that Scotland could become a "nuclear
dustbin". 

The SNP leader was on Wednesday making his call for a
"nuclear-free Scotland" the centrepiece of his election
campaign. 

He warned that nuclear power stations, nuclear waste and nuclear
weapons put Scotland's natural environment at risk. 

"Scotland's vital farming, fishing and tourism industries -
which employ hundreds of thousands of people and depend on a
clean, green environment - are in grave danger from the nuclear
madness of Labour and the Tories," he said. 

"Labour and the Tories both want to dump nuclear waste in
Scotland. There are 470,000 cubic metres of nuclear waste
waiting to be buried - and two thirds of the sites identified
are in Scotland." 

He also warned that the two largest Westminster parties "want to
saddle us with more nuclear power stations". 

Salmond said Scotland's energy needs should focus on renewable
energy, with "vast offshore wind and wave potential". 

"And Labour and the Tories both want to dump a new generation of
nuclear weapons on the Clyde - wasting at least Â£20bn which
could be spent on public services - and to continue testing
radioactive shells in the Solway Firth," he said. 

"This nuclear madness could be a disaster for our vital rural
industries. 

"The SNP is the only party which can make Scotland matter in
this election and stop Labour or the Tories turning Scotland
into a nuclear dustbin." 

Salmond also published a letter from the Ministry of Defence
confirming that four "essentially complete" depleted uranium
shells have been found at the Kirkcudbright firing range. 

One had been found on the foreshore and one was recovered by a
local fisherman, said Salmond. 

"If you thought depleted uranium was only a problem on the
battlefields of Iraq, think again, depleted uranium is an issue
here in Scotland," said the SNP leader. 

"Of course, 'essentially complete' is a nice way of saying
incomplete, and that means fragments from these shells â€“ and
the thousands of others fired into the sea - could remain in
local waters and in the local environment. 

"I want to know what action the Ministry of Defence has taken to
trace particles and what action they plan to make sure no more
military uranium finds its way onto this beautiful stretch of
Scottish coast."     

Published: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 11:02:01 GMT+01

 "If you thought depleted uranium was only a problem on the
battlefields of Iraq, think again, depleted uranium is an issue
here in Scotland" Alex Salmond 

©2005 ePolitix.com     
*****************************************************************
 13 AFP: IAEA nuclear chief ElBaradei seeks third term, US may give reluctant support 

  Wednesday April 27, 09:48 AM 

 VIENNA (AFX) - UN atomic energy chief Mohamed ElBaradei is
seeking a third term in office despite US lukewarm support.

 As director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) he has led the global effort to uncover nuclear threats
to world peace, a task that involves juggling often competing
national interests.

 For example, the US would like to see the IAEA crack down
harder on Iran concerning what Washington says is a covert
nuclear weapons programme, but ElBaradei insists that the
agency's investigation of the Islamic republic needs time.

 ElBaradei has also earned the ire of Washington for using his
position to question US intelligence that Iraq had weapons of
mass destruction under now deposed dictator Saddam Hussein.

 Washington may, however, have no option but to give taciturn
support to ElBaradei, a US official speaking on condition of
anonymity told Agence France-Presse, given that no alternative
candidate has come forward to oppose the widely respected IAEA
chief. 

/msa/jmy/ims 

COPYRIGHT
Copyright AFX News Limited 2005. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 14 ITAR-TASS: Hungarian police free Russian environment activists

27.04.2005, 12.58

BUDAPEST, April 27 (Itar-Tass) - Budapest police freed on
Tuesday three activists of a Russian environmental group who
were detained for holding a not permitted protest action in the
centre of the Hungarian capital. 

A police spokesman told Itar-Tass on Wednesday that an
administrative case on the incident was opened. 

The activists of the group Ekozashchita (“Environmental
Protection”) gathered near Hungarian parliament’s building
urging for a meeting with Prime Minister Ferenc Gyurcsany for
“drawing attention of Hungarian deputies and the head of the
government to the danger of transportation of nuclear waste from
Hungary to Russia”. 

The environmentalists said they had brought the radioactive
water and soil sampled on outskirts of a Hungarian waste
processing enterprise. 

However, specialists of emergency management services who were
called to the site have not found radiation in the samples. 
The police spokesman said the “protest action was not permitted,
its participants did not ask authorities for it and did not get
permission for it, and the reason for their detention was
incompliance with rules of holding meetings and manifestations
in the city”. 

A Hungarian government spokesman told reporters that Hungary
“has not sent spent nuclear fuel to Russia since 1998 and does
not plan sending it.” 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
 15 AFP:IAEA postpones vote on new chief in order to get US onboard

Thursday April 28, 02:20 AM 

VIENNA (AFP) - The UN atomic agency postponed a vote on whether
to give current chief Mohamed ElBaradei a new term, with only
Washington opposing his reappointment due to differences over
Iran and Iraq. 

But a US official told AFP that the United States, virtually
alone on the 35-nation board of governors of the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in its fight against ElBaradei, may
eventually drop its opposition to a man it has viewed with
suspicion since the run-up to the Iraq war. 

The IAEA board met Wednesday in a special session at the
agency's headquarters in Vienna to discuss the appointment of a
new director general when ElBaradei's current four-year term
expires November 30. ElBaradei is the only candidate for the
post. 

The chair of the board, Canadian ambassador Ingrid Hall, said
that "support for the candidate has increased and that
furthermore board members want to see a decision on his
reappointment taken by consensus and as soon as possible and no
later than" the next board meeting June 13, according to a copy
of her statement read to reporters. 

The postponement is to give the United States time to change its
position and join the consensus, diplomats said. 

The United States officially opposes ElBaradei, 62, serving more
than two terms. 

The former Egyptian diplomat provoked the ire of Washington for
using his position as IAEA chief to question US intelligence
that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction under now deposed
dictator Saddam Hussein. 

The United States also argues that ElBaradei is not tough enough
on Iran, which Washington charges is hiding a covert nuclear
weapons program, diplomats said. 

Washington may however be ready to yield on ElBaradei, the US
official, who asked to remain anonymous, said, as it is having
trouble getting an alternative candidate to come forward to
oppose the widely respected IAEA chief. 

Egyptian IAEA ambassador Ramzy Ezzeldin Ramzy told reporters: "I
essentially believe a consensus exists." 

A senior European diplomat said: "None of the Europeans have
problems with ElBaradei as a person or as incumbent but they are
aware of the US position and don't want to be in a situation of
opting for one or the other side." 

The special board meeting Wednesday was called by the Group of
77, which is made up of developing nations, and China, in order
to push for ElBaradei's reappointment. ElBaradei was not
present, as he is traveling. 

Luxembourg ambassador Paul Faber speaking for the European
Union, said the EU would be ready to join a consensus on
ElBaradei, a Western diplomat who was at the closed-door meeting
told reporters. 

The new director general would be ratified at an IAEA plenary
conference in September. 

ElBaradei has won credibility by being right about the lack of
weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and for the slow but probing
job he has done in investigating Iran's nuclear program,
diplomats said. 

"Everything shows the United States won't have the blocking
minority (of 12 votes) needed to stop ElBaradei," a Western
diplomat said, referring to the two-thirds majority of the board
needed to elect a director general. 

But the United States still hopes a vote on ElBaradei will fail
and that a "competing candidate" will emerge, the US official
said. 

The official acknowledged however that time was running short
and that the United States might eventually yield and accept
ElBaradei. 

"The White House does not want this to become a damaging foreign
policy problem at a time when we are working well with Europe
and others on pressing challenges like Iraq, Darfur, Iran, arms
embargo to China, etc.," the official said. 

   Copyright © 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
 16 St. Petersburg Times: Where's the fuel of the future?
 
By ROBERT TRIGAUX, Times Business Columnist
 Published April 27, 2005
 
If there was a perfect fuel, we would be all gravitating toward
it. Unfortunately, we have not found it yet. 

- Rick Kimble, spokesman, Progress Energy 

Electricity we air-conditioned-crazy Floridians take for granted
and consume at a greedy pace comes with increasingly expensive
price tags. Take your pick.

 Natural gas, the recent clean fuel of choice to generate
electricity, has risen in price more quickly than expected and
must be imported. Coal costs are soaring, and the fossil fuel
remains a major air pollution problem despite improved
technologies.

 And oil? Look no further than the spiking price of gasoline to
know oil costs are well past $50 a barrel. Some analysts are
even throwing out the once-absurd idea of $100 a barrel for oil
in our future, if only to remind attention-deficit America that
our foreign oil dependence must decline.

 That leaves such alternative energy sources as solar, wind and
hydro to generate electricity. They sound good, but these
sources represent a puny portion of the fuels generating the
country's mass-scale electricity.

 Then there is nuclear. It is the source of power behind nearly
20 percent of the electricity generated in the United States. In
Florida, five nuclear power plants generate nearly 15 percent of
the state's electricity.

 "The bottom line is that there is no perfect energy," says
Progress Energy spokesman Rick Kimble. "To make a lot of
electricity requires lots of fuel, and when you look at the
options, there ain't that many."

 The company tries to maintain a mix of fuels to safeguard the
business and its customers from being gouged by big swings in
availability and prices of one fuel or another.

 But in its heart of hearts, North Carolina's Progress Energy
loves nuclear energy.

 Progress Energy is floating the idea of building a nuclear
power plant. Company CEO Bob McGehee suggested in remarks last
week to the Raleigh, N.C., News &Observer newspaper that the
cheapest, cleanest and wisest fuel source for a new and
large-scale power plant would be nuclear.

 The company runs multiple nuclear power plants in the Carolinas
that generate more than 40 percent of its electricity there.

 Progress Energy's Florida subsidiary, based in St. Petersburg,
provides electricity to the bulk of Floridians in central and
north-central Florida. A nuclear power plant just north of
Crystal River in Citrus County generates 18 percent of the
electricity consumed by Progress Energy customers in the
Sunshine State.

 "Bob McGehee is frustrated by the lack of an energy policy in
this country and a lack of clarity on what the rules are going
to be," spokesman Keith Poston says. No policy means it's tough
for power companies to plan for the future. And building big
power plants involves a best guess of what the country's
electricity needs are for the next 50 to 100 years, he says.

 More electricity will be needed soon. Progress Energy says in
Florida it must add to its "base load" - the megapower plants
that run 24 hours a day to provide the vast bulk of electricity
- by 2015 to keep up with more people and rising demand per
customer.

 But 2015 is 10 years away, you say. What's the hurry? Well,
permitting and construction of a large-scale power plant take
many years. Progress Energy is weighing its options now -
nuclear? gas? coal? - for a plant in 2015.

 Unofficially, there is sufficient room at Progress Energy's
Crystal River site to build a second nuclear power plant. The
company also has room at a nuclear site in North Carolina.

 Persuading a local community accustomed to a nearby nuke plant
to accept another one is far, far easier than selling such an
idea to a new crowd.

 Progress Energy is not ready to announce a specific plan, much
less a location, for a nuclear power plant. But the company is
clearly setting the stage, anticipating the day when the
long-mothballed nuclear power industry will revive as a viable
source in a quickly price-spiking world of energy.

 In addition to its plans, Progress Energy belongs to a
consortium, called NuStart, composed of large power companies in
the Southeast. It is exploring the best design and government
application process for the next generation of nuclear power
plants.

 My best guess? Political timing and corporate culture favor
nuclear.

 President Bush routinely plugs nuclear energy as a key resource
for the future of the nation's energy mix. Polls that once said
nuclear energy was all but dead indicate nearly 70 percent of
Americans are positive about nuclear power.

 "Public perception is driving a lot of this," Kimble says. "A
lot less people are saying "no' to nuclear than ever before."

 The Iraq war is a daily reminder of the high cost in dollars
and people of the country's Middle East oil addiction and the
need to encourage alternatives. Of the 21-million barrels of oil
a day consumed by the United States, 12-million are imported.

 Progress Energy, whose executives often served on U.S. Navy
nuclear submarines, fancies itself one of the nation's top
companies when it comes to operating nuclear power plants.

 And yes, the company acknowledges nuclear has huge hurdles.

 Nobody in the United States has built a nuclear power plant in
decades, so a new generation of design must be produced and
tested. The industry's Achilles' heel - nuclear fuel used to
power such plants stays radioactive for thousands of years -
remains an unsolved problem. And it raises near-term worries
about consumer safety in an era of terrorism, and long-term
concerns about reliable storage.

 The controversial Yucca Mountain site in Nevada, long expected
to be the national underground repository for the spent fuel
rods used in nuclear plants, seems as ill-prepared to accept
nuclear waste as it did 10 years ago.

 No matter. As fossil fuel prices soar, so does the confidence
of nuclear fans.

 Robert Trigaux can be reached at or 727 893-8405. SOURCES OF
FLORIDA'S ELECTRICITY Fuel Percentage Natural gas 32.1 Coal 31.8
Oil 17.5 Nuclear 14.6 Hydro 0.1 Other 3.9 

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 2003 [Last modified April 27,
2005, 00:47:14]

© 2005 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
490 First Avenue South • St. Petersburg, FL 33701 •
727-893-8111
*****************************************************************
 17 [NYTr] Chernobyl: Land of the Dead
 
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 17:08:34 -0500 (CDT)

 
Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
The Guardian - Apr 25, 2005
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5178538-115040,00.html

On April 26 1986, the No 4 reactor at the Chernobyl power station blew
apart. Facing nuclear disaster on an unprecedented scale, Soviet
authorities tried to contain the situation by sending thousands of
ill-equipped men into a radioactive maelstrom. In an extract from a
new book by Russian journalist Svetlana Alexievich, eyewitnesses
recall the terrible human cost of a catastrophe still unfolding today.

Chernobyl

Land of the dead

When a routine test went catastrophically wrong, a chain reaction went
out of control in No 4 reactor of Chernobyl nuclear power station in
Ukraine, creating a fireball that blew off the reactor's 1,000-tonne
steel-and-concrete lid. Burning graphite and hot reactor-core material
ejected by the explosions started numerous other fires, including some
on the combustible tar roof of the adjacent reactor unit. There were
31 fatalities as an immediate result of the explosion and acute
radiation exposure in fighting the fires, and more than 200 cases of
severe radiation sickness in the days that followed.

Evacuation of residents under the plume was delayed by the Soviet
authorities' unwillingness to admit the gravity of the incident.
Eventually, more than 100,000 people were evacuated from the
surrounding area in Ukraine and Belarus.

In the week after the accident the Soviets poured thousands of
untrained, inadequately protected men into the breach. Bags of sand
were dropped on to the reactor fire from the open doors of helicopters
(analysts now think this did more harm than good). When the fire
finally stopped, men climbed on to the roof to clear the radioactive
debris. The machines brought in broke down because of the radiation.
The men barely lasted more than a few weeks, suffering lingering,
painful deaths.

But had this effort not been made, the disaster might have been much
worse. The sarcophagus, designed by engineers from Leningrad, was
manufactured in absentia - the plates assembled with the aid of robots
and helicopters - and as a result there are fissures. Now known as the
Cover, reactor No 4 still holds approximately 20 tonnes of nuclear
fuel in its lead-and-metal core. No one knows what is happening with
it.

For neighbouring Belarus, with a population of just 10 million, the
nuclear explosion was a national disaster: 70% of the radionucleides
released in the accident fell on Belarus. During the second world war,
the Nazis destroyed 619 Belarussian villages, along with their
inhabitants. As a result of fallout from Chernobyl, the country lost
485 villages and settlements. Of these, 70 have been buried
underground by clean-up teams known as "liquidators".

Today, one out of every five Belarussians lives on contaminated land.
That is 2.1 million people, of whom 700,000 are children. Because of
the virtually permanent presence of small doses of radiation around
the "Zone", the number of people with cancer, neurological disorders
and genetic mutations increases with each year.

Lyudmilla Ignatenko, Wife of fireman Vasily Ignatenko:

We were newlyweds. We still walked around holding hands, even if we
were just going to the store. I would say to him, "I love you." But I
didn't know then how much. I had no idea.

We lived in the dormitory of the fire station where he worked. There
were three other young couples; we all shared a kitchen. On the ground
floor they kept the trucks, the red fire trucks. That was his job.

One night I heard a noise. I looked out the window. He saw me. "Close
the window and go back to sleep. There's a fire at the reactor. I'll
be back soon."

I didn't see the explosion itself. Just the flames. Everything was
radiant. The whole sky. A tall flame. And smoke. The heat was awful.
And he's still not back. The smoke was from the burning bitumen, which
had covered the roof. He said later it was like walking on tar.

They tried to beat down the flames. They kicked at the burning
graphite with their feet ... They weren't wearing their canvas gear.
They went off just as they were, in their shirt sleeves. No one told
them.

At seven in the morning I was told he was in the hospital. I ran there
but the police had already encircled it, and they weren't letting
anyone through, only ambulances. The policemen shouted: "The
ambulances are radioactive stay away!"

I saw him. He was all swollen and puffed up. You could barely see his
eyes.

"He needs milk. Lots of milk," my friend said. "They should drink at
least three litres each."

"But he doesn't like milk."

"He'll drink it now."

Many of the doctors and nurses in that hospital and especially the
orderlies, would get sick themselves and die. But we didn't know that
then.

I couldn't get into the hospital that evening. The doctor came out and
said, yes, they were flying to Moscow, but we needed to bring them
their clothes. The clothes they'd worn at the station had been burned.
The buses had stopped running already and we ran across the city. We
came running back with their bags, but the plane was already gone.
They tricked us.

It was a special hospital, for radiology, and you couldn't get in
without a pass. I gave some money to the woman at the door, and she
said, "Go ahead." Then I had to ask someone else, beg. Finally I'm
sitting in the office of the head radiologist. Right away she asked:
"Do you have kids?" What should I tell her? I can see already that I
need to hide that I'm pregnant. They won't let me see him! It's good
I'm thin, you can't really tell anything.

"Yes," I say.

"How many?" I'm thinking, I need to tell her two. If it's just one,
she won't let me in.

"A boy and a girl."

"So you don't need to have any more. All right, listen: his central
nervous system is completely compromised, his skull is completely
compromised."

OK, I'm thinking, so he'll be a little fidgety.

"And listen: if you start crying, I'll kick you out right away. No
hugging or kissing. Don't even get near him. You have half an hour."

He looks so funny, he's got pyjamas on for a size 48, and he's a size
52. The sleeves are too short, the trousers are too short. But his
face isn't swollen any more. They were given some sort of fluid. I
say, "Where'd you run off to?" He wants to hug me. The doctor won't
let him. "Sit, sit," she says. "No hugging in here."

On the very first day in the dormitory they measured me with a
dosimeter. My clothes, bag, purse, shoes - they were all "hot". And
they took that all away from me right there. Even my underwear. The
only thing they left was my money.

He started to change; every day I met a brand-new person. The burns
started to come to the surface. In his mouth, on his tongue, his
cheeks - at first there were little lesions, and then they grew. It
came off in layers - as white film ... the colour of his face ... his
body ... blue, red , grey-brown. And it's all so very mine!

The only thing that saved me was it happened so fast; there wasn't any
time to think, there wasn't any time to cry. It was a hospital for
people with serious radiation poisoning. Fourteen days. In 14 days a
person dies.

He was producing stools 25 to 30 times a day, with blood and mucous.
His skin started cracking on his arms and legs. He became covered with
boils. When he turned his head, there'd be a clump of hair left on the
pillow. I tried joking: "It's convenient, you don't need a comb." Soon
they cut all their hair.

I tell the nurse: "He's dying." And she says to me: "What did you
expect? He got 1,600 roentgen. Four hundred is a lethal dose. You're
sitting next to a nuclear reactor."

When they all died, they refurbished the hospital. They scraped down
the walls and dug up the parquet. When he died, they dressed him up in
formal wear, with his service cap. They couldn't get shoes on him
because his feet had swollen up. They buried him barefoot. My love.

Sergei Vasilyevich Sobolev, Deputy head of the executive committee 
of the Shield of Chernobyl Association:

There was a moment when there was the danger of a nuclear explosion,
and they had to get the water out from under the reactor, so that a
mixture of uranium and graphite wouldn't get into it - with the water,
they would have formed a critical mass. The explosion would have been
between three and five megatons. This would have meant that not only
Kiev and Minsk, but a large part of Europe would have been
uninhabitable. Can you imagine it? A European catastrophe.

So here was the task: who would dive in there and open the bolt on the
safety valve? They promised them a car, an apartment, a dacha, aid for
their families until the end of time. They searched for volunteers.
And they found them! The boys dived, many times, and they opened that
bolt, and the unit was given 7,000 roubles. They forgot about the cars
and apartments they promised - that's not why they dived. These are
people who came from a certain culture, the culture of the great
achievement. They were a sacrifice.

And what about the soldiers who worked on the roof of the reactor? Two
hundred and ten military units were thrown at the liquidation of the
fallout of the catastrophe, which equals about 340,000 military
personnel. The ones cleaning the roof got it the worst. They had lead
vests, but the radiation was coming from below, and they weren't
protected there. They were wearing ordinary, cheap imitation-leather
boots. They spent about a minute and a half, two minutes on the roof
each day, and then they were discharged, given a certificate and an
award - 100 roubles. And then they disappeared to the vast peripheries
of our motherland. On the roof they gathered fuel and graphite from
the reactor, shards of concrete and metal.

It took about 20-30 seconds to fill a wheelbarrow, and then another 30
seconds to throw the "garbage" off the roof. These special
wheelbarrows weighed 40 kilos just by themselves. So you can picture
it: a lead vest, masks, the wheelbarrows, and insane speed.

In the museum in Kiev they have a mould of graphite the size of a
soldier's cap; they say that if it were real it would weigh 16 kilos,
that's how dense and heavy graphite is. The radio-controlled machines
they used often failed to carry out commands or did the opposite of
what they were supposed to do, because their electronics were
disrupted by the high radiation. The most reliable "robots" were the
soldiers. They were christened the "green robots" [from the colour of
their uniforms]. Some 3,600 soldiers worked on the roof of the ruined
reactor. They slept on the ground in tents. They were young guys.

These people don't exist any more, just the documents in our museum,
with their names.

Eduard Borisovich Korotkov, Helicopter pilot:

I was scared before I went there. But then when I got there the fear
went away. It was all orders, work, tasks. I wanted to see the reactor
from above, from a helicopter - to see what had really happened in
there. But that was forbidden. On my medical card they wrote that I
got 21 roentgen, but I'm not sure that's right. Some days there'd be
80 roentgen, some days 120. Sometimes at night I'd circle over the
reactor for two hours.

I talked to some scientists. One told me: "I could lick your
helicopter with my tongue and nothing would happen to me." Another
said: "You're flying without protection? You don't want to live too
long? Big mistake! Cover yourselves!" We lined the helicopter seats
with lead, made ourselves some lead vests, but it turns out those
protect you from one set of rays, but not from another. We flew from
morning to night. There was nothing spectacular in it. Just work, hard
work. At night we watched television - the World Cup was on, so we
talked a lot about football.

I guess it must have been three years later. One of the guys got sick,
then another. Someone died. Another went insane and killed himself.
That's when we started thinking.

I didn't tell my parents I'd been sent to Chernobyl. My brother
happened to be reading Izvestia one day and saw my picture. He brought
it to our mum. "Look," he said, "he's a hero!" My mother started
crying.

Aleksandr Kudryagin, Liquidator:

We had good jokes. Here's one: an American robot is on the roof for
five minutes, and then it breaks down. The Japanese robot is on the
roof for five minutes, and then breaks down.

The Russian robot is up there two hours! Then a command comes in over
the loudspeaker: "Private Ivanov! In two hours, you're welcome to come
down and have a cigarette break."

Ha-ha!

Nikolai Fomich Kalugin, Father:

We didn't just lose a town, we lost our whole lives. We left on the
third day. The reactor was on fire. I remember one of my friends
saying, "It smells of reactor." It was an indescribable smell.

They announced over the radio that you couldn't take your belongings!
All right, I won't take all my belongings, I'll take just one
belonging. I need to take my door off the apartment and take it with
me. I can't leave the door. It's our talisman, it's a family relic. My
father lay on this door. I don't know whose tradition this is, but my
mother told me that the deceased must be placed to lie on the door of
his home.

I took it with me, that door - at night, on a motorcycle, through the
woods. It was two years later, when our apartment had already been
looted and emptied. The police were chasing me. "We'll shoot! We'll
shoot!" They thought I was a thief. That's how I stole the door from
my own home.

I took my daughter and my wife to the hospital. They had black spots
all over their bodies. These spots would appear, then disappear. They
were about the size of a five-kopek coin. But nothing hurt. They did
some tests on them. My daughter was six-years-old. I'm putting her to
bed, and she whispers in my ear: "Daddy, I want to live, I'm still
little." And I had thought she didn't understand anything.

Can you picture seven little girls shaved bald in one room? There were
seven of them in the hospital room ... My wife couldn't take it. "It'd
be better for her to die than to suffer like this. Or for me to die,
so that I don't have to watch any more."

We put her on the door ... on the door that my father lay on. Until
they brought a little coffin. It was small, like the box for a large
doll.

I want to bear witness: my daughter died from Chernobyl. And they want
us to forget about it.

Arkady Filin, Liquidator:

You immediately found yourself in this fantastic world, where the
apocalypse met the stone age. We lived in the forest, in tents, 200km
from the reactor, like partisans.

We were between 25 and 40; some of us had university degrees or
diplomas. I'm a history teacher, for example. Instead of machine guns
they gave us shovels. We buried trash heaps and gardens. The women in
the villages watched us and crossed themselves. We had gloves,
respirators and surgical robes. The sun beat down on us. We showed up
in their yards like demons. They didn't understand why we had to bury
their gardens, rip up their garlic and cabbage when it looked like
ordinary garlic and ordinary cabbage. The old women would cross
themselves and say, "Boys, what is this - is it the end of the world?"

In the house the stove's on, the lard is frying. You put a dosimeter
to it, and you find it's not a stove, it's a little nuclear reactor.

I saw a man who watched his house get buried. We buried houses, wells,
trees. We buried the earth. We'd cut things down, roll them up into
big plastic sheets. We buried the forest. We sawed the trees into 1.5m
pieces and packed them in Cellophane and threw them into graves.

I couldn't sleep at night. I'd close my eyes and see something black
moving, turning over - as if it were alive - live tracts of land, with
insects, spiders, worms. I didn't know any of them, their names, just
insects, spiders, ants. And they were small and big, yellow and black,
all different colours.

One of the poets says somewhere that animals are a different people. I
killed them by the ten, by the hundred, thousand, not even knowing
what they were called. I destroyed their houses, their secrets. And
buried them. Buried them.

Vanya Kovarov, 12:

I'm 12 years old and I'm an invalid. The mailman brings two pension
cheques to our house - for me and my grandad.

When the girls in my class found out that I had cancer of the blood,
they were afraid to sit next to me. They didn't want to touch me.

The doctors said that I got sick because my father worked at
Chernobyl. And after that I was born. I love my father.

Ivan Nikolaevich Zhykhov, Chemical engineer:

We dug up the diseased top layer of soil, loaded it into cars and took
it to waste burial sites. I hought that a waste burial site was a
complex, engineered construction, but it turned out to be an ordinary
pit. We picked up the earth and rolled it, like big rugs. We'd pick up
the whole green mass of it, with grass, flowers, roots. It was work
for madmen.

If we weren't drinking like crazy every night, I doubt we'd have been
able to take it. Our psyches would have broken down. We created
hundreds of kilometres of torn-up, fallow earth.

There was an emphasis on our being heroes. Once a week someone who was
digging really well would receive a certificate of merit before all
the other men. The Soviet Union's best grave digger. It was crazy.

[These are edited excerpts from "Voices from Chernobyl," by Svetlana
Alexievich, published by Dalkey Archive Press at #13.99]

(c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005

       
                                *
Search the NYTr Archives at:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/

To subscribe or unsubscribe or change your settings via the web, visit:
http://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr

=================================================================
  NY Transfer News Collective   *   A Service of Blythe Systems
           Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us
              339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012
  http://www.blythe.org                  e-mail: nyt@blythe.org
================================================================= 
*****************************************************************
 18 SONGS DEIR / Steam Generator Replacement Project (follow-up
 
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:24:35 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
To: Andrew Barnsdale, CPUC et al  ("San Onofre EIR Project" 
<sanonofre@aspeneg.com>)
Date: April 27th, 2005
(In response to your email of 4/26/2005)

To Whom It May Concern, SONWGS EIR Project Team,

We were all taught the following as children: "Ignorance is no excuse in 
the eyes of the law."  But your letter of yesterday (April 26th, 2005, and 
shown below) seems to have forgotten that basic lesson.  In it, you claim 
that the CPUC and the EIR project team are legally allowed to be utterly 
ignorant of vital facts regarding San Onofre Nuclear Waste Generating Station.

Even without federal permission to "regulate" nuclear power, you still have 
a responsibility to UNDERSTAND the dangers of nuclear power.  Your letter 
strongly suggests that just because you aren't allowed to "regulate" it, 
you don't need to know anything about the dangers.

If you can't regulate the USE of radioactive materials, as you claim, then 
how can you pretend to be regulating San Onofre's planned steam generator 
replacement project AT ALL?  The Steam Generator Replacement Project 
specifically allows the USE of radioactive materials and the GENERATION of 
radioactive waste which will need to be stored, transported and disposed of 
somehow, and will be a target of terrorists for thousands of years.

You are permitting the creation of a huge environmental problem on a good 
day, and risking an even larger environmental disaster on a bad day, and 
yet you CLAIM that you have NO authority to regulate, and no responsibility 
to even UNDERSTAND the technology.  If that is true, then your commission 
has NO useful role in this decision and your EIS document will be 
irrelevant, because it will not consider the real issues.

As to your claim that the federal government has "exclusive regulatory 
authority over radioactive materials," I ask you to show me how such 
alleged regulatory authority overrides a citizen's right to protect himself 
or herself from harm?  Where does it supercede a state's responsibility to 
protect its citizens from POISON GAS released during NUCLEAR 
ACCIDENTS?  You are risking the lives of hundreds of thousands of 
Californians through ineptitude and/or ignorance, willful or 
otherwise.  There is no legal authority for such behavior.

I have looked at various state documents which supposedly cede to the 
federal government the authority which the CPUC and other California 
regulatory bodies have so conveniently declared they have yielded.  In 
EVERY CASE I have seen, the wording for such abdication of responsibility 
SPECIFICALLY SAYS that responsibility shall be given up ONLY so long as the 
federal government SAFELY regulates the nuclear waste generation or other 
nuclear project for the citizens of California.  Usually, responsibility is 
given specifically to the ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC).

In reality, the federal government has FAILED to protect the citizens.  The 
AEC was broken up more than 25 years ago for having, among other problems, 
an inherent conflict of interest within itself (regulation and promotion of 
nuclear power).  More than 65 countries now have made the mistake of using 
nuclear reactors for military, research, or power (electricity) production 
(see list, attached).  Certainly the 6th largest economy in the world -- 
California -- can have people who are well versed in radiation issues on 
the SONWGS Steam Generator Replacement Project EIR team.

The law you cite, if it was ever valid, is certainly utterly obsolete -- 
"quaint" even, were it not so dangerous.  You are swinging a sword in a 
crowded room with blindfolds on.

Finally, you did not answer my question as to whether representatives from 
CPUC will be appearing under oath during any of the public hearings 
regarding San Onofre Nuclear WASTE Generating Station's Steam Generator 
Replacement Project.

Again, thank you in advance for your response.

Sincerely,

Russell Hoffman
Concerned Citizen
Carlsbad, CA

At 03:42 PM 4/26/2005 -0700, "San Onofre EIR Project" 
<sanonofre@aspeneg.com> wrote:
>Mr. Hoffman,
>
>We are sending you a copy of the Draft EIR as requested.  Some members of
>the EIR preparation team will be at the public meetings scheduled for May 12
>at 2:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. at the San Clemente Community Center.  You can
>talk to them at either of those meetings.  The first portion of each meeting
>will be an informal workshop during which you can ask questions of the CPUC
>and the EIR preparers on an individual basis.
>
>A large number of people helped prepare the Draft EIR.  They are listed in
>Section J.1 of the Draft EIR along with their roles, educational background,
>and years of experience.  Only a few of these people will attend the May 12
>public meetings.   Those in attendance will include the EIR project manager,
>Jon Davidson, and Steve Radis, who prepared the system and transportation
>safety analysis.  Unfortunately, none of the EIR team members in attendance
>will be experts in the biological effects of low-level radiation, since that
>is not a topic addressed in the Draft EIR.  The federal government has
>exclusive regulatory authority over radioactive materials and, as a result,
>the State of California has no ability to regulate the storage, use,
>transport, or disposal of radioactive materials.
>
>Please note that an EIR is only an informational document, and that the
>conclusions in the Draft EIR regarding the significance of potential project
>impacts are those of the lead agency, the California Public Utilities
>Commission.
>
>Sincerely,
>
>The SONGS EIR Project Team
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Russell D. Hoffman [mailto:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 8:06 AM
>To: Andrew Barnsdale, SONGS/ CPUC
>Subject: SONGS DEIR / Steam Generator Replacement Project (corrected
>version)
>
>April 26th, 2005
>
>To: Andrew Barnsdale, SONGS/ CPUC
>Aspen Environmental Group
>235 Montgomery Street Ste 935
>San Francisco, CA 94104
>
>Mr. Barnsdale,
>
>Please send me a copy of the DEIR for the SONGS SGRP ASAP.
>
>I would greatly appreciate receiving the copy in printed ("hardcopy") form,
>in addition to a CD-ROM version.
>
>Also, I would like to schedule a specific time on May 12th, when I can meet
>with an author of the DEIR, and I would like to know the name and technical
>background of the person I will be talking to in advance so I can review
>their qualifications and areas of expertise.  I am NOT interested in
>talking to any "expert" who is not well-versed in the biological effects of
>so-called "low level radiation," the economic and technical details of ALL
>renewable energy solutions that were alternatively considered, the
>statistical methods used to determine accident rates in large industrial
>situations, AND the health effects of a widespread dispersal (say, in the
>billion Currie+ range) from a major accident at San Onofre Nuclear WASTE
>Generating Station.
>
>Also, I assume the person I will be able to ask questions of will be one
>with an actual signature on the document.  I also assume they will be able
>to speak under oath, on camera, and under risk of penalty for perjury for
>lying.
>
>Thank you in advance and I look forward to hearing from you as to who I
>will be meeting with and when, and to receiving the document formally known
>as the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed San Onofre
>Nuclear WASTE Generating Station (SONWGS) Steam Generator Replacement
>Project (note that the WASTE is hidden from public view in most
>descriptions).
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Russell Hoffman
>Concerned Citizen
>P.O. Box 1936
>Carlsbad, CA 92018


=================================================================
Partial list of countries with nuclear reactors (includes defunct).  Note 
that all but 5 are smaller economies than California:
=================================================================

List of Nuclear Reactors Worldwide

From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors

Algeria

Es Salam
Nur

Antarctica

McMurdo Station - PM-3A NNPU "Nukey Poo" US Navy power reactor (operational 
1962, shut down 1972, fully dismantled 1979)

Armenia

Metsamor
Armenia-1 (shut down)
Armenia-2

Australia

HIFAR
MOATA

Austria

Austrian Research Centers (http://www.arcs.ac.at) at Seibersdorf - 10 kW 
ASTRA research reactor (in use 1960-1999)
Atomic Institute of the Austrian Universities (http://www.ati.ac.at) in 
Vienna - 250 kW TRIGA Mark II research reactor (in use since 1962)

Bangladesh

Dhaka - TRIGA Mark II, Atomic Energy Research Establishment (installed 1986)

Belarus

Sosny, Minsk
IRT research reactor (shut down 1988)
"Pamir" - mobile nuclear power reactor test (shut down 1986)

Belgium

BR-3 - PWR reactor (shut down)
Doel - 4 PWR reactors
Tihange - 3 PWR reactors

Brazil

Angra Nuclear Power Plant, Angra dos Reis, Rio de Janeiro - 2 units, PWR
Belo Horizonte - TRIGA Mark I, University of Minas Gerais (installed 1960)

Bulgaria

Kozlodui
Sofia - IRT research reactor (shut down 1987)

Canada


Power station reactors

Bruce Nuclear Generating Station (Tiverton, Ontario)
Pickering Nuclear Generating Station (Pickering, Ontario)
Darlington Nuclear Generating Station (Bowmanville, Ontario)
Chalk River Laboratories (Rolphton, Ontario)
Gentilly Nuclear Generating Station (Becancour, Quebec)
Point Lepreau Nuclear Generating Station (Point Lepreau, New Brunswick)

Research reactors

Chalk River Laboratories
MMIR-1 - MAPLE class medical isotope production reactor
MMIR-2 - MAPLE class medical isotope production reactor
NRU - 135 MWth reactor
NRX reactor - (1947-????) The first nuclear reactor in Canada
ZED-2 - zero-energy reactor
ZEEP
Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia - SLOWPOKE-2 class reactor
Kanata - SLOWPOKE-2 class reactor (shut down)
L'Ecole Polytechnique, Montreal - SLOWPOKE-2 class reactor
McMaster University - 5 MWth MTR class reactor
Royal Military College, Kingston, Ontario - SLOWPOKE-2 class reactor
Saskatchewan Research Council Saskatoon)
University of Alberta, Edmonton - SLOWPOKE-2 class reactor
University of Toronto - SLOWPOKE-2 class reactor (shut down)

China

This section is incomplete. You can help wikipedia by expanding it.
Daya Bay, Guangdong
Lingao
Qinshan

Colombia

Bogota - TRIGA, Institute of Nuclear Science (installed 1997)

Democratic Republic of the Congo

TRICO I - TRIGA reactor, University of Kinshasa (shut down 1970)
TRICO II - TRIGA reactor, University of Kinshasa

Cuba

This section is incomplete. You can help wikipedia by expanding it.

Czech Republic

Dukovany
Temelin

Denmark

Risø - DR-3 DIDO class reactor (shut down)

Egypt

Inshas Nuclear Research Center
ETTR-1 - 2 MW LWR (supplied by USSR, 1958)
ETTR-2 - 22 MW reactor (supplied by Argentina, 1998)

Estonia

Paldiski - 2 PWR naval training reactors (dismantled)

Finland

Loviisa
Olkiluoto
Helsinki - TRIGA Mark II, State Institute for Technical Research (installed 
1962)

France

This section is incomplete. You can help wikipedia by expanding it.
Chooz
Civaux
Fessenheim, the first one in France
Superphoenix, Malville
ICJT list (http://www.icjt.org/npp/lokacija.php?drzava=8)

Germany

Biblis with Biblis-A and Biblis-B
Brokdorf
Brunsbüttel
Emsland
Grafenrheinfeld
Grohnde
Gundremmingen with Gundremmingen-B and Grundremmingen-C, A is defunct
Isar nuclear plant with Isar-1 and Isar-2
Krümmel
Neckarwestheim with Neckarwestheim-1 and Neckarwestheim-2
Obrigheim
Philippsburg with Philippsburg-1 and Philippsburg-2
Unterweser

Now defunct shut down plants include:
Research nuclear plants in Jülich and Karlsruhe
Former GDR nuclear plant in Greifswald (Greifswald-1 to Greifswald-4, and 
the not finished Greifswald-5 reactor)
Gundremmingen-A
Lingen (research plant?)
Mülheim-Kärlich, build and then shut down because of potential hazards
Niederaichbach (research plant?)
Rheinsberg (research plant?)
Stade, shut down in 2003
Würgassen (research plant?)
Kalkar, never finished
Wyhl, famous nuclear plant that didn't get build because of long-time 
resistance by the local populace and environmentalists.
IJCT list (http://www.icjt.org/npp/lokacija.php?drzava=9&kontinent=1)

Greece

GRR-1 - 5 MW research reactor at Demokritos National Centre for Scientific 
Research, Athens

Hungary

Paks - 4 VVER 430 MWe reactors

India

Power station reactors

Kaiga Atomic Power Station
Kakrapar Atomic Power Station (KAPS)
Madras Atomic Power Station (MAPS)
Narora Atomic Power Station (NAPS)
Rajasthan Atomic Power Station (RAPS)
Tarapur Atomic Power Station (TAPS)

Research reactors

Kalpakkam - IGCAR
FBTR (Fast Breeder Test Reactor)
KAMINI reactor
500 MWe prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (under construction)

Indonesia

Bandung - TRIGA Mark II (installed 1997)
Yogyakarta - TRIGA Mark II (installed 1979)

Iran


Power station reactors

Bushehr
Bushehr-1 435MWe
Bushehr-2 435MWe

Research reactors

Isfahan, Nuclear Technology Center
MNSR 27 kWt miniature neutron source reactor (MNSR)
Light Water Subcritical Reactor (LWSCR)
Heavy Water Zero Power Reactor (HWZPR)
Graphite Subcritical Reactor (GSCR)
Tehran - TRIGA reactor at Tehran Nuclear Research Center (supplied by USA, 
1967)

Iraq

Osiraq / "Tammuz 1" (destroyed by Israeli airstrike, 7 June 1981)

Italy

Pavia - TRIGA Mark II, University of Pavia Mark II (installed 1965)
Rome - TRIGA Mark II, ENEA Cassaccia Research Center (installed 1960)

Israel

Dimona

Jamaica

SLOWPOKE-2 reactor - Kingston, Jamaica

Japan


Power station reactors

Fukushima Daiichi (6 BWR reactors)
Fukushima Daini (4 BWR reactors)
Genkai (4 PWR reactors)
Hamaoka (4 BWR + 1 ABWR(Advanced BWR) reactors)
Ikata (3 PWR reactors)
Ikata-1
Ikata-2
Ikata-3
Kashiwazaki Kariwa (5 BWR reactors + 2 ABWR reactors)
Mihama (3 PWR reactors)
Mihama-1
Mihama-2
Mihama-3
Ohi (4 PWR reactors)
Ohi-1
Ohi-2
Ohi-3
Ohi-4
Onagawa (3 BWR reactors)
Onagawa-1
Onagawa-2
Onagawa-3
Sendai (2 PWR reactors)
Sendai-1
Sendai-2
Shika (BWR)
Shika-1
Shimane (2 BWR reactors)
Shimane-1
Shimane-2
Takahama (4 PWR reactors)
Takahama-1
Takahama-2
Takahama-3
Takahama-4
Tokai (GCR, shut down)
Tokai Daini (BWR)
Tomari (2 PWR reactors)
Tomari-1
Tomari-2
Tsuruga
Tsuruga-1 (BWR)
Tsuruga-2 (PWR)

Research reactors

JAERI(Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute) Reactors
Tokai JRR-1(Japan Research Reactor No.1, shut down)
Tokai JRR-2 (shut down)
Tokai JRR-3
Tokai JRR-4
Tokai JPDR (Japan Power Demonstration Reactor, shut down)
Oarai HTTR(High-Temp engineering Test Reactor)
Oarai JMTR(Japan Materials Testing Reactor)
Naka JT-60 fusion reactor
JNC(Japan Nuclear Cycle Development Institute) Reactors
Fugen (ATR(Advanced Thermal Reactor), shut down)
Jyouyou (FBR)
Monju (FBR)

Kazakhstan


Power station reactors

Aktau (Kazakhstan State Corporation for Atomic Power and Industry)
BN-350 135 MWe reactor (shut down 1999)

Research reactors

Alatau, Institute of Nuclear Physics
VVR-K 10MWe reactor
Kurchatov, National Nuclear Center, Semipalatinsk Test Site
IVG-1M 60 MW
RA - zirconium hydride moderated reactor (dismantled)
IGR (Impulse Graphite Reactor) 50 MW

Latvia

Riga, Nuclear Research Center, Salaspils
5 MWe research reactor (shut down)

Libya

Tajura Nuclear Research Center, 10MW research reactor (supplied by USSR)

Lithuania

Ignalina nuclear power plant

Malaysia

Kuala Lumpur - TRIGA Mark II, Malaysian Institute for Nuclear Technology 
(installed 1982)

Mexico

Laguna Verde
Mexico City - TRIGA Mark III, National Insatitute for Nuclear Research

Morocco

Rabat - TRIGA (under construction)

Netherlands

Power station reactors

Borssele - 452 MWe PWR
Dodewaard - 55 MWe BWR (shut down 1997)

Research reactors

Delft
Petten

North Korea

Power station reactors

Shinpo (Simpo)
North Korea 1 - PWR 1000 MWe
North Korea 2 - PWR 1000 MWe (under construction)

Research reactors

Yongbyon
IRT-2000 - 0.1 MWt heavy-water moderated research reactor (supplied by 
USSR, 1965)
Yongbyon 1 - 5 MWe Magnox reactor (activated 1987)
Yongbyon 2 - 50 MWe Magnox reactor (under construction)
Taechon
Taechon 1 - 200 MWe reactor (under construction)
Taechon 2 - ? (under construction)

Norway


Research reactors

Kjeller reactors
NORA (activated 1961, shut down 1967)
JEEP I (activated 1951, shut down 1967)
JEEP II (activated 1966)
Halden reactor
HBWR - Halden boiling water reactor (activated 1959)

Pakistan

Chasnupp - 300 MWe PWR
Kanupp - 125 MWe PHWR

Panama

USS Sturgis - floating nuclear power plant for Panama Canal (operating 1966 
to 1976)

Philippines

Quezon City - TRIGA reactor, Philippine Atomic Energy Commission (installed 
1988)

Puerto Rico

Mayaguez - TRIGA reactor (dismantled)

Romania


Power stations

Cernavoda
Cernavoda-1 PHWR CANDU reactor 700 MW
Cernavoda-2 PHWR CANDU reactor 700 MW (under construction; starts operation 
in 2006)

Research

M gurele, near Bucharest (1957-1998)

Russia

This section is incomplete. You can help wikipedia by expanding it.

Power station reactors

Balakovo
Beloyarsk / Zarechny
Bilibino
Kalinin / Udomlya
Kola / Polyarnye Zori
Kursk
Leningrad / Sosnovy Bor
Novovoronezhskaya
Seversk / Tomsk
Smolensk
Volgodonsk / Rostov

Research reactors

(There are approximately 109 research reactors in Russia. [1] 
(http://www.atomsafe.ru/GAN_1_00.htm) )
T-15 fusion reactor at Kurchatov Institute

Slovakia

Jaslovske Bohunice - 4 408 MWe WWER,
Bohunice A-1 - 1 388 MWe WWER (shut down)
Mochovce - 2 388 MWe WWER

Slovenia

Krsko
Ljubljana - TRIGA Mark II, Jozef Stefan Nuclear Institute (supplied 1966 by 
USA to Yugoslavia)

Spain


Power station reactors

Almaraz
Almaraz-1 - 1032 MWe
Almaraz-2 - 1027 MWe
Ascó
Ascó-1 - 930 MWe
Ascó-2 - 930 MWe
Cofrentes - 994 MWe
José Cabrera, Almonacid de Zorita - 160 MWe
Santa María de Garoña - 460 MWe
Trillo - 1.066 MWe
Vandellòs GCR, Tarragona
Vandellòs-1 (shut down after fire, 1989)
Vandellòs-2 - 992 MWe

Research reactors

Argos 10 kW Argonaut reactor - Polytechnic University, Barcelona (shut down 
1992)
CORAL-I reactor

South Africa


Power station reactors

Koeberg (near Cape Town)
Koeberg-1 920MWe
Koeberg-2 920MWe

Research reactors

Pelindaba - Pelindaba Nuclear Research Center near Pretoria
Safari-1 20MW swimming pool reactor
Safari-2 (dismantled 1970)

South Korea


Power station reactors

Kori - 4 PWR reactors
Kulchin - 4 PWR reactors
Wolson - 4 PHWR reactors
Yonggwang - 4 PWR reactors

Research reactors

Aerojet General Nucleonics Model 201 Research Reactor
HANARO, MAPLE class reactor
TRIGA General Atomics Mark II (TRIGA-Mark II) Research Reactor

Syria

Miniature neutron source reactor

Sweden

Barsebäck
Forsmark
Oskarshamn
Ringhals

Switzerland

Power station reactors

Beznau 1
Goesgen
Leibstadt
Muehleberg

Research reactors

Lucens (shut down 1969)

Taiwan


Power station reactors

Chin Shan - 2 BWR reactors
Kuosheng - 2 BWR reactors
Lungmen (under construction)
Maanshan - 2 PWR reactors

Research reactors

Taipei - TRIGA, Tsing Hua University (installed 1977)

Thailand

Bangkok - TRIGA, Office of Atoms for Peace (installed 1977)
Bangkok - TRIGA MPR 10, Ongkharak Nuclear Research Center (under construction)

Turkey

Istanbul - TRIGA Mark II, Technical University of Istanbul (installed 1979)

Ukraine

Power station reactors

Chernobyl
Chernobyl-1 RBMK-1000 LWGR (shut down 1996)
Chernobyl-2 RBMK-1000 LWGR (shut down 1991)
Chernobyl-3 RBMK-1000 LWGR (shut down 2000)
Chernobyl-4 RBMK-1000 LWGR (exploded in Chernobyl accident 1986)
Khmelnytskyi - 2 WWER reactors
Rivno - 4 WWER reactors
South Ukraine, Konstantinovka - 3 PWR reactors
Zaporizhzhia - 6 WWER reactors


Research reactors

Kiev Institute for Nuclear Research (shut down)
Sebastopol Institute of Nuclear Energy and Industry (shut down)

United Kingdom

Power station reactors

Berkeley (shut down 1989)
Bradwell (shut down 2002)
Calder Hall at Sellafield (shut down 2003)
4 Magnox reactors
Chapelcross
Dounreay
DMTR
Dounreay fast reactor (shut down 1994)
Prototype fast reactor
Dungeness
Hartlepool
Heysham
Hinkley Point, Bridgwater
Hunterston
Oldbury
Sizewell
Torness
Trawsfynydd (shut down 1993)
Winfrith - Dorchester, Dorset
9 reactors, shut down 1990
Wylfa
Wylfa-1
Wylfa-2

Research reactors

Atomic Energy Research Establishment, Harwell
GLEEP (shut down 1990)
BEPO (shut down 1968)
LIDO (shut down 1974)
DIDO (shut down 1990)
PLUTO (shut down 1990)
Billingham - TRIGA Mark I reactor, ICI refinery (installed 1971, shut down 
1988)
CONSORT reactor, Imperial College London, Silwood Park campus, Ascot, Berkshire
Dounreay
VULCAN (Rolls-Royce Naval Marine)
PWR2 (Rolls-Royce Naval Marine)
JASON PWR reactor, Greenwich, London (dismantled 1999)
JET fusion reactor, Culham
Neptune - Rolls-Royce Naval Marine, Raynesway, Derby
Sellafield (named Windscale until 1971)
PILE 1 (shut down 1957 after Windscale fire)
PILE 2 (shut down 1957)
WAGR (shut down 1982)
VIPER - Atomic Weapons Establishment, Aldermaston, Berkshire

United States of America

Power Station Reactors

NRC Region One (Northeast)

Beaver Vally, Pennsylvania
Calvert Cliffs, Maryland
Connecticut Yankee, Connecticut (Decommissioned)
FitzPatrick, New York
Ginna, New York
Hope Creek, New Jersey
Indian Point, New York
Limerick, Pennsylvania
Maine Yankee, Maine (Decommissioned)
Millstone, Connecticut
Nine Mile Point, New York
Oyster Creek, New Jersey
Peach Bottom, Pennsylvania
Pilgrim, Massachusetts
Salem, New Jersey
Saxton, Pennsylvania (Decommissioned)
Seabrook, New Hampshire
Shippingport, Pennsylvania
Shoreham, New York (Decommissioned)
Susquehanna, Tennessee
Three Mile Island, Pennsylvania
Vermont Yankee, Vermont
Yankee Rowe, Massachusetts (Decommissioned)

NRC Region Two (South)

Bellefonte Nuclear Generating Station, Alabama (Unfinished)
Browns Ferry, Alabama
Brunswick, North Carolina
Catawba, South Carolina
Crystal River 3, Florida
Farley (Joseph M. Farley), Alabama
Hatch (Edwin I. Hatch), Georgia
McGuire, North Carolina
North Anna, Virgina
Oconee, South Carolina
H.B. Robinson, South Carolina
Sequoyah, Tennessee
Shearon Harris, North Carolina
Surry, Virginia
Turkey Point, Florida
Virgil C. Summer (Summer), South Carolina
Vogtle, Georgia
Watts Bar, Tennessee

NRC Region Three (Midwest)

Big Rock Point, Michigan (Decommissioned)
Braidwood, Illinois
Byron, Illinois
Clinton, Illinois
Davis-Besse, Ohio
Donald C. Cook, Michigan
Dresden, Illinois
Duane Arnold, Iowa
Elk River, Minnesota (Decommissioned)
Enrico Fermi, Michigan
Kewaunee, Wisconsin
LaCrosse, Wisconsin (Decommissioned)
LaSalle County, Illinois
Monticello, Minnesota
Palisades, Michigan
Perry, Ohio
Piqua, Ohio (Decommissioned)
Point Beach, Wisconsin
Prairie Island, Minnesota
Quad Cities, Illinois
Zion, Illinois

NRC Region Four (West)

Arkansas Nuclear One, Arkansas
Callaway, Missouri
Columbia, Washington
Comanche, Texas
Cooper, Nebraska
Diablo Canyon, California
Fort Calhoun, Nebraska
Fort Saint Vrain, Colorado (Decommissioned)
Grand Gulf, Mississippi
Hallam, Nebraska (Decommissioned)
Hanford N Reactor, Washington (Retired)
Humboldt Bay, California (Decommissioned)
Palo Verde, Arizona
Pathfinder, South Dakota
Rancho Seco, California (Decommissioned)
River Bend, Louisiana
San Onofre, California
South Texas, Texas
Trojan, Rainier, Oregon (Decommissioned)
Vallecitos, California
Waterford, Louisiana
Wolf Creek, Kansas

Plutonium Production Reactors

Hanford Site, Washington
B-Reactor (Pile)
F-Reactor (Pile)
D-Reactor (Pile)
H-Reactor (Pile)
DR-Reactor (Pile)
C-Reactor (Pile)
KE-Reactor (Pile)
KW-Reactor (Pile)
N-Reactor
Savannah River Site, South Carolina
R-Reactor (Heavy Water?)
P-Reactor (Heavy Water?)
L-Reactor (Heavy Water?)
K-Reactor (Heavy Water?)
C-Reactor (Heavy Water?)

Research Reactors

Idaho National Environmental and Engineering Laboratory, Idaho
52 research and test reactors including...
EBR-1
SR-1
Nevada Test Site, Nevada
BREN Tower

Research and Test Reactors Licensed To Operate
Aerotest Operations Inc., San Ramon, CA - TRIGA Mark I
Armed Forces Radiobiological Research Institute, Bethesda, MD - TRIGA Mark I
Cornell University, Ithaca, NY - TRIGA Mark II
Dow Chemical Company, Midland, MI - TRIGA Mark I
General Electric Company, Sunol, CA - "Nuclear Test"
Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID - AGN-201 #103
Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS - TRIGA Mark I
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA - HWR Reflected
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, MD - TRIGA Mark I
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC - Pulstar
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH - Pool
Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR - TRIGA Mark II
Penn State University, University Park, PA - TRIGA
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN - Lockheed
Reed College, Portland, OR - TRIGA Mark I
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Schenectady, NY - Critical Assembly
Rhode Island Atomic Energy Commission, Narrangansett, RI - GE Pool
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX (two reactors) - AGN-201M #106, 
TRIGA Mark I
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ - TRIGA Mark I
University of California-Davis, Sacramento, CA - ?
University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA - TRIGA Mark I
University of Florida, Gainesville, FL - Argonaut
University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, MD - TRIGA Mark I
University of Massachusetts, Lowell, MA - ?
University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI - Pool
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO - Tank
University of Missouri, Rolla, MO - Pool
University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM - AGN-201M $112
University of Texas, Austin, TX - TRIGA Mark II
University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT - TRIGA Mark I
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI - TRIGA Mark I
U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO - TRIGA Mark I
U.S. Veterans Administration, Omaha, NE - TRIGA Mark I
Washington State University, Pullman, WA - TRIGA Mark I
Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA - GE

Research and Test Reactors Under Decommission Orders or License Amendments. 
(These research and test reactors are authorized to decontaminate and 
dismantle their facility to prepare for final survey and license termination.)
CBS Corporation, Waltz Mill, PA
General Atomics, San Diego, CA (two reactors)
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, GA
Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Sandusky, OH (two reactors)
Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation, Saxton, PA (one power reactor)
University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
University of Washington, Seattle, WA
University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA (two reactors)

Research and Test Reactors With Possession-Only Licenses. (These research 
and test reactors are not authorized to operate the reactor, only to 
possess the nuclear material on-hand. They are permanently shut down.)
Cornell University Zero Power Reactor, Ithaca, NY
General Electric Company, Sunol, CA (two research and test reactors, one 
power reactor)
Nuclear Ship Savannah, James River Reserve Fleet, VA (one power reactor)
State University of New York, Buffalo, NY
This section is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_nuclear_reactors&action=edit).

Links

DoE list 
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/at_a_glance/reactors/nuke1.html)
ICJT list (http://www.icjt.org/npp/lokacija.php?drzava=32)­includes the defunct

Uruguay

URR reactor

Uzbekistan

Ulugbek, Tashkent
VVER-SM tank reactor (shut down)

Venezuela

RV-1 reactor

Vietnam

Da Lat - TRIGA Mark II (supplied by USA 1963, shut down 1975, reactivated 
by USSR 1984)

External links

Reactor lists:
ICJT lists of Nuclear Power Plants worldwide (http://www.icjt.org/npp/)
US DoE commercial nuclear reactors page 
(http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/page/nuc_reactors/reactsum.html)
List of Canadian nuclear power stations 
(http://www.icjt.org/npp/lokacija.php?drzava=4) on the ICJT site

Reactor news items:
CFE Mexico reactor 
(http://www.cfe.gob.mx/NR/exeres/2955F304-1D53-4A90-B40F-BE1BE30C1110)
[2] 
(http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=1&story_id=12294&name=Netherlands+revisits+the+nuclear+taboo) 
Netherlands reactors
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nuclear_reactors"

Categories: Incomplete lists | Section stubs | Nuclear technology | Lists | 
Nuclear power plants

========================================================================
Contact information for the author of this letter:
========================================================================


*************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936
** (800) 551-2726
** (760) 720-7261
** Fax: (760) 720-7394
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com
*************************************************

IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANY MORE 
EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE CONTACT RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT:

rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com

MailTo:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com?Subject=Unsubscribe-me-please .
Please be sure that "Unsubscribe-me-please" appears in the subject line.




</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 19 [NukeNet] Net Loss From Nuclear Power - Energy Audit
 
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:16:28 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Nuclear Power Used Up More Energy
Than It Delivered To Society !

Nuclear Power was devised to make the public pay
the high cost of plutonium production, the element needed for nuclear
weapons. The ultimate doomsday machine!
------------------
"At the end
of forty years of the US nuclear power program
by 1991, this energy- 381302 MW-yrs  -delivered to
society is still less than the gross cumulative
energy invested in nuclear plant construction and
maintenance of 489174 MW-yrs! "
Energy audit of nuclear fuel cycles

     By R. Ashok Kumar,
B.E,M.E(Power),Negentropist,Flat 1/13, Telec
Officers' CHS.,Ltd.,Plot 30, Sector 17, Vashi,
Navi Mumbai-400705. Tel:7896209.

     Although the gross nuclear capacity of the USA
reached 104820 MW (greater than 150 MW capacity
only considered), less than 20000 MW energy
capacity was in fact delivered to society in
1991(Spread Sheet No.12A: See attachment). This is
derived as follows:Gross cumulative energy
delivered to society (1991)= Megawatt-years/years
= 798370/40=19959 MW or 20000 MW approximately.

The rest was all consumed by the nuclear industry
itself. The actual energy- capacity delivered at
the consumption point was much less. Using a
figure of 0.597 for the plant factor, and 20%
transmission,distribution and conversion loss, the
amount of energy delivered by the programme
amounts to only 9.09% of the energy generated. For
the annual energy invested in the nuclear
programme, the energy generated per year per unit
was divided by a factor of 1.5(R. Ashok
Kumar.1989.The Indian Nuclear Energy Programme:A
Net Energy Analysis. PPST Bull. No.18.March.pp17:
Energy Invested in Waste Storage. See also
Appendix 1,this article.).

Thus as the US
programme of commissioning of the nuclear power
plants progressed from 1952 to 1991 (end of my
study period for the US programme), the average
nuclear capacity added per year was 2621 MW while
the average nuclear industry demand was 12229 MW!
The cost overrun was 4.25.

  It is estimated (based
on assumptions given in the appendix) that the
programme started delivering net energy to society
only thirty years after the commencement of the
programme. And while it generated 1283911 MW-yrs
in 30 years,it delivered to society only 30% or
less in a brief period from 1981 only. At the end
of forty years of the US nuclear power programme
by 1991, this energy- 381302 MW-yrs  -delivered to
society is still less than the gross cumulative
energy invested in nuclear plant construction and
maintenance of 489174 MW-yrs!

This analysis
assumes only a portion of the energy used for
waste storage and maintenance.This American
civilian nuclear programme cost a total of Rs 45
trillion. This means Rs 45 Crores per Megawatt!
But as we saw above, this programme delivered to
society an energy capacity of 9532 MW per year
over 40 years , with an installed capacity of
104820 MW achieved over 38 years.

As shown above
the US programme needed an additional gargantuan
amount of thermal power to construct the nuclear
facilities.The data for the nuclear capacity
additions were taken from Nuclear Engineering
International, April 1991.

     Appendix 1

     Nuclear Wastes Unmanageable: An audit of the
Energy Required

     As of year 2000, 7925 reactor years of
operation have been completed in sixteen countries
which have operating nuclear power plants (Data
till 1990 have been taken from Nuclear Engineering
International  April 1991). Thus the 16 countries
of the world generated by end 1990 in their
nuclear power plants 15714.1 TWh or 1793847 MW-yr.
The corresponding capacity was 290898 MW(337
reactors). Average nuclear capacity was
290898/337= 863.2 MW. All over the world the
number of reactors retired to date is 90 with a
total capacity of 77688 MW. Net capacity on line=
209898-77688=213210 MW. Energy generated by these
reactors from 1991 to 2000 amounts to 213210
MWxlifetime plant load factor of 0.64 x 10y=
1364545 MW-yr.

Therefore the total energy
generated till 2000 from begin of nuclear
programmes= 1793847+1364545= 3158392 MW-yr.   The
number of reactor years of operation till end 1990
was 4500. Taking the number of reactor years of
operation to be proportional to the energy
generated yields a total of 7925 reactor years of
opeartion.  For this the power required for waste
storage and maintenance is 4.75 MW(thermal). See
Lovins. Technical Bases for Ethical Concern. In AH
Lovins and JH Price. 1975. Non-Nuclear Futures.
Harper-Colophon. p 97. This is at the rate of
1.505 watts per megawatt-year (of gross energy
generated)   for waste storage and maintenance.

Now the energy invested in the nuclear power
programmes of the 16 countries till end 1990 was
1793847 x 0.5= 896923.5 MW-yr(See below for
derivation). From 1991 to 2000 units were retired
rather than added. Let us assume that the energy
invested remained at this value (1990 end value).
Then, net energy available after accounting for
the energy invested which included energy for
waste storage and its maintenance for 31500
years(see below) was 3158932-896924= 2261478(The
energy invested 896924, if considered at the bus
bars would be higher).

Thus the number of
additional years of waste storage and its
maintenance which is obtained by dividing the net
energy available 2261478 MW-yr by the power needed
for waste storage and its maintenance 4.75
MW(thermal) is a maximum of 476101 years because
there is a conversion efficiency for electrical to
heat production of 50% to 80%. This is far from
enough for storing wastes for a million years or
more. Thus the nuclear energy programmes are net
energy consumers.  The latest evaluation of waste
storage research proclaims this loudly(Institute
for Energy and Environmental Research. May 2000.
Science for Democratic Action. See also R. Ashok
Kumar, op cit. ).
<cut>
     An estimate of the fraction of energy
generated debited to investment in the nuclear
power programmes can be done as follows:
     Let us take four countries namely,the
USA,France, Japan and Canada. The energy generated
back of the 20% losses is given by the (sum of the
total nuclear industry demand and the net energy
delivered to society )/0.8. This for these four
countries for which the energy audit has been
worked out by the author becomes 2354460 MW-yr.
Details in a separate article. The nuclear
industry demand works out to 1175742 MW-yr  which
is 50% of the gross energy generated.
     A number of surprises as the nuclear power
programmes progressed over the world.
     It must be noted that a number of surprises
have caused retrofits and replacements like the
steam generator premature replacements and the
replaced  radioactive steam generators enclosed in
costly sarcophages worldwide. These have
enormously increased the energy invested in these
white elephants.


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 20 [NukeNet] Chernobyl 19th Anniversary - Resources
 
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:16:33 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Chernobyl 19th Anniversary Resources:

Chernobyl: The True Costs of Nuclear Technology

<http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/index.html>http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/index.html

http://www.ratical.org/radiation/Chernobyl/ChernobylCoSS.html

Resources on Chernobyl:

Graph of Chernobyl Fallout

<http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c02.html>http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/c02.html 


Chernobyl Children's Project

<http://www.adiccp.org/>http://www.adiccp.org/

Chernobyl: Ten Years On Radiological and Health Impact

<http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/welcome.html>http://www.nea.fr/html/rp/chernobyl/welcome.html 


Chernobyl radiation disaster information

<http://www.chernobyl.com/>http://www.chernobyl.com/
==============

End of Nuclear Weapons Could Begin at Central Park!
Announce end: Sun Apr 10, 2005 1:13 pm
<http://www.kucinich.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=7568#7568>icon_minipost.gifPosted: 
Mon Apr 04, 2005 4:13 pm 
<http://www.kucinich.us/phpBB2/posting.php?mode=quote&p=7568>4a8b3.gif 
<http://www.kucinich.us/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=7568&unmark=post>icon_unmark_read.gif 


----------
The future of nuclear weapons could be decided this year. For the entire 
month of May, world leaders will meet at the United Nations to review the 
nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). President Bush has signaled that he 
wants to back-out of agreements made in the Treaty to begin "good faith" 
negotiations for the total abolition of nuclear weapons. Instead, Secretary 
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld is asking for funds to research new nuclear 
"bunker busters" and smaller more usable mini-nukes.

Our continued reliance on these Cold War weapons sends a dangerous message 
that their possession is the quickest way to gain international respect. As 
each new nation tries to join the nuclear club, it brings fresh 
opportunities for a global conflagration involving U.S. bombing raids and 
ever more shorn bodies. It invites a future of retribution from terrorists 
fueled by demonstrations of U.S. domination. We can not bomb our way out of 
proliferation. Force will not save us from the terrorism of nuclear 
weapons; only faith can.

In this 60th Anniversary year of the first atomic bombings, the Mayors of 
Hiroshima and Nagasaki are organizing a world-wide campaign of mayors 
demanding that the U.S. and all other nuclear weapons states begin 
negotiations this year to eliminate nuclear weapons by 2020. They are 
bringing a delegation of mayors from around the world to a massive 
demonstration in New York City's Central Park on May 1st, the day before 
the NPT conference begins.

We need your help to send a unified message that people of faith intend to 
fulfill their promises of "good faith".

ï Plan to join thousands of people from around the world in a march past 
the United Nations and a rally in Central Park on Sunday, May 1st!

ï Ask your mayor to join the Mayors for Peace Emergency Campaign to 
Eliminate Nuclear Weapons. Tell your Mayor you'd like him to join the 
delegation of Mayors going to the UN in May: 
<http://www.abolitionnow.org/mayors.html>http://www.abolitionnow.org/mayors.html 


ï Sign on to the "Open Letter to President Bush from Communities of Faith" 
asking that the U.S. lead the world in negotiating an agreement to 
eliminate nuclear weapons under strict and effective international 
controls. Learn more by visiting 
<http://www.abolitionnow.org/>http://www.abolitionnow.org/

Visit the following links online:

Visit <http://www.abolitionnow.org/>http://www.abolitionnow.org/
Read about the May 1st Central Park Rally 
<http://www.abolitionnow.org/may1-ny.html>http://www.abolitionnow.org/may1-ny.html 


Who you can contact:

Chris Cooper
Director of Communications
<mailto:ccooper@gracelinks.org>ccooper@gracelinks.org
(212) 726-9161


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: icon_minipost.gif: 00000001,72e79f9e,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 4a8b3.gif: 00000001,72e79f9f,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: icon_unmark_read.gif: 00000001,72e79fa0,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 21 [CMEP] Bush drive for new nukes is unwise
 
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:57:32 -0500 (CDT)

 
This e-mail contains two items:

(1) A statement from Critical Mass director Wenonah Hauter about
President Bush's proposal to provide "risk insurance" to companies
applying for permits to operate nuclear power reactors.
(2) A press release about the publication of the NRC's environmental
evaluation of a site in Mississippi proposed to host a new nuclear
reactor.

==========

*** P R E S S    R E L E A S E ***

April 27, 2005
Contact: Michele Boyd (202) 454-5134; Erica Hartman (202) 454-5174

Bush's Push for Nuclear Power Would Unfairly Burden Taxpayers Even
More

STATEMENT of Wenonah Hauter, Director, Public Citizen's Energy
Program:

President Bush's relentless push for nuclear power is spiraling out of
control. Today, Bush is expected to deliver a speech encouraging the use
of domestic energy sources. Among his five new proposals, he plans to
offer the nuclear industry yet another break; this time in the form of
federal "risk insurance," which would protect the nuclear industry in
the event that the regulatory process slows down its plans for building
new nuclear reactors.

Taxpayers already have provided the nuclear industry tens of billions
in subsidies since its inception 50 years ago. The just-passed energy
bill by the U.S. House of Representatives provides an additional $6.1
billion in subsidies and tax breaks to the nuclear industry. Moreover,
the nuclear industry is the only industry to have its liability
artificially limited - even in cases of intentional misconduct or gross
negligence. This is done through the Price-Anderson Act, a law that caps
the industry's liability in the event of a catastrophic accident or
attack and calls for the government - that is, the taxpayers - to pay
for cleanup above the cap. Apparently, this isn't enough. The industry
is demanding cradle-to-grave subsidies.

The nuclear industry now wants to be 100 percent guaranteed that its
license applications will be quickly accepted by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, the agency responsible for issuing nuclear
reactor licenses. Rushing these licenses is foolhardy. It will
shortchange the public of its opportunity to participate in the process
and could jeopardize public safety.

As the leader of the so-called fiscal conservative party in this
country, Bush is making a gigantic miscalculation by offering even more
money to the nuclear industry at the expense of taxpayers. If the
nuclear industry thought that building new reactors was profitable, then
it would foot the bill to build new reactors. Instead, the nuclear
industry wants the public to take all the risks, while it reaps the
profits. Nuclear power is risky - and those risks should be borne by the
industry, not the public.

Nuclear power is not the answer to our energy problems. It's expensive
and dangerous. Too many of our taxpayer dollars have already been wasted
on this polluting energy source. Enough is enough.

###

Public Citizen is a national nonprofit consumer advocacy organization.
For more information, visit www.citizen.org.

==========

*** P R E S S    R E L E A S E ***

PUBLIC CITIZEN * NUCLEAR INFORMATION AND RESOURCE SERVICE

For Immediate Release: April 27, 2005
Contact: Brendan Hoffman, PC, (202) 454-5130; Paul Gunter, NIRS, (202)
328-0002

New Reactor in Mississippi May Burden Minorities and the Poor, Nuclear
Agency Says; Environmental Study Also Notable for What's Missing

PORT GIBSON, Miss. -- Public interest and environmental groups today
criticized the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) environmental
review of the possible expansion of Entergy'' Grand Gulf nuclear
plant, calling it myopic and incomplete for downplaying the importance
of the increased impact a new reactor will have on minority and
low-income populations in Claiborne County and ignoring issues of
nuclear waste, plant security, and alternatives to nuclear power.

The draft report, known as an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS),
notes that "It is not clear how the new nuclear facility would be
treated for property tax purposes, so it is not clear whether Claiborne
County would receive property taxes, sales, and use taxes, or other
taxes and public monies commensurate with the costs of its additional
emergency management and public services obligations.  The net financial
burden may fall on local residents and taxpayers, most of whom are
minority and low-income persons." Despite this conclusion, NRC staff
preliminarily recommend that Entergy receive the Early Site Permit (ESP)
it applied for in October 2003.

"It's ironic that the staff supports our legal challenge on
environmental justice that was dismissed by the Atomic Safety and
Licensing Board and NRC Commissioners," said Paul Gunter, director of
the Reactor Watchdog Project at NIRS.  "Granting the permit would be
inconsistent with this finding."

Due to a discriminatory tax policy passed by Mississippi in 1986, 70%
of the property tax income from the reactor site is reapportioned by the
state to 47 other counties besides Claiborne County -- a unique
situation among nuclear plants in the U.S.  That leaves the only
hospital in Claiborne County, which is designated in the emergency plan,
to borrow money to pay its doctors and nurses, and the police and fire
department inadequately equipped to handle an emergency.

In early 2004, Public Citizen, along with the Nuclear Information and
Resource Service, the Claiborne County NAACP, and the Mississippi Sierra
Club filed a legal intervention in the application process, raising
issues ranging from environmental justice to security to waste.  Under
the NRC's streamlined review, all of the groups' contentions were
rejected.

The draft EIS does not include an analysis of environmental impacts of
a terrorist attack on either the reactor itself or the high-level
nuclear waste generated by the plant.  A recent study by the National
Academy of Sciences identified spent nuclear fuel as a significant
security risk, but Entergy has not agreed to take action on the
independent panel's recommendations for improving security. Other
panels, such as the 9/11 Commission, have verified that nuclear power
plants are potential al Qaeda targets.  Further, Grand Gulf is guarded
by the private security firm Wackenhut, which was given a contract last
June to test security at all the country's nuclear plants; this poses a
clear conflict of interest and prevents a meaningful assessment of
security preparedness at the site.  Its location on the Mississippi
River could make it a strategic target.

"Entergy and the NRC need to level with the people of Mississippi,"
said Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's energy program.  "A
new reactor poses unacceptable safety and security threats the county
can't afford, and will generate waste that will stay at the Grand Gulf
site indefinitely.  There are safer, cleaner, and cheaper ways to meet
our energy needs."

The report also postpones an assessment of the need for additional
generating capacity and alternative methods of providing electricity.
In response to a similar application and report for new reactors in
Virginia, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) wrote in March
that it "has concerns with this approach since it ignores the
justification for the power plant addition in the early stage of project
development as well as biases the subsequent energy alternative analysis
toward nuclear power."  The draft EIS only analyzes alternative sites;
EPA believes it should "include an analysis of a wide array [of]
alternatives not just alternatives of different sites."

"If the current analysis puts off or ignores all the difficult
questions about security, waste, and alternatives, what exactly does it
tell us?"  asked Brendan Hoffman, organizer with Public Citizen's
energy program.  "The early site permit process is designed to create
artificial momentum toward eventual construction and operation of a
nuclear reactor while giving the false impression that environmental
questions have been fully resolved."

###

To view the NRC's draft Environmental Impact Statement, go here:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1817/index.html

**********
To SUBSCRIBE to the CMEP ListServ, visit https://www.citizen.org/email/enteremail.cfm

If you would like to be removed from the CMEP ListServ, send an email to listserv@listserver.citizen.org with the words "unsubscribe CMEP" in the message.

Questions about the CMEP ListServ can be directed to CMEP-request@LISTSERVER.CITIZEN.ORG.

To learn more about this and other Public Citizen Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program campaigns, visit our website at http://www.citizen.org/cmep/

-Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program
*****************************************************************
 22 [NukeNet] [Know_Nukes] Nuclear power remains emotional issue
 
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:16:26 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)



------- Forwarded message -------
From: "Jim Hoerner" <jim_hoerner@hotmail.com>
To: Know_Nukes@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Know_Nukes] Nuclear power remains emotional issue
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 20:57:41 -0400


"Many people think of Three Mile Island as America's only reactor meltdown.
It's not."


Safety of nuclear power plants remains emotional issue in energy debate
24 April 2005

Author: Tom Henry
Provider: The Blade, Toledo, Ohio



Apr. 24--Nuclear power provides a fifth of America's electricity. It
provides close to all of the power in France and Japan. China, now one of
the most rapidly developing nations, has announced plans to build nuclear
plants in its country at a pace of nearly one every two years for the next
two decades.

But almost since the dawn of the nuclear age began with former President
Dwight Eisenhower's famous "Atoms for Peace" speech on Dec. 8, 1953,
nuclear
power has been an emotional issue in the United States.

Why? Hasn't it established itself as a safe, clean, and affordable form of
energy?

Yes and no.

President Bush is sold on it. In his State of the Union address, he said
that "safe, clean nuclear power" remains a cornerstone of his national
energy policy.

The remark drew a swift response.

Joe F. Colvin, Nuclear Energy Institute president and chief executive
officer, said that nuclear is poised to help the United States meet a
demand
for electricity that is expected to rise 45 percent by 2025. The industry
in
recent years has been touting nuclear power as an emissions-free technology
that deserves another look in light of efforts to address global warming.

But Michael Mariotte, executive director of the Nuclear Information and
Resource Service, said there is nothing safe or clean about nuclear power.
While nuclear plants do not emit greenhouse gases that cause global
warming,
they leave behind tons of radioactive waste for future generations, he
said.

The industry comes off as euphoric in its anticipation of the next
generation of reactors. The new breed has been licensed elsewhere but is
still under review in the United States. Advanced reactors are to have
"cookie-cutter" designs for engineering consistency, someday making today's
hodgepodge fleet of 103 plant designs a thing of the past.

But engineering aside, the nuclear industry has other issues: Money.

No new plants have been authorized for construction since the Three Mile
Island Unit 2 partial meltdown near Harrisburg, Pa., in 1979. The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission points out, though, that the stoppage wasn't
ostensibly because of Three Mile Island. Wall Street pulled the plug on
nuclear power before Three Mile Island because almost every plant had come
in millions of dollars over budget. Just this past October, a U.S.
Department of Energy official told members of the Society of Environmental
Journalists that Wall Street is still so fickle about nuclear power that
utility boards know their company stock could plummet if they even hint
about financing new plants.

"American capitalism is brutally honest," mused Eric Epstein, chairman of a
Harrisburg-area watchdog group called Three Mile Island Alert.

Though one of the industry's fiercest critics, Mr. Epstein told The Blade
that eastern Pennsylvania wasn't emotionally conflicted about nuclear power
before Three Mile Island. He said it was decidedly pro-nuclear, caught up
in
the era when the industry had promised future electricity that would be too
cheap to meter.

Attitudes changed with Three Mile Island. Among the things that weren't
immediately revealed was the presence of a potentially explosive hydrogen
bubble in the plant's reactor. To this day, the amount of radiation that
was
vented to the atmosphere -- and its effect on the population -- remains
hotly debated.

Many people think of Three Mile Island as America's only reactor meltdown.
It's not. While it's the only one on U.S. soil that has involved a
commercial-sized power plant, the first meltdown actually was a
scarcely-noticed event in 1960 near New Stanton, Pa. It involved an
experimental reactor at Westinghouse's Waltz Mills complex southeast of
Pittsburgh.

David Lochbaum of the Union of Concerned Scientists, who grew up in
Pittsburgh and is the son of a retired Westinghouse employee who worked at
Waltz Mills, acknowledged that nuclear power is a complex technology that
"cannot really be fault-free."

Mr. Lochbaum followed his father into the nuclear industry by becoming a
nuclear safety engineer.

He is among the skeptics who wonder if the industry has been given an
unreasonable amount of latitude by the NRC and, consequently, been allowed
to teeter on the edge far too long. They question if problems can be
expected to rise as plants continue to age, costs rise, utilities keep
trimming their staffs, and the generating capacity of each facility is
increased.

In other words, at what point is doing more with less unacceptable to the
NRC?

The agency has been grappling with that issue since at least 1982, when the
concept of minimal staffing requirements was first taken up by its
headquarters. Concerns were raised again in 1999 by U.S. Rep. John Dingell
(D., Dearborn) and others, resulting in the current move to develop a rule
for regulating worker fatigue under fitness-for-duty laws. A proposal is to
be presented to the NRC's governing board by December.

Nuclear plants are typically licensed to operate 40 years. With no plants
lined up to replace the existing fleet, utilities are seeking 20-year
extensions for existing facilities.

NRC officials have said there's nothing magical about 40 years from an
engineering standpoint: The length of time was almost arbitrarily chosen,
based on the anticipated time required to pay off bonds that were used to
build the facilities.

Mr. Lochbaum said his group's concern is that the NRC and the industry have
a history of downplaying events, including those at FirstEnergy's
Davis-Besse nuclear plant in Ottawa County and Detroit Edison Co.'s Fermi
II
nuclear plant in Monroe County. Both are along Lake Erie, each about 30
miles from Toledo.

At Davis-Besse, FirstEnergy admitted that a profit-ahead-of-safety
mentality
had become pervasive in the 1990s. The result: The plant's old reactor head
nearly blew open in 2002, which would have allowed radioactive steam to
form
in containment.

The utility has acknowledged that too much work had either been neglected,
done inadequately or postponed to save money. The plant was shut down for
scheduled maintenance Jan. 17 for the first time since the NRC had
authorized restart 10 months earlier. But operators apparently didn't
compensate for sub-zero weather and freezing rain. Ice chunks formed inside
the plant's massive cooling tower and fell, breaking a lot of fiberglass
parts. That will require more costly repairs.

On the afternoon of Jan. 24, control room operators at Fermi II noticed the
plant's radioactive containment area was experiencing unexplained leakage.

The NRC blew a sigh of relief because Detroit Edison assumed nothing and
shut down Fermi II's reactor.

The most pressing question -- whether the leak involved radioactive coolant
that passes through the reactor, a symptom of a potential meltdown -- was
answered a few hours later, when chemistry tests on water samples pointed
to
a non-nuclear secondary cooling system. Fermi II restarted Wednesday night
and was expected to be back at full power this weekend.

John Austerberry, Detroit Edison spokesman, said the safety record of
America's nuclear plants "stands up very good against any major industry in
the country."

http://www.fuelcelltoday.com/FuelCellToday/IndustryInformation/IndustryInformationExternal/NewsDisplayArticle/0,1602,5841,00.html


--
Hold the door for the stranger behind you. When the driver in the adjacent
lane signals to get over, slow down. Smile and say "hi" to the folks you
pass on the sidewalk. Give blood. Volunteer.



-- 
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org
http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org

"A time comes when silence is betrayal.
Even when pressed by the demands of
inner truth, men do not easily assume
the task of opposing their government's
policy, especially in time of war.
Nor does the human spirit move without
  great difficulty against all the apathy
of conformist thought, within one's own
bosom and in the surrounding world."

- Martin Luther King Jr.

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 23 [NukeNet] star-ledger on pseg-exel-not merger
 
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 21:30:28 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

Nuclear reaction
Exelon brought a sterling reputation when it took over operations of three
troubled New Jersey power plants, but not everyone is impressed so far
Friday, April 15, 2005
BY TOM JOHNSON
Star-Ledger Staff

Energy company Exelon has a reputation as one of the nation's top
operators of nuclear power plants, but that standing is being tested as
the Chicago-based company tries to rectify problems at three plants in New
Jersey's Salem County.

This week, the Hope Creek nuclear plant came back on line two weeks after
a steam leak in a reactor coolant system shut down the 1,049-megawatt
plant, the latest in a series of mishaps plaguing the three nuclear units
formerly operated by Public Service Enterprise Group.

In January, Exelon, which agreed to acquire Newark-based PSEG in December
in a $12 billion deal, took over day-to-day operations of the Hope Creek
and two Salem plants -- an arrangement analysts and company executives
said would lead to improved performance of the plants.

David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety engineer with the Union of Concerned
Scientists, said Exelon has a track record in improving plant performance,
citing the Clinton nuclear station in Illinois.

"Generally, a company that believes that nuclear power is its future, as
Exelon clearly does, does their homework to make the thing work," Lochbaum
said. "But even the best juggler can get in trouble if they try and take
on too much balls. At some point, you get diluted."

The operational arrangement, a crucial part of the Exelon-PSEG deal, has
drawn skepticism from antinuclear groups and environmentalists.

"Expecting Exelon to improve these plants is like sending the Hindenberg
on a rescue mission for the Titanic," Eric Epstein, director of Three Mile
Island Alert, said. In Pennsylvania, Exelon's management at Three Mile
Island and Peach Bottom has resulted in layoffs of nearly a third of the
plant's employees, Epstein said.

The same track record of cost- cutting occurred at Oyster Creek, the
nation's oldest running nuclear plant, in Lacey Township, when Exelon took
over there and nearly cut the staff in half, Suzanne Leta, energy
associate for the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, said. "If you
look at their history, it is one of cutting costs and cutting on-site
staff," Leta said. "They put profits over public safety."

Exelon owns 17 nuclear power plants, about 20 percent of the nation's
total nuclear capacity. The nuclear plants generate nearly half of its
38,000 megawatts of total generating capacity. On the company's Web site,
it states: "By all of the industry's measures of performance and safety,
Exelon Nuclear is a leader."

The Hope Creek plant is one of three nuclear reactors, along with the two
Salem units, at a complex in Lower Alloways Creek Township along the
Delaware River. Hope Creek is owned by PSEG and Exelon and the Newark
company co- own the Salem units.

The three plants provide electricity to more than 1 million customers, but
have been a drag on their parent's earnings in recent months. In the most
recent quarter, PSEG's power division spent more than $65 million, or 27
cents per share, on operation, maintenance and replacement power for the
plants.

Skip Sindoni, a spokesman for PSEG Nuclear , said since Exelon took over
day-to-day operations and brought about 25 more people to the three units,
the company has focused operational issues at the plant.

The company initiated early morning meetings of senior staff aimed at
identifying what is happening at the stations that day and what challenges
face operators, Sindoini said. The morning meetings are standard at the
other nuclear plants operated by the Chicago company, he said.

Hope Creek emerged from a lengthy refueling outage in January, which had
been extended by a concern about a vibrating recirculation pump. State
environmental officials and plant opponents wanted the pump replaced
before the plant was allowed to restart but the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission agreed to let the company wait until the plant's next
refueling, scheduled for spring of 2006.

Sindoni said the company has made a commitment to replace the pump during
an outage of sufficient duration. "The pump is performing as expected,"
Sindoni said.

Besides nuclear foes, the plants also have drawn increased scrutiny from
the NRC, which last summer placed all three under additional oversight
indefinitely, requiring more frequent and more stringent inspections. The
agency also faulted the company for its work environment, saying
management has ignored or punished employees who raised safety concerns.

When Exelon assumed day-to- day operation of the three units, PSEG Nuclear
dismissed a half- dozen managers without first going before an executive
review board as the company had pledged to do as a result of the concerns
raised by the NRC. The company provided the agency with a response to the
dismissals, but the agency still has some questions about the incident,
according to Neil Sheehan, a spokesman for the NRC.

In the response, PSEG said an independent review team assembled to review
the dismissals concluded the terminations were based "on legitimate
business needs."

Asked whether the agency has seen an improved performance at the three
units, Sheehan said "it's too soon to tell. They've only been in there
since January and we don't have enough baseline data to make a judgment."

Epstein, of Three Mile Island Alert, has his own concerns. In the past,
when Exelon acquired a nuclear plant, they typically bought units that
were performing in the top 25 percentile in the nation. That, he said,
isn't the case with the three units in South Jersey.

Tom Johnson can be reached at tjohnson@starledger.com or (973) 392-5972.


© 2005  The Star Ledger
© 2005 NJ.com All Rights Reserved.

-- 
Coalition for Peace and Justice
UNPLUG Salem Campaign; 321 Barr Ave, Linwood
NJ 08221; 609-601-8583; cell 609-742-0982
ncohen12@comcast.net; http://www.unplugsalem.org
http://www.coalitionforpeaceandjustice.org

"A time comes when silence is betrayal.
Even when pressed by the demands of
inner truth, men do not easily assume
the task of opposing their government's
policy, especially in time of war.
Nor does the human spirit move without
  great difficulty against all the apathy
of conformist thought, within one's own
bosom and in the surrounding world."

- Martin Luther King Jr.



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/05


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 24 Sun News: Grant funds boat patrols on lake near nuclear site

| 04/27/2005 | 

YORK COUNTY

The Associated Press

ROCK HILL - Two new boats will patrol Lake Wylie this summer
thanks to federal homeland security grants. 

The money was earmarked to protect the Catawba Nuclear Station
along the S.C. side of the lake, Sheriff Bruce Bryant said. 

The community will benefit both from extra protection for the
nuclear plant and added patrols along the busy lake, which
straddles the Carolinas near Charlotte, N.C., Bryant said. 

York County deputies already have bought a $90,000 boat. 

The rest of the money will go for a new boat for the Department
of Natural Resources, authorities said. 

During weekends and holidays this summer, as many as two
deputies and eight wildlife officers could be on Lake Wylie, DNR
Sgt. Michael Reeves said. 

Officials estimate as many as 8,000 boats and personal
watercraft are on the lake during peak weekends.   

*****************************************************************
 25 AP Wire: Officials to consider new nuclear plant for South Carolina

| 04/27/2005 | 

Associated Press

CHARLESTON, S.C. - Almost a decade after the nation's last
licensed nuclear power plant went on line, South Carolina
officials will meet with utility representatives to see if there
is interest in building a new reactor in the state. 

The May 9 meeting in Columbia will include representatives from
the state Commerce Department, the governor's office, utility
officials and U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett of the state's 3rd
Congressional District. 

"We just want to get everyone together, see if anyone's
interested in South Carolina, and then we'll move forward from
there," said Tim Dangerfield, chief of staff at the Commerce
Department. 

The state already has four nuclear plants accounting for just
over half the electricity generated in South Carolina. The last
nuclear generating plant to go on line in the nation was the
Tennessee Valley Authority's Watts Bar plant in 1996. 

NuStart Energy Development, a consortium of eight utilities, the
Tennessee Valley Authority and two reactor manufacturers, was
formed last year to gain federal approval for building and
operating new nuclear plants. 

Representatives from the consortium, which includes both Duke
Energy and Progress Energy based in North Carolina, will join
South Carolina utilities at the meeting. 

"Right now, there are not any (state) incentives that anybody
has identified, but I do believe some could be forthcoming,"
said Neville Lorick, president of SCE&G, which owns two-thirds
of a nuclear plant in Jenkinsville, S.C. 

Dangerfield said the Savannah River Site has been suggested as a
possible site for a plant. 

"It's kind of a natural," Dangerfield said. "Everybody says,
'Not in my backyard.' The Savannah River Site is a
300-square-mile fenced area, so this is a good opportunity to
put it in a place where you won't have a lot of people
complaining about it." 

Utilities that are part of NuStart have filed for preliminary
permits to build new nuclear plants near existing plants in
North Anna, Va.; Clinton, Ill.; and Grand Gulf, Miss. 

Some environmental groups oppose nuclear power because of the
waste it generates. Most spent nuclear fuel from the nation's
104 reactors is kept in containers at reactor sites. 

There is a plan to bury such waste underground in Yucca
Mountain, Nev., but lawsuits have delayed the move for years.
Several utilities, including Santee Cooper and South Carolina
Electric & Gas' parent company, Scana, have sued the federal
government for not taking the waste. 

NuStart hopes one of its members will break ground on a new
nuclear plant within six years and have the plant on line in a
decade. 

--- 

On the Net: NuStart Energy: www.nustartenergy.com 
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Information from: The Post and Courier,
http://www.charleston.net  

*****************************************************************
 26 Utne: Chernobyl Revisited (News) Grace Hanson

One catastrophe that changed the lives of millions

 —By Grace Hanson, Utne.com

April 28, 2005 Issue 

This week, The Guardian marks Chernobyl's 19th anniversary with
excerpts from Russian journalist Svetlana Alexievich's new book,
which includes interviews with eyewitnesses to the world's worst
nuclear accident. A wife remembers how her husband left to fight
the fires of the explosion on April 26, 1986, and returned so
poisoned with radiation that his skin cracked, his hair fell
out, and he produced stools of blood and mucous. Nikolai Fomich
Kalugin, who lost his daughter, tells Alexievich, "We didn't
just lose a town, we lost our whole lives." 

Of the two countries affected (Belarus and Ukraine), Belarus
experienced the most devastation, with 23 percent of the land
contaminated by nuclear fallout; eighty-eight percent of that
area still tests well above the safe residency limit set by the
International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Despite the dangerously high levels of radiation, two million
people inhabit the land and consume its produce, grains, and
dairy. They also drink the water, which is tainted with chemical
pollution, and breathe air contaminated with cancer causing
plutonium particles. 

Hope Burwell, an organic farmer turned author and teacher,
writes of Chernobyl's lasting marks on Belarusin the March/April
2004 issue of Orion. She describes a country where almost half
of all teenagers have serious health problems, like
gastrointestinal anomalies, weakened hearts, cataracts, and
thyroid complications. The country's overwhelming poverty rate
not only intensifies these crippling health problems, it hinders
any future cleanup efforts. 

When Burwell returns home to Iowa to visit one of the state's
nuclear facilities, she asks a nuclear engineer if the United
States could have its own Chernobyl disaster. "It wouldn't be
exactly like Chernobyl," he responds. "But if you mean, would a
disaster at an American plant something like the explosion at
Chernobyl contaminate as much land, contaminate it with the same
kinds of radioactivity -- yeah, it could happen here." 

*****************************************************************
 27 Las Vegas SUN: Panel told nuke plants should be built

Today: April 27, 2005 at 9:48:44 PDT 

By Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com> SUN WASHINGTON 
BUREAU

 WASHINGTON -- The lack of a final resting place for nuclear
waste creates a challenge when trying to build new nuclear power
plants, the Energy Department told senators Tuesday, but it does
not mean new plants shouldn't be built.

 As he described the progress of the department's Nuclear 2010
program, Deputy Energy Secretary Jeffrey Clay Sell told the
Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee that nuclear power
needs to be a part of the country's future energy plans. The
goal of Nuclear 2010 is to have a company decide to build and
operate at least one new plant by 2010.

 Sell assured the committee that the government will live up to
its promise made in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and
take waste from nuclear power plants. The government plans to
ship and store at least 77,000 tons of nuclear waste at Yucca
Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

 "The Yucca Mountain project is critical," Sell said. "We are
very confident in the science that underpins our decision to
recommend the Yucca Mountain site as the appropriation location
for that.

 "Let me be very clear. We do not believe that Yucca Mountain
has to open before a new nuclear plant can be built. We do
believe it's important that we continue to make progress so that
license holders can have confidence that the federal government
will fulfill its obligation under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
We believe we can make that progress and produce that
confidence."

 The government was supposed to take the waste in 1998 but the
site was not ready in time. The department planned to submit the
project's license application at the end of last year, but
experienced more delays. The site is not likely to open until
2012 or 2015 if the department submits the application in the
next year and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows it to
move forward.

 Nevada strongly objects to the project and plans to raise
numerous objections during the licensing process, if the project
gets that far. But objecting to Yucca Mountain does not equal an
objection to nuclear power. Some lawmakers support nuclear
power, just dislike the plans for the waste.

 "Congressman Gibbons understands that nuclear power is an
important component of our energy portfolio, however, before we
increase the production of nuclear power we need a 21st century
solution to the accumulating nuclear waste, and that is
absolutely not burying it in a hole in the Nevada desert," Amy
Spanbauer, spokeswoman for Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., said.

 Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., favors nuclear power, spokesman Jack
Finn said and Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., has also said he is not
against nuclear power, just Yucca Mountain.

 The House Energy and Resources Subcommittee, which is part of
the House Government Reform Committee, has a hearing scheduled
Thursday examining the role nuclear power plays in the country's
energy policy.

 Marvin Fertel, senior vice president for Business Operations at
the Nuclear Energy Institute; Donald Jones, vice president and
senior economist of RCF Economic and Financial Consulting Inc.;
and Patrick Moore, chairman and chief scientists of Greenspirit
Strategies, are scheduled to testify. 


 
*****************************************************************
 28 Platts:Russia must close 12 nukes to boost power exports to EU - EC
 
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]   
 
+ Russia will have to close 12 nuclear reactors before the
European Union will allow it to sell power to more EU members,
the European Commission's director general for energy, Francois
Lamoureux, said Tuesday. "Russia is fascinated by selling power
to the EU," Lamoureux told the European Parliament's energy
committee. 

Russia already sells power to Finland, which joined the EU in the 
mid-1990s. But the EU is insisting that Russia improves its 
nuclear safety up to EU levels first--which would include closing 
12 reactors--before it can sell into the lucrative wider EU 
market. 

"The Russian authorities are not being tremendously helpful on 
this point," said Lamoureux. 

"But we don't sincerely believe that the network would be able to 
distinguish between nuclear and other sources of power." 

The EU made improving nuclear safety a condition of the accession 
treaties of the former Soviet bloc countries which joined the EU 
in May 2004--and both Lithuania and Slovakia had to agree to 
close nuclear reactors which the EU considered unsafe in the long 
term. This story was originally published in Platts European 
Power Alert http://www.europeanpoweralert.platts.com 

Brussels (Platts)--27Apr2005
 
This story was originally published in Platts European Power
Alert
http://www.europeanpoweralert.platts.com
 
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       

*****************************************************************
 29 toledoblade.com: What about the NRC?
 
 Opinion »  "> Editorials »  

Article published Wednesday, April 27, 2005

THE record $5.45 million fine levied by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission against FirstEnergy Corp. for its near-catastrophic
safety lapse in 2002 at the Davis-Besse nuclear power station is
well deserved, but the action should not obscure or excuse the
NRC's slipshod handling of the incident.

Indeed, by citing whistleblower Andrew Siemaszko, a former
Davis-Besse engineer, for blame along with FirstEnergy, it
appears that federal regulators are attempting to deflect
responsibility for their own shortcomings.

Fortunately, a federal grand jury in Cleveland is investigating
possible criminal violations, and all the facts may yet emerge.

In the meantime, there already is ample evidence, backed by a
report from the NRC's inspector general, that officials of both
the utility and regulatory agency allowed Davis-Besse to operate
in a potentially unsafe fashion for two years due to severe
corrosion in the head of its nuclear reactor.

The corrosion, which eventually ate away all but a fraction of
an inch of the protective steel head, was discovered in 2000.
However, the reactor was not shut down until a scheduled
refueling operation in March, 2002.

Had the reactor head ruptured, a serious nuclear accident might
have ensued because, inspections later indicated, faulty safety
systems might not have been able to sufficiently cool the
reactor.

The reactor head and cooling equipment had to be replaced at a
cost of more than $600 million, idling Davis-Besse for two years
and costing FirstEnergy millions of dollars in expensive
replacement power.

Now the NRC contends that FirstEnergy withheld information on
the safety of the reactor head from regulators. Mr. Siemaszko,
however, presents a persuasive case that he is being made a
scapegoat to protect top utility and NRC officials.

FirstEnergy should pay its fine without complaint or appeal.
After all, company officials put profit before safety by keeping
Davis-Besse in operation after the dangers of the reactor
corrosion were well established.

But NRC officials also were complicit, and there ought to be
some penalty for failing to protect the public from what could
have been a disaster of frightening proportions.

 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to Meet May 5-6 in Rockville, Maryland
 
News Release - 2005-07 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-073     April 27, 2005   

The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards will hold a public meeting May 5-6 in Rockville, Md.,
to discuss, among other items, the final review of the license
renewal application and final Safety Evaluation Report for
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 2. The committee will also be briefed
on the status of Department of Energy plans, research, and
development activities related to advanced reactor designs for
hydrogen production, and discuss the objectives, technical
approach and results of the steam generator tube integrity
program being conducted by the Argonne National Laboratory. 

The meeting will be held in Room T-2B3 of the agencys Two White
Flint North building, at 11545 Rockville Pike. The meeting will
begin at 8:30 a.m. both days and end at 6:45 p.m. on Thursday
and 7 p.m. on Friday. A complete agenda is available on the NRCs
Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/acrs/agenda/2005/. 

Individuals with questions or those wanting to make public
statements during the meeting should contact Sam Duraiswamy at
301-415-7364.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, April 27, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 31 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the 
 
                         FR Doc E5-1983 
[Federal Register: April 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 80)] 
[Notices] [Page 21819-21820] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27ap05-134]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request 
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice 
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of 
public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a current valid OMB control number.
 
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Revision.
2. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR Part 36--
Licenses and Radiation Safety Requirements for Irradiators.
 
3. The form number if applicable: Not applicable.
4. How often the collection is required: On occasion. It is 
estimated that there are approximately 3 NRC and 10 Agreement
State reports submitted annually.
 
5. Who will be required or asked to report: Irradiator licensees 
licensed by NRC or an Agreement State.
 
6. An estimate of the number of responses: 108 {13 for reporting 
(3 NRC licensees and 10 Agreement States) 95 for recordkeeping 
(19 NRC licensees and 76 Agreement States){time} 

7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 95 (19 NRC 
licensees and 76 Agreement State licensees).
 
8. An estimate of the number of hours needed annually to complete 
the requirement or request: 44,356 (8,872 hours for NRC licensees 
[8,712 recordkeeping + 160 reporting] and 35,484 hours for 
Agreement State licensees [34,846 recordkeeping + 638 
reporting]), or 467 hours per licensee.
 
9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 
applies: Not applicable.
 
10. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 36 contains requirements for the 
issuance of a license authorizing the use of sealed sources 
containing radioactive materials in irradiators used to irradiate 
objects or materials for a variety of purposes in research, 
industry, and other fields. The subparts cover specific 
requirements for obtaining a license or license exemption, design 
and performance criteria for irradiators; and radiation safety 
requirements for operating irradiators, including requirements 
for operator training, written operating and emergency 
procedures, personnel monitoring, radiation surveys, inspection, 
and maintenance. Part 36 also contains the recordkeeping and 
reporting requirements that are necessary to ensure that the 
irradiator is being safely operated so that it poses no danger to 
the health and safety of the general public and the irradiator 
employees.
 
 
[[Page 21820]]
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of 
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F23, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB 
clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days 
after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer 
listed below by May 27, 2005. Comments received after this date 
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be given to comments received after this 
date. John Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs 
(3150-0158), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503.
 
Comments can also be submitted by telephone at (202) 395-3087.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of April 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer Office of Information 
Services.
 
[FR Doc. E5-1983 Filed 4-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 32 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the 
 
                         FR Doc E5-1984 
[Federal Register: April 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 80)] 
[Notices] [Page 21820] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27ap05-135]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request 
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice 
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of 
public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an 
agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not 
required to respond to, a collection of information unless it 
displays a currently valid OMB control number.
 
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Extension.
 
2. The title of the information collection: NRC Form 536, 
``Operator Licensing Examination Data.''
3. The form number if applicable: NRC Form 536.
4. How often the collection is required: Annually.
5. Who will be required or asked to report: All holders of 
operator licenses or construction permits for nuclear power 
reactors.
 
6. An estimate of the number of annual responses: 80.
7. The estimated number of annual respondents: 80.
8. An estimate of the total number of hours needed annually to 
complete the requirement or request: 80.
 
9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 
applies: Not applicable.
 
10. Abstract: NRC is requesting renewal of its clearance to 
annually request all commercial power reactor licensees and 
applicants for an operating license to voluntarily send to the 
NRC: (1) Their projected number of candidates for operator 
licensing initial examinations; (2) the estimated dates of the 
examinations; (3) if the examination will be facility developed 
or NRC developed, and (4) the estimated number of individuals 
that will participate in the Generic Fundamentals Examination 
(GFE) for that calendar year. Except for the GFE, this 
information is used to plan budgets and resources in regard to 
operator examination scheduling in order to meet the needs of the 
nuclear industry.
 
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of 
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB 
clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days 
after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer 
listed below by May 27, 2005. Comments received after this date 
will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of 
consideration cannot be given to comments received after this 
date. John A. Asalone, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (3150-0131), NEOB-10202, Office of Management and Budget, 
Washington, DC 20503.
z Comments can also be e-mailed to John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or 
submitted by telephone at (202) 395-4650.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, (301) 415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of April, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 
Services.
 
[FR Doc. E5-1984 Filed 4-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 33 Korea Times: Chernobyl Disaster Blamed for Cancer Surge in Women 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

By Moon Gwang-lip Staff Reporter

 A leading local environmental group has attributed the
increasing number of thyroid cancer patients among Korean women
to the radioactive fallout from the 1986 Chernobyl disaster. 

Marking the 19th anniversary of the accident, Green Korea United
said in a media briefing on Wednesday that female thyroid cancer
patients in Korea showed a fourfold increase over the last 14
years, nearly reaching the highest level in the world 

It said the aftereffects of the nuclear meltdown are emerging
after a long incubation period. 

According to the organization, 15.7 out of 10,000 Korean females
were found to have suffered from thyroid cancer in 2002,
compared with 16.2 out of 10,000 females in Belarus, a former
Soviet republic directly affected by the disaster. 

Among the countries that were not directly affected by the
accident, the U.S. reported that 11 out of 10,000 females came
down with the cancer. 

Green Korea United claimed that the Chernobyl accident was
responsible for the increase in cancer patients as the radio
active fallout drifted from the disaster scene to the sky over
the Korean Peninsula. 

It said among Korean females aged between 20 and 24 who were
suffering from any kind of cancer, the portion of thyroid cancer
patients jumped from some 20 percent in 1998 to more than 30
percent in 2002. 

It also cited a survey by the National Health Insurance
Corporation, which shows the number of thyroid cancer patients
hospitalized nearly doubled from 6,312 in 2002 to 12,054 last
year. 

``As the nuclear victims in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in Japan
showed, the disease has 15 to 29 years of incubation period and
it finally began to attack people also in Korea,'' said Seok
Kwang-hoon, a director of Green Korea United. 

Given the distance from the location of the accident, their
claim might at first seem improbable, but Seok said the Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory of the U.S. proved the Korean
Peninsula had been fully covered by the radioactive fallout for
six to 10 days after the accident. 

He also said iodine-131, a substance produced during operations
of nuclear reactors and linked to thyroid cancer, was detected
in Seoul and Chungju on May 5 in 1986, a few days after the
Chernobyl accident. 

Seok blamed the Korean government for failing to act against the
hazard that put the public into potential peril. 

``The radioactive fallout spread to the Korean Peninsula right
after the accident, but the government just sat idle without
warning the public of the harm to foods including milk which is
the main channel of radioactive iodine intake,'' he said. 

He called for research to identify the aftereffects of the
accident in the nation as well as for measures to protect people
from possible diseases. 

The disaster, recorded as the world's worst nuclear accident,
occurred at Chernobyl in the former Soviet Union, now Ukraine,
April 26, 1986. 

It destroyed the Chernobyl-4 reactor and killed 30 people,
including 28 from radiation exposure. Its radioactive fallout
was reported to have afflicted 3 million people including 1
million children in the surrounding regions. 

joseph@koreatimes.co.kr 04-27-2005 17:41         

The black dots scattered across the earth represent the
radioactive fallouts drifting 10 days after the Chernobyl
accident occurred in Ukraine on April 26, 1986. The upper part
where the Korean Peninsula lies is covered with black dots,
showing the entire nation was also affected by the
cancer-causing materials right after the accident. The black
dots below cover the areas in Ukraine, Belarus and other areas
in the vicinity. Courtesy of the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory of the U.S.   

*****************************************************************
 34 Monticello Times: NRC meeting draws light crowd
            
www.monticellotimes.com
			   			     			 			 			 			  
Thursday, April 28, 2005                
  
Eric O'Link News Editor

Turnout was relatively light at the first federal public meeting
in Monticello regarding extension of the operating license at
Monticello’s nuclear power plant.

About 25 people showed up for the Wednesday, April 20, evening
meeting. The majority of those were from either the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC), a state agency, Xcel Energy, which
owns the plant, or Nuclear Management Company, which operates it.

Less than a dozen were members of the public, and though the
discussion did have a few livelier moments, it remained civil.

The NRC’s Daniel Merzke, project manager with the Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation in Washington, D.C., gave a thorough
presentation on the NRC’s role in the Monticello plant’s license
renewal process.

“We find it very important to keep the public informed about
what we’re doing,” he said.

In March, Xcel Energy filed an application with the NRC to
extend Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant’s operating license
by 20 years. The current license expires in 2010, and if the
license renewal request is not granted, the plant would have to
shut down at that time.

Merzke explained that the NRC would perform a series of
extensive inspections and evaluations of the plant and its
systems, including on-site audits. The NRC will verify, during
its safety and technical reviews, that the plant and its reactor
can continue to operate safely during the license extension
period, 20 years in this case.

Periods of public comment

He also outlined some of the opportunities the public will have
to comment on the process. Several public meetings or comment
periods will occur between now and the NRC’s decision, expected
sometime in 2007.

The most imminent public comment opportunity will begin next
month, when the NRC dockets Xcel’s application and issues a
notice of opportunity for a public hearing. Merzke said that
would probably happen during the first two weeks of May.

Once the opportunity for public hearing notice is issued, the
public has 60 days to file a request for a hearing. A group of
administrative law judges reviews hearing requests and grants
them provided the person or organization that filed the request
could be adversely affected by the plant’s adversely affected by
the plant’s continuing to operate until 2030.

A schedule of future public meetings is also expected in early
May, with the docketing of Xcel’s application.

Merzke took questions throughout Wednesday’s meeting, but his
presentation turned into more of an open discussion near its
end. A few people who attended voiced concerns about access to
information throughout the process. But while the discussion was
frank, it remained courteous.

The subject of spent fuel rod waste in dry cask storage also
came up, though Xcel’s request for outdoor waste storage at the
Monticello plant is being handled by the state, not the NRC.

A unique situation

Chief among those who commented was George Crocker, executive
director of the North American Water Office, based in Lake Elmo.
His organization fought similar waste storage at Xcel’s Prairie
Island nuclear plant near Red Wing more than 10 years ago.

Crocker said it seemed like there was some confusion over
environmental impact statements (EIS) and where the information
for each EIS would be available. While the NRC is handling the
EIS for license renewal, the Minnesota Environmental Quality
Board is overseeing the EIS related to waste storage.

Merzke admitted that the process was confusing, at least
initially.

“I believe there was some confusion over jurisdiction, who has
responsibility for what, environmental impact statements, who’s
issuing what,” he said.

After the meeting, Merzke told the Times that Monticello’s
situation is unique because the NRC has never handled a license
renewal request at the same time a plant is working on a dry
storage facility, known in the industry as an ISFISI. That is
further complicated by Minnesota’s requirements for the process,
he continued, including the opportunity for the legislature to
consider and act on the storage facility during its session.

“We’ve haven’t had an application where we’ve had to deal with
an applicant submitting a request to build an ISFISI at the same
time (as license renewal), plus the fact that Minnesota has some
unique state regulations regarding that that we have to deal
with at the same time,” Merzke said. “It’s a very unique
situation.”

Pointed discussion

During the meeting, Crocker said he wanted to be pointed.

“Here we have these two proceedings coming at us at the same
time, and we don’t have anywhere near the resources that the
industry has...and we don’t even know where to go to figure out
what’s supposed to be in the EIS to deal with the state issue or
federal issue,” Crocker said. “Where’s your efficiency in terms
the review?”

NRC officials at the meeting responded that they were just
starting the process.

“We’re kind of catching up because the certificate of need was
applied for a few weeks back,” Merzke said, “well before the
application was submitted.”

“If you’re playing catch-up, where does that leave us?” Crocker
asked.

Merzke said the NRC “bends over backwards” to be open to the
public.

“And we appreciate that,” Crocker said. “We’re glad you’re here,
don’t get us wrong.”

The discussion wandered from waste storage to where public
information was available about gasses released from the plant.
Small amounts of radioactive gasses that have been allowed to
decay are sometimes released from the plant’s tower.

Kevin Krone, a resident of Monticello Township, is the plant’s
closest neighbor. He lives about a half-mile from the reactor
building and, with his wife Jonay, was at Wednesday’s meeting.

“This whole business about them releasing gasses into the air, I
don’t care if it’s in a different form or not, now, to say it’s
all right, they don’t live next to the plant,” he said. “I’m
just really concerned. I try to ask a simple question about
where I can review this information, it took half an hour to get
a simple answer. I’m not real comfortable with the storage
facility.”

After the meeting, Merzke reiterated that the federal license
renewal process and the state waste storage approval were
separate things.

“The ISFISI is actually outside the scope of what license
renewal is all about,” he said. “People are trying to tie the
two together, but they’re not, they’re separate issues. We can
go ahead and issue a renewed license if it comes to that, and
they might not get approval to build the ISFISI.”

If that’s the case, he added, Xcel and Nuclear Management Co.
would have to come up with a new solution for dealing with the
spent fuel rods–or shut down the plant.

Merzke also said the NRC’s Web site, www.nrc.gov, was a good
source of information about the process. Public documents are
available for review on the Web site and meeting dates will be
posted there.

He said the government’s computerized filing system for public
documents is “good if you know exactly what you’re looking for.”
But if a user does not have that exact information, “it can be a
little frustrating.”

“The information is out there,” he said. “If they search hard
enough, they’ll find it. We’re not trying to hide it, it just
sometimes presents a challenge, even for me, to find a document.”

He emphasized that the NRC is trying to be as open about the
license renewal process.

“License renewal is one of the most open topics out there,” he
said. “We don’t want any surprises; we want everybody to know
what’s going on.”

Copyright 2005, Monticello Times
*****************************************************************
 35 NRC: Sunshine Act; Meetings
 
                         FR Doc 05-8493 
[Federal Register: April 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 80)] 
[Notices] [Page 21820-21821] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27ap05-136]                         
 
 
DATES: Weeks of April 25, May 2, 9, 16, 23, 30, 2005.
 
PLACE: Commissioner's Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, Maryland.
 
STATUS: Public and Closed.
 
Matters To Be Considered: Week of April 25, 2005 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 Web cast live at the Web 
address--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.
 
Week of May 23, 2005--Tentative Monday, May 23, 2005 1:30 p.m. 
Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Wednesday, May 25, 
2005 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Results of the Agency Action Review 
Meeting (Public Meeting). (Contact: Lois James, (301) 415-1112). 
This meeting will be Web cast live at the Web 
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
1:30 p.m. Briefing on Threat Environment Assessment 
(Closed--Ex.1).
 
[[Page 21821]] Week of May 30, 2005--Tentative Wednesday, June 1, 
2005 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). 
Thursday, June 2, 2005 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of 
International Programs (OIP) Programs, Performance, and Plans 
(Public Meeting). (Contact: Margie Doane, (301) 415-2344).
 
This meeting will be Web cast live at the Web 
address--http://www.nrc.gov .
 
1:30 p.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--Ex. 2). *The 
schedule for Commission meetings if 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.
 
Additional Information: ``Discussion of Security Issues 
(Closed--Ex. 1),'' originally scheduled for Thursday, April 21, 
2005 at 1:30 p.m. was not held.
 
The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet 
at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/policy-making/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. 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. Dated: April 21, 2005.
 
Dave Gamberoni, Office of the Secretary.
 
[FR Doc. 05-8493 Filed 4-25-05; 9:23 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M

 
*****************************************************************
 36 [southnews] 'Nothing': US WMD Inspector Finishes Iraq Work
 
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:38:35 -0500 (CDT)

 
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources 
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/5F6XtA/.WnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

The claim that Saddam Hussein may have shipped an arsenal of weapons of 
mass destruction to Syria just weeks before the American-led invasion 
has been dismissed in a final CIA report that said the search had "been 
exhausted" without result.

Weapons Inspector Ends WMD Search in Iraq

Tue Apr 26, 9:01 AM ET

By KATHERINE SHRADER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Wrapping up his investigation into Saddam Hussein's 
purported arsenal, the CIA's top weapons hunter in Iraq said his search 
for weapons of mass destruction "has been exhausted" without finding any.

Nor did Charles Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group, find any 
evidence that such weapons were shipped officially from Iraq to Syria to 
be hidden before the U.S. invasion, but he couldn't rule out some 
unofficial transfer of limited WMD-related materials.

He closed his effort with words of caution about potential future 
threats and careful assessment of this and other unanswered questions.

The Bush administration justified its 2003 invasion of Iraq as necessary 
to eliminate Hussein's purported stockpile of WMD.

"As matters now stand, the WMD investigation has gone as far as 
feasible," Duelfer wrote in an an addendum to the report he issued last 
fall. "After more than 18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing 
of the WMD-related detainees has been exhausted."

In 92 pages posted online Monday evening, Duelfer provided a final look 
at an investigation that, at its peak, occupied more than 1,000 military 
and civilian translators, weapons specialists and other experts. His 
latest addenda conclude a roughly 1,500-page report released last fall.

Among warnings sprinkled throughout the new documents, one concludes 
that Saddam's programs created a pool of weapons experts, many of whom 
will be seeking work. While most will probably turn to the "benign civil 
sector," the danger remains that "hostile foreign governments, 
terrorists or insurgents may seek Iraqi expertise."

"Because a single individual can advance certain WMD activities, it 
remains an important concern," one addendum said.

Another addendum noted that military forces in Iraq may continue to find 
small numbers of degraded chemical weapons  most likely misplaced or 
improperly destroyed before 1991. In an insurgent's hands, "the use of a 
single even ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror 
than deadlier conventional explosives," the addendum said.

And still another said the survey group found some potential 
nuclear-related equipment was "missing from heavily damaged and looted 
sites." Yet, because of deteriorating security in Iraq, the survey group 
was unable to determine what happened to the equipment, which also had 
alternate civilian uses.

"Some of it probably has been sold for its scrap value. Other pieces 
might have been disassembled" and converted into motors or condensers, 
an addendum said. "Still others could have been taken intact to preserve 
their function."

Leaving the door to the investigation open just a crack, a U.S. 
official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said a small team still 
operates under the U.S.-led multinational force in Iraq, although the 
survey group officially disbanded earlier this month. Those staying on 
continue to examine documents and follow up any reports of weapons of 
mass destruction.

In a statement accompanying the final installment, Duelfer said any 
surprise discovery would be most likely in the biological weapons area 
because facilities and other clues would be comparatively small.

Among unanswered questions, Duelfer said a group formed to investigate 
whether WMD-related material was shipped out of Iraq before the invasion 
wasn't able to reach firm conclusions because the security situation 
halted its work. Investigators were focusing on transfers from Iraq to 
Syria.

The questioning of Iraqis did not produce any information to support the 
transfer possibility, one addendum said. The Iraq Survey Group believes 
"it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to 
Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial 
movement of limited WMD-related materials."

________________________________________

Blair branded a liar as poll rivals blaze away at Iraq invasion
Reuters April 26, 2005
The Prime Minister, Tony Blair, faces demands to hold an inquiry into 
Britain's case for war in Iraq as his rivals in the general election 
next week home in on his support for the US-led invasion.

The Liberal Democrat Party, which opposed the war, placed advertisements 
in newspapers showing a smiling Mr Blair beside the US President, George 
Bush, under the headline "Never again".

"Britain's international reputation has been damaged by the way Tony 
Blair took us to war," the party's leader, Charles Kennedy, said 
yesterday. "Tony Blair says history will be his judge. He is wrong. The 
British people will be his judge."

Mr Kennedy was due to call later in the day for a public inquiry into 
Britain's decision to go to war.

Iraq rose to the top of the election agenda at the weekend, with the 
Conservatives accusing Mr Blair of lying over the 2003 war.

A Sunday newspaper reported that before the invasion the 
Attorney-General gave six reasons why Mr Blair might breach 
international law if he went to war without a second United Nations 
resolution. The Attorney-General later ruled the invasion was legal, 
leading opponents to claim he had been put under pressure.

The Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, fell short of denying the report. 
"I'm not confirming what is alleged to have been in a leaked document," 
he told the BBC. "I'm simply not confirming it."

The Tory leader, Michael Howard, said Mr Blair had overstated the 
"sporadic and patchy" material gathered by Britain's intelligence 
services on whether Iraq had banned weapons.

"He has told lies to win elections. On the one thing on which he has 
taken a stand in the eight years he has been Prime Minister, which is 
taking us to war, he didn't even tell the truth on that," Mr Howard told 
the BBC.

Asked if he was calling Mr Blair a liar, he said: "Yes."

Mr Blair tried to refocus debate on the eight years of economic growth 
Britain has enjoyed under his government, with a joint news conference 
with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown.

His case was bolstered by a letter to the Financial Times signed by 63 
business leaders, praising Labour for delivering "unprecedented" 
economic growth and stability.

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/
*****************************************************************
 37 [du-list] Illegal USUK attack  hits Bliar one week before
 
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 16:22:55 -0700

 
<x-flowed>

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/7595c4e2-b751-11d9-9f22-00000e2511c8.html

       Blair faces new questions on Iraq war
       By James Blitz in London
       Published: April 27 2005 20:31 | Last updated: April 27 2005 20:31


The legality of Tony Blair's decision to invade Iraq was on Wednesday night 
thrust to the centre of the British general election campaign with the 
publication of confidential legal advice given to the prime minister by 
Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general.

In a serious blow to the prime minister a week before polling day, Channel 
4 News and the Guardian newspaper obtained a summary of Lord Goldsmith's 
hitherto secret legal advice to the prime minister on March 7, 2003, two 
weeks before the start of the war.

The document reveals that Lord Goldsmith warned Mr Blair on that date that 
failure to secure a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorising 
military action would force the government "urgently" to reconsider the 
legal case for war.

"If we fail to achieve the adoption of a second resolution we would need to 
consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light 
of the circumstances at the time," Lord Goldsmith wrote.
       War memo comes back to haunt Blair
       Click here


The case for war "will only be sustainable if there are strong factual 
grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity." 
This would require "hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation."

However, the document was never seen by the cabinet nor was it disclosed to 
parliament ahead of a crucial vote on whether to approve military action.

Instead, on March 17, Lord Goldsmith gave what the government calls a 
summary of his legal opinion by telling parliament that "authority to use 
force against Iraq exists from the combined effects of [UN] resolutions 
678, 687 and 1441."

The Conservatives claimed that the difference between Lord Goldsmith's 
private statement on March 7 and his public statement on march 17 showed 
there had been "a gross deception."

The March 7 document, drawn up one week before France vetoed a second UN 
resolution, said "it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise a 
French veto as 'unreasonable'".

The Attorney General states: "A court might well conclude that OP's 
(operative paragraphs) 4 and 12 do require a further Council decision in 
order to revive the authorisation in resolution 678."

   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
What would our lives be like without music, dance, and theater?
Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for Good!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/TzSHvD/SOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 38 EXPOSED: Leaked UK Memo on Illegal Invasion of WMD-Free Iraq
 
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 22:02:53 -0500 (CDT)

 
UK Iraq legal opinion leaked

The UK attorney general cast doubt on the legality of war on Iraq
without a second UN resolution, a leaked text says. 

In the document, seen by the BBC and from Lord Goldsmith to Tony
Blair, he says a second resolution was the "safest legal course".

.the Lib Dems said the House of Commons would not have voted for war
if the earlier legal advice had been known about.

The extract obtained by the BBC was sent to Mr Blair on 7 March 2003,
a fortnight before the war took place.

In it Lord Goldsmith argues relying on the original resolution 1441 -
which required Iraq to disarm - as authorisation for the use of force
needed "strong factual grounds" that it had been breached.

The views of UNMOVIC, the UN inspection team led by Hans Blix, and the
IAEA, the nuclear inspection team led by Mohammed ElBaradei would be
"highly significant", the attorney general reportedly said.

Mr Blair has steadfastly resisted pressure to release the full advice
of the attorney general. 

In the newly-leaked document, retyped from its original form, Lord
Goldsmith says: "I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course
would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise
the use of force...

"I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is
capable IN PRINCIPLE of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a
further resolution... [emph added]

"However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the
authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will ONLY be sustainable
IF there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has
failed to take the final opportunity."  [EMPH added]

The document concludes by saying: "If we fail to achieve the adoption
of a second resolution we would need to consider urgently at that
stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at
the time."

[It goes without saying that Goldsmith and Tony Blair now
claim that this document "shows" they were somehow not lying..hmmm]

[Conservative Party] Mr Howard said: "It is now obvious from this
legal advice that on 7 March 2003, the attorney general raised
specific reservations about the legality of war in Iraq.

"But Mr Blair has said that the attorney general's advice to the
Cabinet on 17 March was 'very clear' that the war was legal, and that
the attorney general had not changed his mind. It is obvious that he
did.

"So what the public must now have an answer to is this: what, or who,
changed the attorney general's mind?" 

The Lib Dems want a full public inquiry into the war and want voters
to punish the Tories as well as Labour, as both supported the war, and
choose their party instead.

Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "If the
House of Commons had known of the contents of this advice it wouldn't
have voted to endorse military action.

"I strongly suspect that if every member of the Cabinet had seen a
copy of this advice, others would have resigned, along with Robin
Cook."

Former international development secretary Clare Short, an opponent of
the war, said the leak would "confirm everything that I have been
saying - it's very serious". 

[Followed by more statements by the cowards who killed
tends of thousands of Iraqi civilians including children
that the war was "right". Let them state this from behind
bars next to the Bush Admin....]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4491105.stm

= = = =
STILL FEELING LIKE THE MAINSTREAM U.S. CORPORATE MEDIA
IS GIVING A FULL HONEST PICTURE OF WHAT'S GOING ON?
= = = =
Daily online radio show, news reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
More news: UseNet's misc.activism.progressive (moderated)
= = = =
Sorry, we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
FOR MORE INFORMATION: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
http://economicdemocracy.org/eco/climate-summary.html (Climate)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)

** ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don't work. Email to
** m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org instead
*****************************************************************
 39 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Ban tells North no concessions will be made
 
April 28, 2005 KST 14:54 (GMT+9)

  April 28, 2005 ¤Ñ South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon
said yesterday that North Korea should not expect more
concessions before it makes a decision to return or not to the
six-party talks, organized to end the North Korean nuclear
crisis. 

"We have explained well enough to the North through the previous
three rounds of talks what sort of inducements we can offer,"
Mr. Ban said. "Under the current situation, with the talks
halted, to put additional inducements forward through the media
or public statements is inappropriate." 

North Korea has been boycotting negotiations since last June,
complaining about what it calls a hostile U.S. policy. 

Fearing the bilateral talks and its engagement policy would
suffer, Seoul has been reluctant to take strong action against
Pyongyang. Over the past few days, Mr. Ban has been sounding a
different note, telling Pyongyang that Seoul would not rule out
presenting the nuclear issue to the UN Security Council, an
action North Korea has said it would regard as an act of war. 

Responding again to international reports that Pyongyang might
conduct a nuclear test, Mr. Ban said neighboring countries are
closely cooperating in sharing intelligence on the issue but
that he had no further details on a possible test. Earlier this
week, he warned that conducting a test would isolate Pyongyang
further. 

Last week, Seoul confirmed that Pyongyang shut down its nuclear
reactor at Yongbyon, a move to increase its nuclear arms, some
analysts speculate. 

Mr. Ban is scheduled to leave today for a three-day visit to
Chile to take part in the Third Ministerial Conference of the
Community of Democracies where a possible meeting with U.S.
Secretary of State Condoleezza could take place to discuss
outstanding issues in the nuclear disarmament talks. 

Separately, Christopher Hill, Washington's top envoy to the
six-party talks, said in Beijing yesterday that the prospects
appeared dim.

 "The future of the talks is very much uncertain at this point,"
Hill told reporters as he left his hotel and headed for Tokyo to
meet his Japanese counterpart. "We continue to have a North
Korean regime that is very ambivalent about whether it wants to
find a negotiated settlement to this." 

Both Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia have
been engaged since 2003 in negotiations to end Pyongyang's
nuclear weapons program. Mr. Hill embarked Saturday on a tour to
key countries involved, hoping to revive the talks. 

Meanwhile, Wang Guangya, China's ambassador to the United
Nations, warned Tuesday any U.S. effort to get the UN Security
Council to impose sanctions on North Korea would "destroy" the
six-party talks. 

by Brian Lee africanu@joongang.co.kr>   
	  
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 40 Bellona: Radioactive container found in Kazakhstan
 
The metal container with the 12x15 cm size without any 
identifying information was found in the forest near Aktobe city 
(former Aktyubinsk) by a car park guard, ITAR-TASS reported on 
April 18, with a reference to the local emergency department 
press-secretary Tamara Gataulina. 

2005-04-27 19:04

According to Gataulina, the gamma radiation emission at the 
surface of the container was 720 micro roentgen/hour, and 70 
micro roentgen/hour at the distance of one meter (20 micro 
roentgen/hour is normal). The specialists of the local 
sanitary-epidemic control department seized the container for 
further disposal.   

  Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 41 BBC: N Korea nuclear talks 'in doubt'
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 27 April, 2005
 
[US Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill,
right, speaks to journalists on his arrival at Beijing airport
Tuesday April 26, 2005.]                                

Christopher Hill says the US can't wait forever                                                            

America's chief envoy to North Korea has warned that the future 
of six-nation talks on the North's nuclear programme is in doubt. 

Christopher Hill said Pyongyang was "ambivalent" about a 
negotiated settlement, but stressed the US was still committed to 
the talks process. 

Tensions have risen recently, amid reports that Pyongyang might 
be preparing for a nuclear test. 

But Seoul's security chief said on Wednesday there were no signs 
of this. 

"So far, no unusual moves have been detected," Kwon Jin-ho was 
reported as saying by Yonhap news agency. 

"Such talk stems from misgivings or apprehensions in a corner of 
the US. We don't need to take it seriously," he said. 

US envoy Christopher Hill is touring North Asia for talks on how 
best to resolve the nuclear stand-off. 

"The future of talks is very much uncertain at this point," Mr 
Hill told reporters as he left his hotel in Beijing on Wednesday. 

Mr Hill said Washington, however, had not yet given up on the 
process. He has signalled that the US will not wait forever for 
Pyongyang to rejoin the talks, but would not be drawn on a 
deadline. 

"I don't want to get into artificial deadlines. We continue to 
believe that this is the best way to solve this," he said. 

Mr Hill also refused to speculate on Washington's options if 
Pyongyang does not return to diplomacy. 

"We have a lot of options but one option we don't want is to walk 
away from this [the six party talks]." 

Sanctions 

If the US does decide to abandon the talks, it has suggested one 
course of action would be to seek further sanctions against North 
Korea at the UN Security Council. 

Mr Hill's trip to China, which follows talks in South Korea, and 
precedes consultations in Japan, comes amid concerns that 
Pyongyang could be about to test a nuclear weapon. 

American newspaper reports suggest there has been increased 
activity at North Korean sites where a nuclear test could be 
carried out. 

Pyongyang has already said it possesses nuclear weapons, and that 
it intended to bolster what it calls its nuclear deterrent. 

China has already hosted three rounds of six-way talks - which 
comprised delegates from the US, Japan, Russia, China and North 
and South Korea. 

A fourth round of talks was due to be held last year, but did not 
take place because of Pyongyang's demand for concessions from the 
US and an end to what it called Washington's hostile policy. 

		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 42 BBC: Early Iraq
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 28 April, 2005
 
[Lord Goldsmith ]                               

Lord Goldsmith has said the war is lawful                                                           

The attorney general cast doubt on the legality of the war 
against Iraq without a second UN resolution, a leaked document 
says. 

In the document, which has been seen by the BBC, Lord Goldsmith 
tells Tony Blair a second resolution was the "safest legal 
course". 

Ten days later his advice raised no such concerns about legality. 

Lord Goldsmith issued a statement saying the document backed up 
the government's position. 

What the public must now ha an answer to is this: what, or who, 
changed the attorney general's mind? Michael Howard Analysis: 
Pressure grows                                

Iraq: An election issue?         
	
Tory leader Michael Howard has queried the prime minister's 
honesty, but Mr Blair insists he has not lied. 

And - in a BBC interview - he has received the public backing of 
chancellor Gordon Brown. 

But the Lib Dems said the House of Commons would not have voted 
for war if the earlier legal advice had been known about. 

The extract obtained by the BBC was sent to Mr Blair on 7 March 
2003, a fortnight before the war took place. 

In it Lord Goldsmith argues relying on the original resolution 
1441 - which required Iraq to disarm - as authorisation for the 
use of force needed "strong factual grounds" that it had been 
breached. 

The views of UNMOVIC, the UN inspection team led by Hans Blix, 
and the IAEA, the nuclear inspection team led by Mohammed 
ElBaradei would be "highly significant", the attorney general 
reportedly said. 

Mr Blair has steadfastly resisted pressure to release the full 
advice of the attorney general. 

'Further resolution' 

In the newly-leaked document, retyped from its original form, 
Lord Goldsmith says: "I remain of the opinion that the safest 
legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further 
resolution to authorise the use of force... 

"I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 
is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 
without a further resolution... 

"However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the 
authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be 
sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding 
that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity." 

	

	
KEY DATES                7 March: Early legal advice sent t Mr 
Blair 7 March: Hans Blix says Iraq accelerating co-operation 17 
March: Final legal advice given to Cabinet 17 March: Advice 
revealed in House of Lords 20 March: War starts                         
Full text of leaked memo                          The advice from 
10 days later           

	 

The legal advice was issued on the same day UN weapons inspector 
Hans Blix said more time was needed to disarm Iraq, that the 
country had accelerated its co-operation but that it could not be 
described as "immediate compliance" 

The document concludes by saying: "If we fail to achieve the 
adoption of a second resolution we would need to consider 
urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the 
light of circumstances at the time." 

In his statement, Lord Goldsmith said the document "stands up the 
case that the government has been making all along". 

"What this document does, as in any legal advice, is to go 
through the complicated arguments that led me to this view. 

"Far from showing I reached the conclusion that to go to war 
would be unlawful, it shows how I took account of all the 
arguments before reaching my conclusion." 

'Unequivocal advice' 

And he said the war in Iraq was legal, adding that this was what 
he had said to government, to Cabinet and in public at the time. 

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw told BBC News: "What changed between 
7, when that advice was written, and 17 March when the attorney 
general came to his very clear decision that military action 
without a second resolution was justified was the circumstances." 

This included evidence that had been given to Lord Goldsmith and 
others that Iraq was in breach of resolution 1441. 

But it is understood the 7 March document, with its caveats, was 
never shown to a full Cabinet meeting. 

Instead, Lord Goldsmith's later advice, described by Foreign 
Secretary Jack Straw as "unequivocal", was shown to the Cabinet 
on 17 March and made public in an answer in the House of Lords. 

If every member of the Cabin had seen a copy of that legal advice 
others may have resigned along with Robin Cook Sir Menzies 
Campbell Lord Goldsmith's statement                              
Was there a change of mind?           

The war started on 20 March. 

Mr Howard said: "It is now obvious from this legal advice that on 
7 March 2003, the attorney general raised specific reservations 
about the legality of war in Iraq. 

"But Mr Blair has said that the attorney general's advice to the 
Cabinet on 17 March was 'very clear' that the war was legal, and 
that the attorney general had not changed his mind. It is obvious 
that he did. 

"So what the public must now have an answer to is this: what, or 
who, changed the attorney general's mind?" 

The Lib Dems want a full public inquiry into the war and want 
voters to punish the Tories as well as Labour, as both supported 
the war, and choose their party instead. 

Lib Dem foreign affairs spokesman Sir Menzies Campbell said: "If 
the House of Commons had known of the contents of this advice it 
wouldn't have voted to endorse military action. 

"I strongly suspect that if every member of the Cabinet had seen 
a copy of this advice, others would have resigned, along with 
Robin Cook." 

Former international development secretary Clare Short, an 
opponent of the war, said the leak would "confirm everything that 
I have been saying - it's very serious". 

BBC political editor Andrew Marr said the document would greatly 
fuel suspicions but was not the "smoking gun" that opponents of 
the war were looking for. 

*****************************************************************
 43 presstrust.com: Pakistan has been playing with nukes for 30 years

: Indian Minister
 
Indian Minister of State for External Affairs, Shri Rao Inderjit
Singh, said that it is well known that for more than three
decades, Pakistan has actively pursued a clandestine nuclear
weapons programme. The problem of clandestine acquisition of
nuclear weapons technologies by Pakistan is a matter of deep
concern. 

In its interactions with key interlocutors, including the US,
India has consistently shared its concerns regarding the adverse
effect of such developments on India’s security. The Government
carefully monitors all such developments which have a bearing on
our security and is committed to taking all necessary steps to
safeguard the nation’s security, he added. 

Nuclear possession by a war-monger, instable, military
controlled, terrorist nation of Pakistan reminds one about the
story of the King and his pet monkey. 

*****************************************************************
 44 Independent: Search for Iraqi WMD 'has been exhausted', says report 

By
Andrew Buncombe in Washington 

27 April 2005

The claim that Saddam Hussein may have shipped an arsenal of
weapons of mass destruction to Syria just weeks before the
American-led invasion has been dismissed in a final CIA report
that said the search had "been exhausted" without result. 

In an addendum to the report he issued last autumn, Charles
Duelfer, head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), wrote: "The WMD
investigation has gone as far as [is] feasible. After more than
18 months, the WMD investigation and debriefing of the
WMD-related detainees has been exhausted." 

He added: "It was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD
material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable
to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related
materials." 

Mr Duelfer said there had been a pool of weapons experts in
Iraq, many of whom would be seeking work elsewhere. While most
would probably turn to the "benign civil sector", the danger
remained that "hostile foreign governments, terrorists or
insurgents may seek Iraqi expertise". 

He also said troops in Iraq may continue to find small numbers
of degraded chemical weapons, most likely remnants from before
1991. In the hands of an insurgent "the use of a single even
ineffectual chemical weapon would likely cause more terror than
deadlier conventional explosives". 	           

©2005 Independent News &Media (UK) Ltd.   
*****************************************************************
 45 Xinhua: No signs of DPRK preparing for nuke test - Security advisor   

  www.xinhuanet.com
    
  www.chinaview.cn 2005-04-27 10:53:24   

    SEOUL, April 27 (Xinhuanet) -- South Korea's national
security advisor said Wednesday there have been no signs of DPRK
preparing to conduct a nuclear weapons test. 

    Concerns surfaced recently that the Democratic People's
Republic of Korea might test an atomic bomb to confirm its
possession of nuclear weapons to the outside world, following
revelations that it halted the operation of a key nuclear
reactor to harvest fissile material from spent fuel rods. 

    However, Seoul's National Security Advisor Kwon Jin-ho has
dismissed such concerns as unfounded. 

    "So far, no unusual moves have been detected," he told CBS
radio, a local Christian broadcaster. "Such talk stems from
misgivings or apprehensions in a corner of the U.S. We don't
need to take it seriously." 

    Last week, a U.S. newspaper reported Washington had sent an
alarm signal to Beijing warning that the DPRK might be preparing
to conduct a nuclear arms test. 

    DPRK has long been suspected of possessing one or two
nuclear bombs. However, some analysts say its nuclear arsenal
would be significantly larger if it has already weaponized as
claimed about 8,000 spent fuel rods from the Yongbyon nuclear
reactor that had been mothballed under a 1994 accord with
Washington. 

    DPRK, the U.S. and four other regional players met three
times to try to resolve the dispute, but little progress was
made. Enditem 

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 46 MehrNews.com: Right to nuclear energy is comparable to nationalization of oil
: official           
              
Tehran: 18:01 ,                                                                                               2005/04/27  
											  [ src=]  													Print version   [ src=] 
TEHRAN, April 27 (MNA) -- Supreme National Security Council 
(SNSC) Information Committee Director Ali Agha-Mohammadi said 
here on Wednesday that the right to access nuclear energy meant 
for civilian purposes is comparable to the nationalization of oil 
in Iran and called it a very important episode in the history of 
the Islamic Republic.                                                                                 
										
 											  
In 1953, popular prime minister Mohammad Mosadeq nationalized the 
Iranian oil industry, in defiance of Western corporations. 
  
Addressing officials of the Association of Islamic Student 
Unions, Agha-Mohammadi said that since the victory of the Islamic 
Revolution, Iranâ€™s nuclear program has been a contentious issue 
between Tehran and the West, and now it has reached the stage of 
dialogue. 
  
Today, Iran is seeking a new interaction with the world, without 
interference from the United States, and it will be a move toward 
a multipolar world championed by Iran, despite the U.S. wishes, 
he stated. 
  
Agha-Mohammadi said the Europeans want to delay the Iran-European 
Union nuclear talks until after the Iranian presidential election 
and the British parliamentary election. 
  
He also expressed hope for a positive outcome at the Iran-EU 
steering committee session scheduled to be held in London on 
April 29 and said that because of security, the nuclear issue is 
one of the most important events in Iranian history. 
  
AV/HG End 
  
MNA 
    										 										
Â© 2003 Mehr News Agency                       
*****************************************************************
 47 Mos News: Russia to Get 2 Newly Equipped Nuclear Submarines in 2006 

MOSNEWS.COM
 
Created: 27.04.2005 16:20 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:20 MSK 

MosNews
 
The Russian navy will get two newly equipped nuclear submarines
in 2006. The Yuri Dolgoruky and Dmitry Donskoy submarines will
be armed with new Bulava-M intercontinental ballistic missiles,
Russia’s naval chief said.

Commander-in-chief, Admiral Vladimir Kuroyedov, was quoted by
Associated Press as saying the submarines should join the navy
by the end of next year. The missiles have a range of 8,000
kilometers (5,000 miles) and are in the midst of a three-year
testing program. Each submarine will be equipped with 12
missiles.

In December, Putin encouraged the Defense Ministry to keep up
production of new strategic missile systems, a process slowed in
the past by a shortage of funds. Construction began on the Yuri
Dolgoruky in 1996; the Dmitry Donskoy was built in 1982 and has
been undergoing thorough modernization since 1989.

Yuri Dolgoruky was a Russian prince of the 12th century, a
possible founder of Moscow. Dmitry Donskoy, a Moscow prince, won
a significant victory over the Tatars in the 14th century.
 
  Write us: <b>info@mosnews.com</b>
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 48 [southnews] A Global Pact Against Depleted Uranium
 
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2005 23:38:09 -0500 (CDT)

 
------------------------ 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/MCfFmA/SOnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

During September of 2004 Francis Boyle launched an international 
campaign to conclude a global pact against depleted uranium (DU) 
munitions by having every state in the world officially and publicly 
take the position that the Geneva Protocol of 1925 already includes 
within itself a flat-out prohibition on the use of DU in wartime, which 
they have no yet done. So far the United States is the only government 
in the world that uses DU munitions during wartime..

A Global Pact Against Depleted Uranium

 From Francis Boyle, www.rense.com
April 24, 2005

During September of 2004 I launched an international campaign to 
conclude a global pact against depleted uranium (DU) munitions by having 
every state in the world officially and publicly take the position that 
the Geneva Protocol of 1925 already includes within itself a flat-out 
prohibition on the use of DU in wartime, which they have no yet done. So 
far the United States is the only government in the world that uses DU 
munitions during wartime. In addition to prohibiting "the use of 
bacteriological methods of warfare," the 1925 Geneva Protocol also 
prohibits "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and 
of all analogous liquids, materials, or devices." Clearly DU is 
"analogous" to poison gas.[i] But we need every government in the world 
to legally and openly take that position. Then the entire world can 
pressure the United States to remove DU munitions from its arsenal.

Politically, the easiest way to accomplish that objective is not the 
conclusion of a new international treaty prohibiting the use of DU, but 
rather simply having every state in the world submit an interpretative 
Letter to that effect to the Government of France, which is the official 
depositary for the 1925 Geneva Protocol. This latter approach would also 
avoid the need to have the respective national legislatures of every 
state in the world to approve a new anti-DU treaty and thus complicate 
and prolong the process. All that needs to be done is for anti-DU 
citizens, activists and NGOs in each country of the world to pressure 
and convince their respective Foreign Ministers to sign, date, and then 
file this model Letter with the French Foreign Minister as indicated 
below. That task is eminently feasible.

As the Land Mines Treaty has already demonstrated, it is possible for a 
coalition of determined activists and NGOs, acting in concert with at 
least one sympathetic state, such as Canada, to actually bring into 
being an international treaty to address humanitarian concerns. This 
template Letter is for the use of concerned citizens, activists and NGOs 
worldwide, to pursue through universal governmental participation the 
complete and final elimination of DU munitions from the face of the earth:

His Excellency Michel Barnier

Foreign Minister
French Republic
37, Quai d'Orsay
75351 Paris
FRANCE

FAX: 33-1-43-17-4275

Dear Excellency:

The Republic of X presents its compliments to the French Republic. I 
have the honor to draw to your attention the Protocol for the 
Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, 
and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare of 17 June 1925, for which the 
Government of the French Republic serves as the depositary. The Geneva 
Protocol of 1925 prohibits the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or 
other gases, and of all analogous liquids, materials or devices, as well 
as the use of bacteriological methods of warfare. The government of X 
believes that the Geneva Protocol of 1925 already prohibits the use in 
war of depleted uranium, uranium ammunition, uranium armor-plate and all 
other uranium weapons. We respectfully request your Excellency to 
circulate this communication to the other High Contracting Parties to 
the Geneva Protocol of 1925.

Please accept, Excellency, the assurance of our highest consideration.

Foreign Minister

Republic of X

Day, Month, Year

---------------------------

[i] International Action Center, Metal of Dishonor:
Depleted Uranium (2d ed. 1999).

Francis A. Boyle
Law Building
504 E. Pennsylvania Ave.
Champaign, IL 61820 USA
217-333-7954 (voice)
217-244-1478 (fax)
email: fboyle@law.uiuc.edu

(personal comments only)

:: The incoming address of this article is :
    www.rense.com/general64/ddi.htm

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/
*****************************************************************
 49 [du-list] DU "death sentence"
 
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2005 14:16:36 -0700

 
<x-flowed>

       http://www.newstarget.com/007172.html
        Tuesday, April 26, 2005 Commentary | Home
             Antiwar activists say depleted uranium has led to 11,000 
American deaths

             Arthur Bernklau, an advocate with the Veterans for 
Constitutional Law, an antiwar group, says that depleted uranium weapons 
used in the first Gulf War have caused the deaths of 11,000 soldiers. 
Bernklau says that 584,000 soldiers served in Gulf War I and 11,000 of them 
are now dead. 325,000 are on permanent medical disability.
             Bernklau stated that the long-term effect of depleted uranium 
weapons are a "virtual death sentence", and that the departure of Anthony 
Principi as secretary of the Veterans Affairs Department was triggered by 
the scandal of the deaths. Bernklau says that over half of those who served 
in Gulf War I have permanent medical problems.

             See more articles like this one at www.Newstarget.com

             Get news like this delivered to your email address. Our 
information can help protect your health. We also protect your privacy by 
never sharing email addresses. (Email privacy certified by Relemail.com).

             Your email:
             Read our privacy policy.

             Original news summary: 
(http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/du_death_toll.html)


               a.. The death toll from the highly toxic weapons component 
known as depleted uranium (DU) has reached 11,000 soldiers and the growing 
scandal may be the reason behind Anthony Principi's departure as secretary 
of the Veterans Affairs Department.
               b.. This view was expressed by Arthur Bernklau, executive 
director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, writing in 
Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter.
               c.. "The real reason for Mr. Principi's departure was really 
never given," Bernklau said.
               d.. "However, a special report published by eminent 
scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of 
'Gulf War Syndrome' has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of 
uranium munitions by the U.S. military."
               e.. Of the 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 
are now dead, he said.
               f.. The disability rate for veterans of the world wars of 
the last century was 5 percent, rising to 10 percent in Vietnam.
               g.. "He and the Bush administration have been hiding these 
facts, but now, thanks to Moret's report, it is far too big to hide or to 
cover up."
               h.. Terry Johnson, public affairs specialist at the VA, 
recently reported that veterans of both Persian Gulf wars now on disability 
total 518,739, Bernklau said.
               i.. "The long-term effect of DU is a virtual death 
sentence," Bernklau said.
               j.. "Marion Fulk, a nuclear chemist, who retired from the 
Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved in the 
Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the 
soldiers [from the second war] as 'spectacular'---and a matter of concern.'
               k.. While this important story appeared in a Washington 
newspaper and the wire services, it did not receive national exposure---a 
compelling sign that the American public is being kept in the dark about 
the terrible effects of this toxic weapon.





       Arthur Bernklau, an advocate with the Veterans for Constitutional 
Law, an antiwar group, says that depleted uranium weapons used in the first 
Gulf War have caused the deaths of 11,000 soldiers. Bernklau says that 
584,000 soldiers served in Gulf War I and 11,000 of them are now dead. 
325,000 are on permanent medical disability.
       Bernklau stated that the long-term effect of depleted uranium 
weapons are a "virtual death sentence", and that the departure of Anthony 
Principi as secretary of the Veterans Affairs Department was triggered by 
the scandal of the deaths. Bernklau says that over half of those who served 
in Gulf War I have permanent medical problems.

       See more articles like this one at www.Newstarget.com

       Get news like this delivered to your email address. Our information 
can help protect your health. We also protect your privacy by never sharing 
email addresses. (Email privacy certified by Relemail.com).

       Your email:
       Read our privacy policy.

       Original news summary: 
(http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/du_death_toll.html)


         a.. The death toll from the highly toxic weapons component known 
as depleted uranium (DU) has reached 11,000 soldiers and the growing 
scandal may be the reason behind Anthony Principi's departure as secretary 
of the Veterans Affairs Department.
         b.. This view was expressed by Arthur Bernklau, executive director 
of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, writing in Preventive 
Psychiatry E-Newsletter.
         c.. "The real reason for Mr. Principi's departure was really never 
given," Bernklau said.
         d.. "However, a special report published by eminent scientist 
Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of 'Gulf War 
Syndrome' has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium 
munitions by the U.S. military."
         e.. Of the 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are 
now dead, he said.
         f.. The disability rate for veterans of the world wars of the last 
century was 5 percent, rising to 10 percent in Vietnam.
         g.. "He and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, 
but now, thanks to Moret's report, it is far too big to hide or to cover up."
         h.. Terry Johnson, public affairs specialist at the VA, recently 
reported that veterans of both Persian Gulf wars now on disability total 
518,739, Bernklau said.
         i.. "The long-term effect of DU is a virtual death sentence," 
Bernklau said.
         j.. "Marion Fulk, a nuclear chemist, who retired from the Lawrence 
Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved in the Manhattan 
Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers [from 
the second war] as 'spectacular'---and a matter of concern.'
         k.. While this important story appeared in a Washington newspaper 
and the wire services, it did not receive national exposure---a compelling 
sign that the American public is being kept in the dark about the terrible 
effects of this toxic weapon.




   ----------

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.3 - Release Date: 4/25/05


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Has someone you know been affected by illness or disease?
Network for Good is THE place to support health awareness efforts!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/RzSHvD/UOnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->

To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
     du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 50 SABCnews.com: 'High' Pelindaba nuclear levels being probed - NNR

south_africa/general
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright ©

April 27, 2005, 13:00
          
Claims of high nuclear radiation levels in the vicinity of
Pelindaba near Pretoria are being investigated, the National
Nuclear Regulator (NNR) said today. It said it had instructed
the Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA (Necsa) to secure the site
and put up signs around the area.
 
"There is no need for panic by the public and certainly no need
for evacuation," the regulator said in a statement in
Johannesburg. 

Environmental body Earthlife Africa yesterday called for an
urgent probe into the matter. It said in a statement: "A mere
20m away from a newly established low-cost housing scheme a site
has been discovered where it appears radioactive materials have
been buried." It appeared as if radioactive ores were
"deliberately" buried in shallow concrete containers, with an
open gate and inadequate warning signs, said Earthlife.
 
The regulator said it viewed the allegations in a serious light.
"We have initiated an independent investigation into this
matter. The NNR is committed in fulfilling its regulatory
mandate and in this regard we will issue a follow up press
statement on Friday." The NNR denied assertions that Pelindaba
was a dumping site. "This was a calibration site used for
various types of detectors."
 
The regulator added: "Following the investigation, the NNR will
issue appropriate sanctions on Necsa." - Sapa

*****************************************************************
 51 Hawk Eye Newspaper: Panel hears criticism for delay 
 	
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST   
      
Grassley, Harkin, Leach chastise advisory board over slowness of
medical payments to former weapons workers. 

By KILEY MILLER 

kmiller@thehawkeye.com 

CEDAR RAPIDS — Iowa's congressional delegation fired missiles
Monday at the Department of Justice for "11th hour" interference
in the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant worker compensation mess and
at a ponderous and insensitive bureaucracy. 

To cheers from men and women who marched the production lines at
the ordnance plant during the Cold War, Sens. Charles Grassley
and Tom Harkin and Rep. Jim Leach told the Advisory Board on
Radiation and Worker Health that 4 1/2 years was too long for
former nuclear weapons workers to wait for medical and financial
assistance. 

Grassley dropped a bomb on the board proceedings with news the
Justice Department had issued a verbal legal opinion Friday
suggesting classified information could and should be used when
necessary in assessing claims from sick workers. 

The Republican senator called the opinion an "underhanded
tactic" and evidence of an effort in Washington to discredit the
compensation process. 

"I strongly believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant, and
I plan to do some deep cleaning," Grassley said. 

Advisory board members showed their discomfort with using
classified information at a meeting in February when they voted
to grant automatic compensation to IAAP workers sick with
cancer. 

That recommendation never moved forward to the Department of
Health and Human Services, a failure both Grassley and Harkin
said only heightened the workers' cynicism toward Washington. 

Now comes the opinion from the Office of Legal Counsel. Staffers
for both senators said they were uncertain which government
agency approached the Justice Department with the classification
question. 

But both sides said it was apparently not the National Institute
of Occupational Safety and Health, which handles technical
aspects of compensating government energy workers. 

Richard Miller, a policy analyst for the Government
Accountability Project said late in the day that individuals
within the Justice Department had indicated the Department of
Health and Human Services requested the opinion. 

But Miller said contacts within HHS denied that claim. 

That could leave either the Department of Labor, which has
ultimate control over what workers get compensated, or the
Office of Management and Budget, the government's accountant. 

Kurt Kovarek, a legislative aide for Grassley, said he had never
before heard of a verbal opinion from the Justice Department and
was uncertain if it had any teeth. 

Ultimately, the bureaucratic web lent credibility to the
skeptics. 

"Today, claimants are being asked to trust compensation
decisions by the same government that placed them in harm's
way," Grassley said. "The same government that failed to protect
them or fully inform them of the dangerous nature of their
work." 

Harkin illustrated the integrity problem with an anecdote. 

The senator related the story of the letter he received from
Robert Anderson, a security supervisor at the plant who later
developed non–Hodgkin's lymphoma, that first brought the nuclear
weapons program to his attention in the late 1990s. 

Harkin forwarded the letter to the Department of Army, only to
be told nuclear weapons were never assembled at the plant. 

"I (contacted) Mr. Anderson and said, I'm sorry you were
mistaken," Harkin remembered, drawing a laugh from workers in
the crowd who remembered the cloak–and–dagger security
surrounding the Atomic Energy Commission operations. "I don't
know where you worked but —." 

Harkin questioned the information being used to determine
whether IAAP workers with cancer are eligible for government
payments. 

Before a poster board with the heading "Adequate?" the senator
laid out reasons why he feels the data is, in fact, inadequate. 

Primarily, he was bothered by spotty radiation monitoring at the
plant. 

IAAP workers received no medals, despite being on the "front
lines of the Cold War," Harkin said. Now many are tormented by
cancer. 

Congress passed the compensation program to offer some measure
of "recognition and recompense," he said. 

"I have come here, today," Harkin told the advisory board
members, " to remind the board of the simple purpose of that
law: At long last, to provide compensation."   
  
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 
· 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · 
*****************************************************************
 52 Hawk Eye Newspaper: Emotions come out 
 	
Tuesday, April 26, 2005 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST   
      
By KILEY MILLER 

kmiller@thehawkeye.com 

CEDAR RAPIDS — When Anita Loving's father died of cancer three
weeks ago, she grieved. 

Then she got angry. 

Loving brought that anger with her Monday to a meeting of an
advisory board considering what the government owes to men and
women who built nuclear warheads in a secret weapons program at
the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant in Middletown. 

Sobbing openly, Loving challenged members of the Advisory Board
on Radiation and Worker Health and administrators from its
parent agency, the National Institute for Occupational Safety
and Health, to "look (her) in the eyes" and say whether they
would accept jobs on Line 1, where the nuclear program went on
underground for two and a half decades. 

"... When I told my last I love you to my dad and he told me,
'Don't give up the fight,' that's what I'm doing," Loving said,
her voice trapped between desperation and defiance. 

Wendell Pirtle, Loving's father, died April 3, just one week
after doctors found cancer invading his pelvis and lung. He
worked for the Atomic Energy Commission from at least 1958 until
1974, the year the nuclear weapons effort was scuttled. 

Loving's mother Mary Frances also worked on Line 1. She died of
cancer 10 years ago. 

"You're dealing with human lives," Loving told the board. 

Two months can be a lifetime for people with a loved one who
used to work at the ammunition plant. 

Back in February, the advisory board voted to recommend to the
Department of Health and Human Services that all workers with
certain types of cancer who spent at least 250 days on Line 1
between 1949 and 1974 get $150,000 and medical coverage from the
federal government. 

The money was available through the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, legislation
passed through Congress in 2000 to aid thousands of nuclear
weapons workers who toiled in silence building the country's
nuclear arsenal only to learn years later their work may have
just as silently been killing them. 

After years of battling, satisfaction for workers and their
families seemed a breath away. 

Now it's April. The clock has ticked away. Rather than
celebrating, the same people from the plant are facing the same
board asking for the same benefits. 

What happened? 

The compensation program relies on what are called dose
reconstructions, sophisticated guesstimates by NIOSH of how much
radiation a worker's body absorbed on the job. 

If the information for accurate reconstructions is missing or
unavailable, workers can petition for inclusion in what is
called the Special Exposure Cohort. By definition, anyone in the
cohort gets automatic compensation when diagnosed with one of 22
cancers. 

When the advisory board voted to add IAAP workers to the cohort,
the decision centered on the narrow philosophy that classified
information should not be used in dose reconstructions. 

In March, NIOSH came out with a new Technical Basis Document for
estimating radiation doses at IAAP. This lengthy summation of
plant procedures lessened the need for classified information by
relying heavily on scientific models. 

In a flash, the board's insistence on transparency was
irrelevant. 

The board members came to Cedar Rapids with the same basic task:
Review the IAAP petition and pass a recommendation to Health and
Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt. 

The new issue is actually an old one; whether the radiation
monitoring data used to create the technical basis document will
stand up to peer review. 

Most of Monday's meeting, with the exception of an hour taken up
with comments by U.S. Sens. Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley and
Rep. Jim Leach, was spent on that issue. 

NIOSH scientist Tim Taulbee defended the new technical basis
document, which radically increases the radiation exposures for
workers before 1963 compared to previous estimates, but does not
offer nearly as much help for workers after that year. 

Laurence Fuortes, a University of Iowa physician studying the
health of former workers, challenged Taulbee on several points. 

First and foremost, Fuortes and others laboring for the workers
believe too little radiation monitoring occurred at the plant
for dose reconstructions, period. 

From a layman's viewpoint, the numbers seem to bear that
argument out. Beginning in 1963, as few as 1 in 20 and never
more than 1 in 4 workers on Line 1 wore monitoring badges. 

Also, security guards and workers in some other specialties
apparently were never monitored. 

NIOSH used termination paperwork to identify what jobs the
monitored workers held, Fuortes said, without taking into
consideration that many people changed positions several times
within the plant. 

Finally, Fuortes questioned the extensive use of modeling within
the technical basis document. 

As a teacher, Fuortes said he instills in his students a belief
that "ignorance is the first step toward enlightenment." 

"I certainly don't recognize" that philosophy in a scientist who
would rely so extensively on "surrogate data," Fuortes said. 

Some of the doctor's comments echoed concerns raised by S. Cohen
&Associates, a firm hired to audit NIOSH. 

Specifically, John Mauro, the company's project manager for the
audit, addressed the small monitoring sample as a problem after
1963. 

For claims prior to that year, Mauro said NIOSH was "very"
generous to claimants in estimating radiation levels. 

But, Mauro, whose company got just one month to review the SEC
process, said the agency went too far in estimating workers
would have been in contact with radioactive "pits," the fissile
core of nuclear warheads, for just one hour a day. 

In addition, one of his colleagues questioned why NIOSH
officials had not traveled to Amarillo, Texas, to review 130
boxes of IAAP records stored at the Pantex nuclear weapons
facility there. Instead, the agency requested only a portion of
the documents. 

"It's a plane ticket to Amarillo," said John Fitzgerald, who
works for a subcontractor hired by SC for the audit, "it's a
walk through for a couple of days and you'll have a pretty good
idea of what has to be done." 

All the jargon and technical mumbo–jumbo may be necessary for
the advisory board to make a decision. But it also sanitizes for
many what is an emotional issue. 

Sie Iverson worked at the plant twice for a total of 19 years.
Now he is a leader in the fight for compensation, 

"It's got to end," Iverson told the board as the long meeting
wound down. "I've lost too many friends, too many people I went
to church with, too many people I sat down at the nearest bar to
drink with."   
  
The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 
· 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · webmaster@thehawkeye.com
*****************************************************************
 53 Tri-Valley Herald: Oakland port gets radiation detectors
 			 			 				 				 				
Article Last Updated: 04/27/2005 03:56:34 AM                              
                   
Every terminal now has technology to scan containers for weapons
 			 			 			 			 			 			 
  By Paul T. Rosynsky, STAFF WRITER   

OAKLAND — It took a little more than a year and almost $4 million 
but the Port of Oakland is now the most secure port in the nation 
when it comes to detecting radiation in shipping containers, U.S. 
Bureau of Customs and Border Protection officials said Tuesday. 

Unveiling one of its most prized achievements in the war against 
terrorism, the bureau showcased its radiation portal monitor, a 
toll-booth like structure that detects radiation. 

And they chose Oakland for the unveiling because it is the first 
port in the nation to have every terminal guarded by the new 
technology. 

All international container traffic that arrives in Oakland is 
now screened for nuclear materials or any source of radiation, 
said Nat Aycox, field director for the bureaus San Francisco 
office. This program is part of our layer enforcement strategy to 
protect the country. 

At a cost of about $150,000 each, the 25 portals work like a 
metal detector at the airport. Trucks drive through at a non-stop 
pace as the machine reads its cargo searching for the dreaded 
dirty bomb or any item emitting radiation. 

Inside a white booth just feet away, one or two customs agents 
stare at a computer screen deciphering lines on the monitor which 
look similar to a heart rate monitor. 

Any sign of radiation, and the machine alerts the agent, who 
stops the truck for a more thorough check. 

Bureau officials lauded the portals Tuesday saying they mark a 
significant achievement in their quest to secure the nations 
borders. 

The Homeland Security Department, in which the Customs Bureau is 
located, has been criticized for its allocation of funding and 
efforts at securing the nations ports. 

So Tuesdays announcement was part pep rally as agents celebrated 
a new achievement. 

By the end of the year, every port in California should have the 
portals in place at every terminal. Eventually all 300 ports in 
the country will have them in place, officials said. 

The net is closing in, it is getting tighter every day, said 
Steve Baxter, chief of enforcement for the bureaus Oakland 
division. 

Those who have studied the nations reaction to terrorism agree 
but cautioned it is only one step in many that need to be taken.
				 				 					 					 					 						 					 	 	 	 	 	 		 		 		 		
It is certainly something people have been clamoring for, said 
Daniel Prieto, research director of the Homeland Security 
Partnership Initiative at Harvard University. It says to you that 
they are more attuned. 

Oaklands drive to install the portals began in December 2003 when 
it signed a deal with the federal government to begin work on the 
portals. 

At first, the system was estimated to cost about $1.5 million. 
That figure ballooned to almost $5 million several months later 
once more detailed plans were unveiled. 

Part of the problem was trying to balance the movement of goods 
with making sure those goods are secure. The government along 
with scientists at the Pacific Northwest National Labs devised
the monitor system. 

It calls for the construction of three portals at every terminal. 
Two portals are used on a regular basis as trucks move commerce 
through the ports. 

The third is a back-up, used when the first set detects some sort 
of radiation. And that happens at least 20 times a day, Baxter 
said. 

Since the portals are sensitive to any radiation, items such as 
bananas — which contain radiation-emitting potassium — and 
mineral-laden clay pots or other earthenware set off the alarm, 
sending a trucker to the third portal. There, customs agents do 
an inspection with a hand-held device to see what kind of 
radiation is being emitted. 

If it matches that of what the container is supposed to be 				
carrying, the truck is allowed to deliver its goods. 

While the system is not fool-proof, security experts said it 
marks a significant improvement over the current system. 

It raises the bar higher, said Larry Howard, acting chair of the 
department of business administration at the California Maritime 
Academy. It makes the terrorists jump through more hoops and that 
is what security is all about.                                                                                                                                                                     
 			    				 					 					 					 				 			   			    				 					
© 2005 ANG Newspapers 
*****************************************************************
 54 Public Citizen: Closure of Irradiation Plant Is a Victory for 
Community, Consumers
 
April 26, 2005 

Statement of Wenonah Hauter, Director, Public Citizens Food
Program 

The announcement by CFC Logistics that it plans to shut down its
controversial Milford Township, Pa., food irradiation facility
is great news, not only for the community surrounding this
facility but also for consumers who do not want their food to be
irradiated. The closure serves as an example of how empowered
citizens can triumph in the end. 

This facility, which used radioactive cobalt 60 to irradiate
food, brought unwanted risk to its neighbors so that a company
could cash in on a questionable and unnecessary treatment for
food. Residents were rightly concerned about the highly
radioactive material being transported through the community and
raised questions as to whether it was adequately secured. 

CFC Logistics joins SureBeam, formerly the largest irradiation
company in the United States that went bankrupt and closed its
facilities in 2003, in demonstrating that despite aggressive
promotion by both industry and government, there is no consumer
demand for irradiated food. CFC was planning to provide the
irradiation for ground beef purchased by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture for the National School Lunch Program  a plan that
did not materialize because schools questioned health impacts on
children and did not want to pay for the higher-priced
irradiated meat. Irradiation exposes food to a high dose of
ionizing radiation, which results in the formation of chemical
byproducts, some of which have been found to promote cancer
development and cause cellular damage in rats, and cause genetic
and cellular damage to human cells. 

Instead, school systems across the country have adopted policies
banning irradiated food from their cafeterias, and school
administrators in countless other districts have decided that
proper cooking of ground beef is a better alternative to serving
children irradiated food whose long-term health impacts are not
yet known. 

Despite this plants closure, CFC still must live up to the
responsibility it took on when the company opened this plant and
safely remove the radioactive cobalt inside this facility.   It
is also vital that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which
licensed this plant in the face of overwhelming community
opposition in 2003, fully disclose to the public how much
radioactive material is present at the site and work with the
public to develop an adequate removal and cleanup plan. 
### 

Public Citizen
*****************************************************************
 55 Election 2005 news : Salmond demands answers on depleted uranium
 
uk politics news site politics.co.uk
 [politics.co.uk] <img

Updated, Thursday, 28 Apr 2005 06:45 GMT
         
 Wednesday, 27 Apr 2005 14:01 [Salmond wants nuclear answers]
Salmond wants nuclear answers

SNP leader Alex Salmond has demanded a review of test firing
practises for depleted uranium shells after it was revealed a
local fisherman had discovered a partial shell in the Solway
Firth. 

Speaking at a press conference in Dumfries, Mr Salmond unveiled
a letter from Armed Forces Minister Adam Ingram supposedly
admitting that four 'essentially complete' depleted uranium
shells had been found at Kirkcudbright firing range. 

Mr Salmond said a complete rethink on the procedures for
depleted uranium test firing were needed, saying it would be a
big issue in the SNP's campaign.

"Of course, essentially complete is a nice way of saying
incomplete, and that means fragments from these shells - and the
thousands of others fired into the sea - could remain in local
waters and in the local environment.

"I want to know what action the Ministry of Defence has taken to
trace particles and what action they plan to make sure no more
military uranium finds its way onto this beautiful stretch of
Scottish coast."

Pointing out there was international concern about the long term
affects of depleted uranium fragments in the food chain, Mr
Salmond said: "This raises huge questions for both the Labour
and Tory campaigns. It has been two years since Peter Duncan has
raised the issue of depleted uranium testing at Dundrennan in
the Commons - local voters would be entitled to ask what on
earth has he been doing over the last two years?

"If this was happening in the Moray Firth in my area I'd make
sure it was national news until something was done about it. If
Douglas Henderson had been MP for this area then it would have
been the subject of special parliamentary debates, indeed as it
was when Alasdair Morgan was MP. In contrast rip van Duncan has
been asleep at his post."

The SNP is campaigning strongly against the basing of nuclear
missiles and power stations in Scotland.

Separately, the Scottish Greens called on the Government to
scrap all nuclear weapons in Scotland and use the money to
tackle poverty.

With a decision on the replacing Trident - which is based in
Scotland - expected next year, the Greens are campaigning
against any new system.

Green MSP Chris Balance, said: "Most people want to see nuclear
weapons removed from Scottish soil and the billions saved spent
on reducing poverty, investing in health and education, and on
overseas aid. The Iraq war is rightly an issue in this election
- but so should we be looking at the future of WMD in Scotland.
Peace is a key theme of the Greens election. The message is
simple - if you want to vote for peace, vote Green." 

Â© 2005 www.politics.co.uk. About Us |
*****************************************************************
 56 Brattleboro Reformer:  Dry cask question heats up
 
Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
 			 								 					
Article Published: Wednesday, April 27, 2005 -
 		   	 	
By CAROLYN LORIÉ Reformer Staff

MONTPELIER -- Despite plans to the contrary, the House Natural
Resources and Energy Committee has yet to craft a final bill on
dry cask storage for Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant.

 A major stumbling block has been whether the state should
collect an annual fee from plant owner Entergy Nuclear for the
right to store spent fuel.

 A quirk in state law gives the Legislature authority over
whether Entergy can seek permission from the Public Service
Board for the new storage plan. And majority Democrats have
argued that Entergy should pay for that right.

 Two of the committee's four Republican members have indicated
that they would not approve a bill that includes such a charge.

 There are 11 committee members. In addition to the four
Republicans, there are five Democrats and one Progressive.

 Though there were enough votes to pass the bill, Chairman
Richard Dostis, D-Waterbury, said he did not want to divide the
committee, especially along party lines. 

"I think we can find some compromise," said Dostis, after
Tuesday's hearing.

 Because the chairman will be out this Friday and next Tuesday,
the earliest a bill could be finalized is next Wednesday. Once
it is voted out of the Natural Resources and Energy Committee,
it can be picked up by another committee or sent to the House
floor for a vote.

 Entergy officials have made it clear that they would like the
Legislature to make a decision before the end of the session,
which is usually mid to late May.

 Once approval is given by the Legislature, the matter goes
before the Vermont Public Service Board. The court-like process
of granting approval can take up to a year.

 According to company calculations, the indoor, 40-foot deep
pool where the used fuel rods are now stored will be filled to
capacity by 2008. That date would get bumped to 2007 if the
company gets the go-ahead from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
to increase power production by 20 percent. A decision on
Vermont Yankee's application is pending. No date has been set by
the NRC as to when the review process will be completed.

 Because the federal government has failed to live up to its
commitment to open a national high-level nuclear waste
repository, the industry developed temporary on-site storage
containers known as dry casks.

 Many legislators have questioned the meaning of "temporary" as
no one is certain how long it will be, if ever, before the waste
is removed. The potential long-term burden to the state has, in
part, been the motivating force behind wanting Entergy to pay an
annual fee. The money -- anywhere from $4 million to $8 million
a year -- would be placed in a renewable energy fund.

 Others, however, worry that demanding a fee could be a
financial hardship for the company, prompting it to shut the
plant down prematurely. The current license expires in 2012,
though it is expected that Entergy officials will apply to the
NRC for a 20-year license extension.

 One third of Vermont's electricity comes from Vermont Yankee.
Because of a purchase agreement established during the sale of
the plant in 2002, the rates paid are below market price.

 Company officials have made it clear that they are opposed to
any kind of charge, both on financial and philosophical grounds.

 On Tuesday, Kenneth Theobalds, director of government affairs
for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, told the committee that the
company does not stand to profit from dry cask storage, so there
is no revenue to share with the state.

 He also claimed that, though the company understands and
advocates the need for renewable energy, it was unfair for the
state to fund a renewable energy policy "on [Entergy's] back."

 Richard Cowart, director of the Regulatory Assistance Project,
former chairman of the Public Service Board and consultant to
the committee, countered that testimony later in the afternoon.

 Many parties, said Cowart, are expected to invest in the
state's quest for renewable energy, including Vermont's
utilities and ratepayers.

 Cowart also challenged the idea that Entergy might shut the
plant down early out of financial concerns if they were assessed
a charge for dry cask storage.

 Because Entergy is a private company it does not have to reveal
financial information that it deems proprietary, making it
difficult for legislators to know what it can reasonable pay in
fees.

 Cowart, however, presented predications for Vermont Yankee's
cash flow, using figures that were made public in 1999 when the
plant was being sold to Entergy. Though he stressed that the
numbers were only predications, he stated that the company would
not suffer from a yearly charge, in the amounts being discussed,
for dry cask storage.

 According to the calculations, Vermont Yankee stands to have a
cash flow of approximately $211 million between 2005 and 2011 --
an average of $29 million a year.

 If the plant is allowed to increase power production by 20
percent, the yearly figure jumps to $41 million on the low end
to $83 million on the high end.

 Cowart encouraged the committee to not get too bogged down in
the particular numbers. Instead, he suggested that a bill
contain language that would include a yearly fee, but that the
particulars get ironed out before the Public Service Board.

 Dostis said he was hopeful that Entergy would back off from the
absolute position of not wanting to pay a fee and instead come
to the table with a counter proposal.

 In addition to an annual charge, local committee members Rep.
Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, and Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney,
said there are several conditions they want included in a final
bill.

 Among them are the provision that Entergy return to the
Legislature when applying for license extension; that the state
maintain control over the particulars of where the casks are
located and how they are protected and that radiation monitor
readouts go directly to the Vermont Department of Health.

 Both have stated that they will not pass a bill without these
conditions, even if doing so delays the process for another year.

 During the hearing, Edwards pointed out that the bill to build
Vermont Yankee in the late 1960s was passed by one vote. Had
legislators known that the storage issue would turn out to be so
vexing and potentially costly, she speculated that the vote
would have turned out differently.

 "What we have on our hands now presents a long-term disturbing
problem," said Edwards.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 		   	 	
 		   			 		   	 	
Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., 
*****************************************************************
 57 San Bernardino County Sun: Water district, Rialto join to fight perchlorate

Article Published: Tuesday, April 26, 2005 -
 		   	 	
By Nikki Cobb, Staff Writer

RIALTO - For the first time since the discovery of a plume of
toxic perchlorate that threatens the wells of two water systems,
the city and the West Valley Water District are working together
toward a solution to the problem.

 "The plume that is affecting us is the same plume that is
affecting them,' said Mayor Pro Tem Joe Sampson. "We could form
maybe some partnerships in some areas and accomplish more if we
put forth our efforts jointly.'

 Councilwoman Winnie Hanson agreed. She said a Tuesday night
workshop involving city and water district officials was more
than informational. It was intended as a forum to come to an
understanding.

 "We know what we're doing, they know what they're doing. But we
need to help each other out,' Hanson said.

 But relations have been strained between Rialto and the
district because of differing opinions on how to address the
problem.

 Rialto is suing the U.S. Department of Defense for its role in
the perchlorate contamination. 

THE West Valley Water District has been less aggressive in its
litigation, having only sued Emhart, which made flares for the
department.

 Rialto City Attorney Robert A. Owen said the two water
providers have not always seen eye-to-eye on how to fund
perchlorate cleanup.

 "What you've got are two professional agencies, each with their
own way of doing things,' Owen said.

 The city and the district each provide water to about half of
Rialto.

 The district also serves parts of Colton, Fontana and
unincorporated county areas.

 The city and the district have several wells contaminated with
perchlorate.

 Perchlorate salts are man-made compounds, used for such
purposes as rocket fuel, fireworks, matches and explosives.

 Its presence in Rialto dates back to World War II, when the
U.S. military stored ammunition and other perchlorate-containing
equipment in the city.

 Perchlorate exposure can interfere with the ability of the
thyroid gland to take up iodide. Children and developing fetuses
are most susceptible and can suffer developmental defects if
exposed.

 Rialto and the West Valley Water District treat affected wells
using ion exchange, cleaning the water to the point where
perchlorate isn't detectable.

 But the cleanup is costly. Installing ion exchange filters,
which remove the perchlorate salts, involves an initial outlay
of about $1 million. After that, it costs $300,000 or more per
year per well to maintain the well's purity.

 "It's the most expensive method. But it's the only method
that's universally accepted,' Sampson said. "There are other
methods but none universally accepted in the scientific
community.'

 Anthony "Butch' Araiza, the water district's general manager,
won't rule out filing additional lawsuits in the future. He said
Rialto could help the water district in its efforts.

 "We need to work together to get the perchlorate cleaned up,'
he said. "And we can work together to keep the costs down. That
should be our major goal.'

 "If these lawsuits go on for a long time, this could become a
very costly process,' Araiza said. 		   	 	
 		   			 		   	 	
        Copyright © 2005 Los Angeles Newspaper Group     
*****************************************************************
 58 Lahontan Valley News: Yucca Mountain revelations erode public confidence

Opinion
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
April 27, 2005        
                                                          
 The public's confidence in Yucca Mountain is melting as fast as
the snowpack in the Sierra as information about potentially
flawed data surfaces and leadership of the Department of
Energy's project appears to be a hot potato.

The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which
oversees Yucca Mountain, is in an apparent state of flux. DOE
officials poohed poohed the latest change of leadership as a
planned retirement, but it's highly coincidental given recent
leaks that workers may have falsified data.

The DOE stubbornly plans to move forward with the project,
although the planned completion date of 2010 has evidently been
discarded in light of the new revelations about suspect data.
Criminal investigations have been launched within both the
Department of the Interior and DOE.

The problems with Yucca Mountain ought to give all Americans
pause about the viability of the project and how this country
should dispose of nuclear waste. 

Many states see Yucca Mountain as an easy way to get nuke waste
out of their backyard and into someone else's. Ship it to
Nevada, they say, and bury it. It's all desert, anyway.

However, if the repository itself is not the ideal geological
site we have been led to believe by our own government, what
about the transportation of thousands of casks of waste across
the county and through Nevada? Can we trust the data about the
safety of shipping nuclear waste?

No, the information coming out about Yucca Mountain is far too
serious to let the project proceed. 

If the science that DOE used to support its decision to make
Yucca Mountain the nation's nuke dump is indeed tainted, any
plan to move this dangerous substance should be put on hold
indefinitely. 

High-level nuclear waste should stay where it's at until science
finds a better solution than burying it in Nevada.

All contents © Copyright 2005 lahontanvalleynews.com
Lahontan Valley News and Fallon Eagle Standard - 562 North
Maine Street - Fallon, NV 89406 			 		   	 

*****************************************************************
 59 Deseret News: Dugway and TAD at risk 

[deseretnews.com] 

Wednesday, April 27, 2005 

Both bases could face cuts in new BRAC round 

By Leigh Dethman Deseret Morning News 

Gary Arthur works with armor added to a five-ton truck at Tooele 
Army Deport. The base's future isn't assured. 

Jeffrey D. Allred, Deseret Morning News 

Utah's military presence doesn't begin and end with Hill 
Air Force Base. 

Tooele Army Depot and Dugway Proving Ground are also at 
risk in the federal government's upcoming round of base closures.

These bases might be small in comparison to Hill — Hill 
employs more than 10 times the work force of both TAD and Dugway 
combined. But they, too, are important to the U.S. military, 
says Jim Hansen, the former Utah congressman who now serves on 
the Base Realignment and Closure Commission. 

"It always amazes me that people come in and drool all 
over Hill but don't realize that Dugway is extremely important 
for the state of Utah," Hansen said. 

In a way, TAD and Dugway will have to fend for 
themselves. The Utah Defense Alliance, an organization that 
seeks to protect all of Utah's bases, is devoting nearly all its 
efforts to save the state's largest military installation. 

"We're working with Tooele and Dugway somewhat," said 
Rick Mayfield, executive director of the Utah Defense Alliance. 
"They are such small facilities in comparison to Hill that the 
majority of our time is spent at Hill." 

The other shoe? 

Tooele Army Depot can't escape Hill's shadow. 

So far, Hill has managed to escape BRAC's grip. TAD 
hasn't been so lucky. 

"We're the red-headed stepchild of Hill," said Malcolm 
Walden, BRAC transition coordinator at the Tooele Army Depot. 

"But we're a viable stepchild," depot spokeswoman Kathy 
Anderson said. 

BRAC cut thousands of jobs from TAD during the 1993 base 
closure round, while Hill remained unscathed. The Department of 
Defense moved the depot's troop support, maintenance, storage 
and distribution missions to other bases around the country. 

TAD officials fear another major realignment is on the 
horizon. 

"They could privatize us, they could make us a contract 
facility, they could realign us — any number of things could 
happen," Walden said. "After our experience last time, we take 
nothing for granted." 

When asked about TAD's chances in BRAC, Mayfield said, 
"That's a real question in my mind. I would doubt they would 
expand." 

Expand, no; survive, maybe. TAD is the last major 
ammunition depot in the West, with easy access to roads, rail 
and local airports, Walden said. 

And unlike Nevada's Hawthorne Army Depot, TAD stores 
"active, go-to-war" munitions, Walden said. 

"That's one of the reasons why we are a valuable national 
asset," Walden said. "For what we do, we're it in the West. Now 
there are others in the East, but this side of the Mississippi 
River, this side of the Rocky Mountains, it's us. So that gives 
us some geographical insulation, and it gives us some BRAC 
insulation." 

The depot also boasts another military concept being 
pushed by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld: a transformed 
military that works and trains together. 

This cooperation between branches of military is already 
happening at TAD, Walden said. The depot stores munitions from 
the Army, Air Force and Marines. 

"I consider it to be one of our major strengths," Walden 
said. 

Nearly 13,500 acres of the depot are devoted to munitions 
storage. The western hills of the base are dotted with 920 
munitions igloos. 

If BRAC did shut down the base, cleanup of those hills 
might not be easy, Walden said. 

No matter how many advantages TAD officials think they 
might have in the BRAC process, their fate isn't certain. 

"We're not assuming that we are going to be safe," Walden 
said. "We recognize that everyone is vulnerable. We've done what 
we can to position ourselves as best we could. 

"We're experienced at this. We know how to do it. 
Hopefully we don't have to use that experience this time." 

Low profile 

Dugway is one of the nation's best-kept secrets. 

UFO-watchers have dubbed Dugway the "new Area 51." Little 
is said about what missions are performed at the 80,000-acre 
Army base in the middle of Utah's desert. 

Dugway sits about 80 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. 
That secluded, distant location and the secretive nature of its 
missions are both reasons Dugway often is ignored when BRAC is 
discussed in Utah, Mayfield said. 

"If they close Dugway, boy oh boy, it would be tough for 
the Army," Hansen said. "People don't talk about them a lot, but 
they have some fantastic missions that are extremely important." 

Dugway is one of the country's main facilities for 
developing defenses against biological and chemical attacks. 

Workers at Dugway test defense gear to make sure they can 
survive nuclear, biological and chemical attacks, said John 
Pike, a defense analyst at GlobalSecurity.org, a nonpartisan 
defense and research organization. 

Massive test facilities at the base are so large that 
they can accommodate cars, aircraft and tanks to test defenses 
against toxic agents. 

Dugway has the potential to add many more important 
missions, Mayfield said. That possibility increases the 
installation's chances against closure, he said. 

"There is a tremendous opportunity for the Army and the 
Air Force to combine," Mayfield said. "One of the objectives 
that we keep hearing about with BRAC is interservicing, so we 
could have the Army and the Air Force working together in joint 
efforts." 

The Army and Air Force could work together at Dugway to 
test weapons and train personnel, Mayfield said. Dugway is just 
south of Hill's massive Utah Test and Training Range, where F-16 
fighters from Hill train in air-to-air combat and the Air Force 
tests cruise missiles. 

Dugway could also become an extremely important 
installation for homeland security, said Vickie McCall, 
president of the Utah Defense Alliance. Teaming up with the Air 
Force would only make the United States stronger, she said. 

E-mail: ldethman@desnews.com 

© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 60 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada resolution urges Washington to reject nuclear waste plan
 
 By BRENDAN RILEY
 ASSOCIATED PRESS 

CARSON CITY, Nev. (AP) - A Nevada legislative panel was asked
Wednesday to back a resolution that urges federal lawmakers to
oppose plans for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, about
90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

While no vote on AJR4 was taken, Senate Natural Resources
Chairman Dean Rhoads, R-Tuscarora, said it's apparent to him
that the high-level radioactive waste dump planned by the
federal Department of Energy could hurt tourism in this
tourism-dependent state. 

Rhoads said he's had people from out of state ask him about the
dump and say they wouldn't come to Nevada if the repository is
in operation, adding, "They're pretty scared of it." 

Another panel member, Sen. Maggie Carlton, D-Las Vegas, who
between legislative sessions works as a waitress, said she also
fields questions about the dump from tourists - along with
queries about the best casino shows and buffets. 

Assemblywoman Genie Orenschall, D-Las Vegas, chief sponsor of
AJR4, raised the tourism issue as she went through a long list
of concerns about the Yucca Mountain facility. 

Orenschall was backed by Morgan Baumgartner of the Nevada Resort
Association, who said the hotel-casinos represented by the
association also fear the dump could hurt their business. 

The resolution, already approved by the state Assembly, asks
federal decision-makers to give up on Yucca Mountain because it
is "an ill-advised project based on bad science, bad law and bad
public policy, a choice that ignores better, less expensive and
safer alternatives, a choice which hinders, not helps, national
security." 

Despite delays and spending cut, Energy Department officials
have said recently that the Yucca Mountain plan is alive and
well, and that support from the Bush administration remains
strong. 

However, Bob Loux, head of the state Nuclear Projects Office
which opposes the dump, said the project "is failing rapidly." 

Recent problems with the government's plans for the dump include
criminal investigations to determine whether workers on the
project falsified data. 

Also, a court decision has forced a rewrite of radiation safety
standards for the site - and the DOE has scrapped a planned 2010
completion date without setting a new one. 

*****************************************************************
 61 Rutland Herald: Nuclear storage becoming showdown
 	 	 	 	
April 27, 2005 

By ROSS SNEYD Associated Press Writer   
  			 
MONTPELIER — A political showdown is developing at the
Statehouse over whether the owner of the Vermont Yankee power
plant should be allowed to store its spent nuclear fuel in dry
casks on the plant's grounds in Vernon or whether it might close
in two years.

The prospect of losing the plant, which provides more than a
third of the state's current power supply, has gripped the
Legislature and the attention of the largest electric utilities,
which fear losing what has turned out to be cheap power in an
era when the cost of electricity is rising rapidly.

"We're very concerned because of the value of this power
purchase agreement to Vermont," said Steve Terry, senior vice
president of Green Mountain Power.

Entergy Nuclear currently stores its spent nuclear fuel in a
large pool of water in Vernon. But that pool is filling and
could be at capacity in 2008, a year earlier if the company is
successful in its effort to expand the amount of power it
currently can produce.

As an alternative, Entergy wants to put the fuel waste into
concrete casks, which then would be stored on dry land on the
plant's grounds.

A quirk in state law gives the Legislature authority over
whether Entergy can seek permission from the Public Service
Board for the new storage plan. And majority Democrats have
argued that Entergy should pay for that right, a fee of perhaps
$4 million a year.

And Entergy says that's a deal breaker.

"Any significant tax which has never been contemplated and never
been discussed will place a severe financial burden on this
plant ... and will call into question its viability to the end
of its current license," Entergy regional executive Ken
Theobalds told the House Natural Resources Committee.

The clear message is that if Entergy does not get authority to
store spent fuel in Vernon through 2012, it will close Vermont
Yankee, which employs 600 people in Windham County. And the
utility companies say that would take with it electricity that
costs them a bargain basement 3.9 cents per kilowatt hour.

Energy prices are now significantly higher than that. The peak
wholesale price on the open market was 6.9 cents Tuesday and 5.3
cents off peak, Terry said. If a utility wanted to sign a
contract for peak power for 2006 and 2007, the price would be
7.6 cents per kilowatt hour for peak power and 5.8 cents off
peak, which is for the hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m.

"That means this is a volatile energy market but it also means
the value that the Vermont Yankee power purchase agreement to
Vermont customers is priceless," Terry said. "It is so
important. It is so valuable."

Under the terms of the deal, good through 2012, the Vermont
utilities get the 3.9-cent price only so long as the Vernon
plant is operating.

When Vermont Yankee was first proposed in the 1970s, though, no
one believed it would still be storing spent fuel — and
contemplating an expansion of that — 30 years later. The federal
government was supposed to build a storage site in Nevada, but
that has been tied up in politics and there is no sign it will
open in the immediate future.

"Never did anyone in Vermont expect we would be hosting nuclear
waste on our soil," said House Natural Resources Chairman Robert
Dostis, D-Waterbury. "I don't imagine if anyone came into
Vermont and said we want to store nuclear waste there wouldn't
be a charge for that."

Others on that committee respond that's a moot argument, because
the nuclear waste is here and there is very little prospect for
it going away for a very long time.

"It's here and we have to deal with it," said Rep. Steve
Larabee, R-Danville.

The question for many lawmakers is whether Entergy really means
it would close if it had to pay a waste tax or whether it will
negotiate.

For now, the company is showing no signs of negotiating.

"Entergy feels like they made the deal," said Yankee government
affairs manager Brian Cosgrove. "There's just not room in the
business deal for that (tax)."
   
© 2005 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
 62 JTW News - Preventing Radioactive Contamination of the Ferghana Valley
 
Turkish Weekly Test(Alpha) Edition:Hisar   

  International organizations take measures to prevent
radioactive contamination of the Ferghana Valley
 
Ferghana.Ru news agency, Andrei Kudryashov (Tashkent), 26.04.2005
 
A major land slide was reported on April 13 in Kyrgyzstan, not
far from the borders of the Namangan region (Uzbekistan) in the
vicinity of the town of Mailu-Suu where radioactive wastes
storage facilities are located. International mission ECOSAN was
urgently formed to study the situation. Its functionaries called
a press conference in Tashkent today to acquaint general public
with their findings.
 
According to Yu. Shadimetov of ECOSAN, radioactive wastes are
kept in 23 storage facilities. Remnants of the processed uranium
ore from Mailu-Suu factories and stibium factory in Kadamzhai
were stored there from 1948 to 1968. Storage facilities with
approximately 7,000 tons of semi-liquid radioactive wastes are
located in the active seismic zone where land slides and mudrock
flows are frequent. Thirteen terraces amounting to 2.7 million
cubic meters (200 grams of uranium per ton) pose a threat too.
Radiation background on the surface of the terraces varies
between 100 and 200 microrhoentgen/hour.
 
ECOSAN mission visited the land slide area on the Maili-Suu
river that took the lives of two locals, according to Kyrgyz
sources.
 
"The situation is dangerous because of the nearness of storage
facilities. Wreck one of them and it will mean an ecological
catastrophe for the Ferghana Valley and all of Central Asia,"
Shadimetov said. "The land slide blocked the river and water
rushed into abandoned workshops of Izolit. Poorly informed, the
locals are not aware of all ramifications. ECOSAN mission
therefore met with B. Aidaraliyev, Senior Deputy Minister for
Ecology and Emergencies, and Mayor of Kadamzhai T. Kambayev."
 
A special project financed by the World Bank ($11,760,000) will
be put into motion before September. Scheduled to be completed
before 2009, the project will rehabilitate and reclamate
radioactive wastes storage facilities. The World Bank mission
will open its office in Maili-Suu in the near future.
 
What with the dangerous socioecological situation along the
Maili-Suu, ECOSAN urges territorial structures of the Ministry
for Ecology and Emergencies of Kyrgyzstan and Emergency Ministry
of Uzbekistan to inform the population of the dangers posed by
the possibility of ruination of storage facility. Before the
season of rains in the mountains (May), it is necessary to take
urgent measures to fortify dams and slopes to prevent land
slides.
 
ECOSAN experts are convinced that the governments of Kyrgyzstan
and Uzbekistan should strive to focus the attention of the
international community on the radiation problem in the vicinity
of the Maili-Suu. Russian, American, German experts should study
the condition of storage facilities and terraces, draft a
project of their reinforcement, and start looking for investors.
 
ECOSAN urges the governments of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to
make an official appeal to donor countries.

Source: Ferghana.Ru, 26 April 2005   
  
Ferghana.Ru 2005-04-27 12:51:46   

*****************************************************************
 63 Lincoln County News: Maine Yankee Resumes Dumping at Utah Site  

April 28, 2005       
 																	   																	
Envirocare, a low-level radioactive waste repository in Utah, has 
lifted its stop order to Maine Yankee for disposal of soil 
contained in railcars the company is shipping there in the 
decommissioning process.

 The ban, which it imposed two weeks ago, was lifted April 20
after Envirocare was satisfied with the company’s correction of
a water leak from one of the railcars that arrived in Utah,
according to Maine Yankee spokesman Eric Howes.

 “We still need to check the soil to see if it meets the
criteria for shipment,” Howes said.

 Howes explained that the soil is heated and then weighed to
determine the amount of moisture. A substance like kitty litter
is used to absorb the excess moisture.

 “We shipped five cars on Thursday and two of the 48 railcars
came back last Wednesday or Thursday,” Howes said.

 Maine Yankee recalled the 48 cars after Envirocare issued a
stop order two weeks ago. However, Envirocare did dispose of all
of the soil in the original eight railcars that arrived two
weeks ago after discovering leakage from one, according to Howes.

 The company is removing soil at the Bailey Point plant site as
part of the ongoing decommissioning process there rather than
trying to separate the low level contaminated soil from that
which has no contamination, a company official said recently.

 Maine Yankee had discovered the leaking problem caused by
faulty sealant, which needed to be replaced shortly before the
leaking railcar arrived in Utah. Moisture formed in the soil
because the company removed it during the winter when it was
frozen. 

After the soil was in the fiberglass-capped railcars for a
while, the ice melted and as a result too much moisture was in
some of the soil being shipped to Utah. Envirocare spotted
leaking from one of eight railcars that arrived two weeks ago
and issued a stop order effective until Maine Yankee’s
correction of the issue.

 As railcars return to Maine Yankee, sealant is being replaced
in those that have not been resealed yet. Before soil is shipped
out, it is being tested for moisture content, Howes said.

 There are a total of 135 railcars in circulation for waste
disposal use by the company of which 47 have already been
resealed, and the company itself is responsible for the
inspection of all of the railcars in the loop, he said.
																			   																		 																	
Vol. 130 - No. 17                                                                                             
 							
This site is owned by Lincoln County News © 2002              
*****************************************************************
 64 AFP: U.S. Energy Corp. Acquires Various Uranium Properties in Utah

Wednesday April 27, 9:30 am ET 

RIVERTON, Wyo., April 27 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- U.S. Energy
Corp. (Nasdaq: USEG- News) announced today that it has acquired
more than 12,000 acres of unpatented lode mining claims for
uranium in Utah. The claims are located on Bureau of Land
Management land in the Lisbon Valley, White Canyon and Green
River uranium mining districts, where substantial amounts of
uranium were produced in the past in these prolific districts.

An aggressive program of location and exploration of additional
claims continues, according to Chris Healey, U.S. Energy Corp.
vice president for exploration. U.S. Energy Corp. and its
subsidiary Crested Corp. have historically engaged in the
acquisition and development of uranium properties in the western
United States.

"U.S. Energy and Crested Corp. have retained their significant
resources in uranium during extended periods of depressed prices
because we believe in the future of nuclear power," said Keith
Larsen, President of USEG. "We are committed to help meet the
nation's uranium production needs. Although their resources are
not completely known at this time, we believe these properties
have excellent potential to add substantially to our resource
base."

"We have announced plans to reopen our Shootaring Canyon uranium
mill in southeast Utah," Larsen said. "These properties, and
those that we plan to acquire, will provide feed for the
Shootaring Canyon mill," he concluded.

USEG has also announced a joint mining agreement with Uranium
Power Corp. (Vancouver: UPC- News) of Vancouver, British
Columbia. The two companies have committed to the reopening of
USEG's Sheep Mountain uranium properties in southcentral
Wyoming, as well as other uranium ventures. Mr. Healey, who is
also a director of UPC, has announced that a comprehensive
program of exploratory drilling and resource evaluation is under
way at Sheep Mountain. He is a qualified person for the uranium
ventures under National Instrument 43-101, for purposes of UPC's
disclosures under Canadian securities laws.

ABOUT U.S. ENERGY CORP. AND CRESTED CORP.


U.S. Energy Corp. and its majority owned subsidiary, Crested
Corp. are engaged in a joint venture to conduct various business
operations as USECC. Through their subsidiaries, Rocky Mountain
Gas, Inc., Sutter Gold Mining Inc., Plateau Resources Limited.,
U.S. Moly Corp and USECC, they own interests or properties
prospective for natural gas, gold, uranium and molybdenum.

This news release includes statements which may constitute
"forward-looking" statements, usually containing the words
"believe," "estimate," "project," "expect," or similar
expressions. These statements are made pursuant to the safe
harbor provision of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act
of 1995. Forward-looking statements inherently involve risks and
uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ
materially from the forward-looking statements. Factors that
would cause or contribute to such differences include, but are
not limited to, future trends in natural gas and mineral prices,
the availability of capital for development of natural gas and
other mineral projects, competitive factors, and other risks
detailed in the Companies' periodic report filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission. By making these
forward-looking statements, the Companies undertake no
obligation to update these statements for revision or changes
after the date of this release.

Source: U.S. Energy Corp.

  AARPmagazine.org - Retirement Calculator
*****************************************************************
 65 Tri-Valley Dispatch: California town's water tainted by perchlorate

Casa Grande Valley Newspapers Inc.

By ERICA WERNER, Associated Press Writer     

April 26, 2005   

  RIALTO, Calif. - Like dozens of other towns nationwide, this
working-class suburb is facing an emerging threat of uncertain
dimensions - a chemical used in rocket fuel and defense
manufacturing that has befouled nearly half its drinking water
supply.

Concern spread along with the underground plume of water that
carries the chemical from barren land that once housed World War
II munitions, Cold War weapons-makers and, now, fireworks
warehouses and a dump.

As one city well after another tested positive for perchlorate -
six of the city's 13 wells in all - projected cleanup costs
ballooned to more than double Rialto's $40 million annual
budget. The town sued the Defense Department and dozens of other
suspected polluters, pleaded with residents to conserve water
and hiked water rates 65 percent.

Officials and townspeople, meanwhile, want to know just how
hazardous perchlorate is. High amounts can be dangerous - the
chemical can interrupt the production of thyroid hormones, which
are needed for pre- and postnatal development. But how much
exposure should be permissible sparks debate in governmental and
scientific circles.

The conclusion of city leaders: Piping any amount of perchlorate
into homes posed an unacceptable gamble.

Rialto is a case study of what can happen when a community
refuses to take that risk. The choices faced here - when to
close wells, whom to sue and how not to get sued - confront
officials in 36 states where the Environmental Protection Agency
says perchlorate has been detected.

In Arizona, perchlorate has been measured at Camp Navajo, Davis
Monthan Air Force Base, Fort Huachuca, Yuma Marine Corps Air
Station and Yuma Proving Ground.

A majority black and Latino town of 98,000, Rialto has
palm-dotted streets with small single-family homes, its downtown
a mix of old-time churches, homes, businesses and strip malls.
Residents work in manufacturing or retail jobs, some slogging
through a 50-mile commute west into Los Angeles.

The source of Rialto's perchlorate problem is a 2,800-acre plot
north of downtown, once isolated but now surrounded by new
homes, notes Bill Hunt, a geologist consulting for the city.

The military used the site as a pit stop for weapons bound for
the Port of Los Angeles and then the Pacific theater in World
War II. Later, Cold War defense contractors built, tested and
stored rockets and munitions. Then came the fireworks industry
and the county dump.

With each successive tenant, city officials believe, came
growing deposits of perchlorate, an oxidant used in fireworks
and road flares and as an accelerant in rocket fuel.

"We'll probably never know definitively who did what and how
much," says Hunt.

What the city does know is that 400 feet below ground begins a
7-mile plume of perchlorate that's polluting Rialto's aquifer,
as well as groundwater drawn by residents of other nearby
communities.

Standard filtering doesn't work on perchlorate, so the town has
invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in equipment that uses
a resin to rid water of perchlorate molecules. The water rate
increases paid for those systems on two of the six contaminated
wells - the others remain shut - and for the town's legal fight
against the Pentagon, San Bernardino County and a host of
corporations large and small, from General Dynamics to Pyro
Spectaculars Inc.

"The city is trying to do their best, but by going after the
polluters they've raised the water bills," said former Rialto
resident Jan Misquez, who now lives in neighboring San
Bernardino. "Us taxpayers are having to foot the bill."

None of the 42 defendants has admitted liability and some of the
companies no longer exist, leaving the city to battle insurance
companies with only paper connections to the events of decades
ago.

Perchlorate was little-known before 1997, when tests were
developed that could detect it at lower levels than before. Soon
afterward, the chemical was discovered in Rialto and found to be
widespread around military bases and defense manufacturing sites.

In February, the EPA issued a safety standard that any amount of
perchlorate less than 24.5 parts per billion in drinking water
was safe. That was much higher than the 6 parts per billion
California set as a public health goal, and higher still than
EPA's original draft standard of 1 part per billion, a proposal
environmentalists embraced.

Pentagon officials, who could face billions in cleanup costs,
criticized the 1-part-per-billion standard, instead favoring 200
parts per billion. A Pentagon spokesman declined comment for
this story.

Thus far no state has issued a final drinking water regulation,
and the EPA, under pressure from both sides, hasn't decided
whether it will take such a step. A regulation would force
cleanup, while the agency's safety standard offers only its
guidance on exposure levels.

With Rialto's detections ranging as high as 88 parts per
billion, city officials decided to shut down any well where
perchlorate was found.

"Until there's more clarity on what is the safe amount of
perchlorate for the human body to ingest, our council has chosen
not to serve any amount," said City Attorney Bob Owen. "We can
go online right now and find a Web site saying, 'Do you live in
Rialto? Have you drunk water in Rialto? And if you have, join
our group, we're going to all sue them."'

No lawsuit has been filed, said Owen, who credits in part the
town's decision to adhere to a zero-tolerance standard, unlike
some other municipalities.

So far, Rialto has also managed to avoid any water shutoffs,
thanks to a combination of conservation, recycling wastewater
for non-drinking uses and tapping supplies from neighboring
water districts on high-demand days.

Town officials believe the only long-term solution is forcing
polluters to fund a cleanup.

"For us it's critical," said Rialto's water superintendent,
Peter Fox. "We just don't have other water available to us." 

Copyright © 1995 - 2005 All Rights Reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 66 NRC: Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive Material; 
 
                         FR Doc 05-8371 
[Federal Register: April 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 80)] 
[Proposed Rules] [Page 21684-21685] From the Federal Register 
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27ap05-28]                         
 
Solicitation of Comments on Proposed Changes AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Solicitation of comments on 
proposed changes.
 
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and the 
U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) are jointly seeking 
comments on proposed changes to the International Atomic Energy 
Agency (IAEA) Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive 
Material (referred to as TS-R-1). The proposed changes were 
submitted by the U.S. and other IAEA member states and 
International Organizations, and might necessitate subsequent 
domestic
 
[[Page 21685]] compatibility rulemakings by both the NRC and the 
DOT.
 
 
DATES: Proposed changes will be accepted until July 1, 2005.
 
Proposed changes received after this date will be considered if 
it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to assure 
consideration only for proposed changes received on or before 
this date.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Mail proposed changes to Michael Lesar, Chief, Rules 
and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, 
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001.
 
Hand deliver proposed changes to Two White Flint North, 11545 
Rockville Pike (Mail Stop T6D59), Rockville, Maryland 20852, 
between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT: John Cook, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, telephone: (301) 415-8521; e-mail: jrc1@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The IAEA periodically 
revises its Regulations for the Safe Transport of Radioactive 
Material (TS-R-1) to reflect new information and accumulated 
experience. The DOT is the U.S. competent authority before the 
IAEA for radioactive material transportation matters.
 
The NRC provides technical support to the DOT in this regard, 
particularly with respect to Type B and fissile packages.
 
On April 7, 2005, the IAEA posted for comment 28 proposed changes 
to TS-R-1. The IAEA's review process calls for Member States and 
International Organizations to provide comments to the IAEA by 
August 5, 2005. The proposed changes may be incorporated in a 
revised edition of the regulations in 2007, nominally to become 
effective worldwide in 2009. To assure opportunity for public 
involvement in the international regulatory development process, 
the DOT and the NRC are soliciting comments on the proposed 
changes at this time. This information will assist the DOT and 
the NRC in having a full range of views as the agencies develop 
comments the U.S. will submit to the IAEA. The following 
documents are available for viewing and downloading on the 
Internet at: http:// hazmat.dot.gov/regs/ files/IAEADraftChanges 
.htm. Table of the regulatory changes proposed by the IAEA.
 
A consolidated draft of the proposed TS-R-1 revision.
 
A standard comment form for the proposed TS-R-1 revision.
 
Table of the advisory material changes proposed by the IAEA.
 
A consolidated draft of the proposed TS-G-1.1 revision. A 
standard comment form for the proposed TS-G-1.1 revisions.
 
Public comments on proposed changes must be submitted in writing 
(electronic file on disk in Word format preferred) using the 
standard comment forms referred to above. The NRC and the DOT 
will review the public comments received by July 1, 2005. Based 
in part on the information, the agencies will determine the U.S. 
comments on the proposed changes to be submitted to IAEA by 
August 5, 2005.
 
Comments on the proposed changes from the U.S., other Member 
States and International Organizations will be considered at an 
IAEA Review Panel Meeting to be convened by IAEA on September 
5-9, 2005, in Vienna, Austria. Note that future domestic 
rulemakings, if necessary, will continue to follow established 
rulemaking procedures, including the opportunity to formally 
comment on proposed rules.
 
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of April 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
David W. Pstrak, Transportation and Storage Project Manager, 
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. 05-8371 Filed 4-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 67 EPA: Transuranic waste headed to WIPP

                         FR Doc 05-8438 

[Federal Register: April 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 80)] 
[Proposed Rules] [Page 21715-21718] From the Federal Register 
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27ap05-44]                         

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 194 [FRL 7904-8]
 
Central Characterization Project Waste Characterization Program 
Documents Applicable to Transuranic Radioactive Waste From Los 
Alamos National Laboratory Proposed for Disposal at the Waste 
Isolation Pilot Plant AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency. 
ACTION: Notice of availability; opening of public comment period.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing 
the availability of, and soliciting public comments for 30 days 
on, Department of Energy (DOE) documents applicable to 
characterization by the Central Characterization Project (CCP) of 
transuranic (TRU) radioactive waste at the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory (LANL) proposed for disposal at the Waste Isolation 
Pilot Plant (WIPP). The documents are available for review in the 
public dockets listed in

ADDRESSES. We will consider public comments received on or before 
the due date mentioned in DATES. In accordance with EPA's WIPP 
Compliance Criteria, we conducted an inspection of the Central 
Characterization Project (CCP) at LANL to verify that, using the 
systems and processes developed as part of the DOE Carlsbad 
Office's CCP, DOE can characterize TRU waste consistent with the 
Compliance Criteria. EPA performed this inspection the week of 
April 11, 2005. This notice of the inspection and comment period 
accords with 40 CFR 194.8.

DATES: EPA is requesting public comment on the documents. 
Comments must be received by EPA's official Air Docket on or 
before May 27, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: EPA Docket 
Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental 
Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. 
OAR-2005-0105. Comments may also be submitted electronically, by 
facsimile, or through hand delivery/ courier. Follow the detailed 
instructions as provided in [[Page 21716]] Unit I.B of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rajani Joglekar, Office of 
Radiation and Indoor Air, (202) 343-9462. You can also call EPA's 
toll-free WIPP Information Line, 1-800-331-WIPP or visit our Web 
site at http://www.epa/gov/radiation/wipp .

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related
Information?

    1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for 
this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0105. The official 
public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced 
in this action, any public comments received, and other 
information related to this action. Although a part of the 
official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the 
collection of materials that is available for public viewing at 
the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) 
EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. 
The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. 
to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. 
The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 
566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation 
Docket is (202) 566-1742. These documents are also available for 
review in paper form at the official EPA Air Docket in 
Washington, DC, Docket No. A-98-49, Category II-A2, and at the 
following three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New 
Mexico: in Carlsbad at the Municipal Library, Hours: 
Monday-Thursday, 10 a.m.-9 p.m., Friday-Saturday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m., 
and Sunday, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.; in Albuquerque at the Government 
Publications Department, Zimmerman Library, University of New 
Mexico, Hours: vary by semester; and in Santa Fe at the New 
Mexico State Library, Hours: Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.- 5 p.m. As 
provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR Part 2, and in accordance 
with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies of any docket 
materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged for 
photocopying.

    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register 
document electronically through the EPA Internet under the 
``Federal Register'' listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/.

    An electronic version of the public docket is available 
through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA 
Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ 
to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of 
the contents of the official public docket, and to access those 
documents in the public docket that are available electronically. 
Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the 
appropriate docket identification number.

    Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA 
Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the 
official public docket, will not be available for public viewing 
in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that 
copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic 
public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form 
in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly 
available docket materials will be made available in EPA's 
electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the 
index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the 
document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public 
docket. Although not all docket materials may be available 
electronically, you may still access any of the publicly 
available docket materials through the docket facility identified 
in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic 
access to all of the publicly available docket materials through 
EPA's electronic public docket.

    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's 
policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically 
or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's 
electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, 
unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA 
identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will 
provide a reference to that material in the version of the 
comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The 
entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will 
be available in the public docket.

    Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed 
or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's 
electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or 
delivered to the Docket will be scanned and placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will 
be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's 
electronic public docket along with a brief description written 
by the docket staff.

    For additional information about EPA's electronic public 
docket visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002. 
B. How and To Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by 
facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper 
receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification 
number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. 
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the 
specified comment period. Comments received after the close of 
the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required 
to consider these late comments. However, late comments may be 
considered if time permits.

    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, 
mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact 
information in the body of your comment. Also include this 
contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you 
submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. 
This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the 
comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read 
your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is 
that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or 
contact information provided in the body of a comment will be 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official 
public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public 
docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may 
not be able to consider your comment.

    i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to 
submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method 
for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at 
http://www.epa.gov/edocket , and follow the online instructions 
for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket 
from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ``Information Sources,'' 
``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select 
``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR- 2005-0105. The 
system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which [[Page 21717]] 
means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other 
contact information unless you provide it in the body of your 
comment.

    ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) 
to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0105. 
In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail 
system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an 
e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's 
electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically 
captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are 
automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as 
part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, 
and made available in EPA's electronic public docket.

    2. By Mail. Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center 
(EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection 
Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2005-0105.

    3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Air 
and Radiation Docket, EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room 
B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention 
Docket ID No. OAR- 2005-0105. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in 
Unit I.A.1.

    4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, 
Attention Docket ID. No. OAR-2005-0105.

C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA?

    You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing 
your comments:

    1. Explain your views as clearly as possible.
    2. Describe any assumptions that you used.
    3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used
that support your views.
    4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how
you arrived at your estimate.
    5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
    6. Offer alternatives.
    7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period
deadline identified.
    8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate 
docket identification number in the subject line on the first 
page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided 
the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your 
comments.

II. Background

    DOE is developing the WIPP near Carlsbad in southeastern New 
Mexico as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU 
radioactive waste. As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act 
(LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L. 102- 579), as amended (Pub. L. 104-201), 
TRU waste consists of materials containing elements having atomic 
numbers greater than 92 (with half- lives greater than twenty 
years), in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries of 
alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of the 
existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the 
production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools, 
and sludges.

    On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance 
certification decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 
18, 1998, 63 FR 27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will 
comply with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 
CFR Part 191, Subparts B and C.

    The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions 
that (1) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from 
any site other than the Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) 
until the EPA determines that the site has established and 
executed a quality assurance program, in accordance with Sec. 
Sec. 194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and 194.24(c)(5) for waste 
characterization activities and assumptions (Condition 2 of 
Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 194); and (2) (with the exception of 
specific, limited waste streams and equipment at LANL) prohibit 
shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP (from LANL or any 
other site) until EPA has approved the procedures developed to 
comply with the waste characterization requirements of Sec. 
194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of Appendix A to 40 CFR Part 194). The 
EPA's approval process for waste generator sites is described in 
Sec. 194.8. As part of EPA's decision-making process, the DOE is 
required to submit to EPA appropriate documentation of quality 
assurance and waste characterization programs at each DOE waste 
generator site seeking approval for shipment of TRU radioactive 
waste to WIPP. In accordance with Sec.  194.8, EPA will place 
such documentation in the official Air Docket in Washington, 
D.C., and informational dockets in the State of New Mexico for 
public review and comment.

    EPA performed an inspection of the TRU waste characterization 
activities performed by the DOE's Central Characterization 
Project (CCP) staff at LANL in accordance with Condition 3 of the 
WIPP certification. The CCP is a mobile characterization facility 
that DOE is developing to assist TRU waste generator sites with 
complex waste characterization activities. We will evaluate the 
adequacy, implementation, and effectiveness of the CCP technical 
activities contracted by LANL for characterization of sealed 
sources. The overall program adequacy and effectiveness of 
CCP/LANL documents will be based on the following DOE-provided 
documents: (1) CCP-PO-001--Revision 10, 2/24/05--CCP Transuranic 
Waste Characterization Quality Assurance Project Plan and (2) 
CCP-PO-002--Revision 11, 2/24/05--CCP Transuranic Waste 
Certification Plan. EPA has placed these DOE documents pertinent 
to the CCP/LANL inspection in the public docket described in 
ADDRESSES. 

They can be found online in EDOCKET ID No. OAR-2005-0105 and also 
in hard copy form in Docket A-98-49, Category II-A2. In 
accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, EPA is providing the public 30 days 
to comment on these documents. The inspection took place the week 
of April 11, 2005.

    EPA will inspect the following technical elements for sealed 
sources: acceptable knowledge (AK) and data tracking and 
reporting via the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS).

    If EPA determines as a result of the inspection that the 
proposed CCP waste characterization processes and programs used 
at LANL adequately control the characterization of transuranic 
waste, we will notify DOE by letter and place the letter in the 
official Air Docket in Washington, DC, as well as in the 
informational docket locations in New Mexico. A letter of 
approval will allow DOE to dispose of transuranic waste from LANL 
(via the CCP) at WIPP. The EPA will not make a determination of 
compliance prior to the inspection or before the 30- day comment 
period has closed.

    Information on the certification decision is filed in the 
official EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for 
review in Washington, DC, and at three EPA WIPP informational 
docket locations in New Mexico. The dockets in New Mexico contain 
only major items from the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, 
plus those documents added to the official Air Docket since the 
October 1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA. [[Page 21718]]

    Dated: April 21, 2005. Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Assistant 
Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. 05-8438 Filed 
4-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
 
*****************************************************************
 68 NEWS.com.au: Dusting off old prospects hoping for slice of yellowcake 

 Breaking News 24/7 - NEWS.com.au (27-04-2005)
 	
EXPLORERS anxious for a uranium target in their portfolios are
continuing to dust off old, long-discarded projects to catch the
new bull market for yellowcake. Redport, formerly Minotaur Gold,
has picked up three uranium plays in Western Australia, one
discovered 34 years ago. Omega Corp is acquiring a Zambian
project that was last looked at in 1984 by Italian oil giant
Agip. 

Market euphoria lasted longer with Redport. Its price more than
doubled, rising 3.7c to 6.4c. But Omega lost its early 10 per
cent gain, ending up just 2c at 70c. 

Redport's price rose even though the state Labor Government bans
uranium mining. But there is growing hope among uranium
explorers that the anti-uranium states, Western Australia and
Queensland, will be forced -- by a less doctrinaire federal
Labor leadership and the pressure of rising uranium prices - to
lift those bans within the next two or three years. 

Redport's priority project is Lake Maitland, southeast of
Wiluna. It was discovered in 1971 and has been explored by
several companies, including the former MIM and Esso, and has an
estimated resource of 7800 tonnes of uranium, averaging 0.52kg a
tonne. 

Chairman Richard Homsany said the company was moving into
uranium to benefit from increasing demand from the power
generation industry, low global uranium stockpiles and rising
prices. 

The company would also be looking for other uranium projects
here and overseas. 

"We're at the start of a journey," Mr Homsany said. 

But Far East Capital analyst Warwick Grigor, in a research note
yesterday, says the grade is uneconomic and most projects will
need to average a minimum 1kg a tonne -- double the grade at
Lake Maitland. 

"Merely having a uranium resource is not enough. It must be a
sufficiently high grade to be economic." 

Omega, which listed last August, said Agip was reported to have
spent $US110 million in Zambia and spent 10 years assessing
uranium targets in that country. 

The company can earn a 70 per cent interest in the Kariba
project, 200km south of Lusaka, by spending $US1 million on
drilling. 

Meanwhile, Namibian uranium hopeful Reefton Mining will be
searching for a new chief executive. 

The incumbent and former Iluka executive Simon Gilbert quit on
Friday. This came three weeks after the departure of long-time
managing director Vladimir Nikolaenko. 

The junior has been facing problems getting its exploration
licences renewed in Namibia. Industry observers say Mr Gilbert
may have been uncomfortable at a junior explorer after being
used to a large mining company. 

In a separate announcement, Paladin Resources said it had given
the go-ahead for a bankable feasibility study on the Kayelekera
uranium project in Malawi and would be opening a permanent
office there next month. Paladin expects to be a uranium
producer by 2006 from its Langer Heinrich deposit in Namibia. 		

Privacy PolicyCopyright 2005 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT +
*****************************************************************
 69 Tri-City Herald: FFTF's end is days away 

This story was published Wednesday, April 27th, 2005 

By Cara Fitzpatrick and Les Blumenthal, Herald staff writers 

The process of permanently shutting down Hanford's Fast Flux
Test Facility will begin Friday despite protests from die-hard
supporters, Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said on Tuesday. 

Bodman asked for a briefing on FFTF from the staff of the
Department of Energy's environmental management office.
Following the briefing Tuesday, Bodman indicated the department
would proceed with plans to close the reactor. 

"As a result of the briefing, the secretary reaffirmed
long-standing DOE policy to decommission FFTF," said Tom Welch,
a department spokesman. 

Welch said drilling of the reactor's core was scheduled to begin
Friday. 

Claude Oliver, Benton County Commission chairman and a longtime
proponent of saving FFTF, called the decision an "abomination." 

"There's something grossly wrong with this agency," he said. 

Since work began to drain sodium from the reactor's secondary
cooling system, supporters of the reactor have warned that a
restart would be more difficult and expensive. But drilling a
hole to drain the liquid sodium from the reactor's core would
leave no hope that the reactor could ever be restarted. 

Supporters had hoped to use FFTF to produce isotopes for cancer
treatment and industrial needs as well as materials to support
nuclear research and the next generation of nuclear energy
reactors. They also were buoyed by comments made by world
leaders, including President Bush, in support of using nuclear
energy as an alternative to oil. 

Oliver and other supporters had asked for a public review of the
department's decision to shut down FFTF and also wanted to
select a scientist to brief the energy secretary. But Oliver
said it is unclear what sort of briefing Bodman was given and
what kind of information was available to him. 

"This is a huge, huge decision," Oliver said. "What did (the
secretary) really do? Who was at the meeting?" 

At times Republican and Democratic administrations have
concluded there is not an economically viable use for the
400-megawatt reactor, which operated from 1982-92. 

Many Tri-City officials gave up the fight years ago, and Oliver
believes many of the state's representatives in Washington,
D.C., were hesitant to attach their names to the issue. He also
said the Bush administration had missed an opportunity by
supporting nuclear energy but allowing the destruction of FFTF. 

"Everybody's locked into quote, 'Just let it go down,' " he
said. "What gutless leaders." 

But Oliver said he still is waiting for an official response
from DOE about Bodman's decision and will continue to press the
department for answers about how the review was conducted and
the decision made. 

"I really hate to see this conclude this way," he said. "When we
took this on we said we were going to stick with it and we will,
we have." 

© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 70 DOE: Notice; Addendum to the Memorandum of Understanding: To
 
                         FR Doc 05-8370 
[Federal Register: April 27, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 80)] 
[Notices] [Page 21818-21819] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr27ap05-131]                         
 
Formalize the Working Relationship Between the Department of 
Energy and the Department of Labor (August 28, 1992) AGENCIES: 
The Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration (OSHA); Department of Energy, Office of the 
Environment, Safety and Health.
 
ACTION: Addendum to Memorandum of Understanding between the 
Department of Labor and the Department of Energy: The 
construction and operation by the University of Chicago of a 
Regional Biocontainment Laboratory located at Argonne National 
Laboratory; transfer of worker safety and health authority from 
the Department of Energy (DOE) to the Occupational Safety and 
Health Administration (OSHA) for a portion of land that has been 
leased to the private sector for construction and operation of a 
Regional Biocontainment Laboratory at Argonne National 
Laboratory, a DOE Government-Owned and Contractor-Operated (GOCO) 
facility.
 
SUMMARY: This notice is an addendum to the 1992 interagency 
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Department of 
Labor and the U.S. Department of Energy. That MOU states that DOE 
has exclusive authority over the occupational safety and health 
of contractor employees at DOE GOCOs. In addition, the MOU 
between the departments dated July 25, 2000 on safety and health 
enforcement at privatized facilities and operations provides that 
OSHA has regulatory authority over occupational safety and health 
at certain privatized facilities and operations on DOE land 
leased to private enterprises. This action is taken in accordance 
with the July 25, 2000 MOU, which establishes specific 
interagency procedures for the transfer of occupational safety 
and health coverage for such privatized facilities and operations 
from DOE to OSHA. The MOUs may be found on the internet via the 
OSHA Web page http://www.osha.gov under the ``D'' for Department 
of Energy Transition Activities.
 
EFFECTIVE DATE:  May 27, 2005.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Trese Louie, Office of Technical 
Programs and Coordination Activities, U.S. Department of Labor, 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3653, 200 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 10, 1992, the U.S. 
Department of Energy (DOE) and the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration of the Department of Labor (OSHA) entered into a 
Memorandum of Understanding, delineating regulatory authority 
over the occupational safety and health of contract employees at 
DOE Government-Owned or Leased Contractor-Operated (GOCO) 
facilities. In general, the memorandum of understanding 
recognizes that DOE exercises statutory authority under section 
161(f) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, [42 U.S.C. 
2201(f)], relating to the occupational safety and health of 
private-sector employees at these facilities.
 
Section 4(b)(1) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 
1970, 29 U.S.C. 653(b)(1), exempts from OSHA authority working 
conditions with respect to which other federal agencies have 
exercised statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards 
or regulations affecting occupational safety or health. The 1992 
Memorandum of Understanding acknowledges DOE's extensive 
regulation of contractor health and safety through safety orders, 
which require contractor compliance with all OSHA standards as 
well as additional requirements prescribed by DOE, and concludes 
with an agreement by the agencies that the provisions of the 
Occupational Safety and Health Act will not apply to GOCO sites 
for which DOE has exercised its authority to regulate 
occupational safety and health under the Atomic Energy Act.
 
In light of DOE's policy emphasis on privatization activities, 
OSHA and DOE entered into a second Memorandum of Understanding on 
July 25, 2000; that establishes interagency procedures to address 
regulatory authority for occupational safety and health at 
specified privatized facilities and operations on DOE sites. The 
2000 Memorandum of Understanding specifically covers facilities 
and operations on lands that have been leased to private 
enterprises, which are not conducting activities for or on behalf 
of DOE and where there is no likelihood that any employee 
exposure to radiation from DOE sources would be 25 millirems per 
year (mrem/yr) or more.
 
On September 30, 2003, the National Institute of Allergy and 
Infectious Diseases (NIAID), one of the National Institutes of 
Health (NIH), in the U.S. Department of Health and Human 
Services, announced that it will fund nine regional 
biocontainment laboratories (RBL) for the study of organisms 
important to national biodefense efforts as well as organisms 
causing emerging infectious diseases. The Ricketts Regional 
Biocontainment Laboratory was proposed in early February 2003 by 
the University of Chicago in support of a Midwestern Regional 
Center of Excellence (RCE), a consortium of prominent medical 
research organizations in the upper Midwest. In September 2003, 
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced a 
grant of $35 million over five years to support the center.
 
The Ricketts Regional Biocontainment Lab will be a biosafety 
level 3 (BSL-3) laboratory designed to safely conduct research on 
microbes that can cause potentially lethal diseases. It will be 
located at a site leased from DOE at Argonne National 
Laboratory--East, 25 miles southwest of Chicago, Illinois. 
Argonne is operated by the University of Chicago, a private 
university, for the United States Department of Energy.
 
In accordance with the July 25, 2000 MOU, on November 24, 2003, 
DOE notified OSHA of its intent to lease land to the University 
of Chicago for the purpose of constructing and operating a 
Regional Biocontainment Laboratory at the Argonne National 
Laboratory-East for the National Institutes of Health. The letter 
stated that the laboratory would be operated by the University of 
Chicago, a private institution, to conduct research for NIH (as 
opposed to DOE). It also stated that the radiological dose to 
workers at the RBL would be much less than 25 mrems/year from all 
DOE sources. In addition, the University of Chicago will own and 
operate the RBL and DOE will not have a contractual relationship 
with the University relating to that facility. DOE will not have 
statutory authority to prescribe or enforce standards or 
regulations affecting occupational safety or health at the RBL.
 
Thus, as the letter stated, the section 4(b)(1) exemption to the 
OSH Act would not apply to the RBL. Therefore, the letter 
requested, in accordance with the 2000 MOU, that OSHA confirm 
that it will regulate occupational safety and health at the RBL. 
On February 10, 2004, OSHA responded to this letter, stating that 
it would review this request.
 
 
[[Page 21819]] Accordingly, after reviewing pertinent information 
OSHA, in a letter to DOE dated November 17, 2004, agreed to 
accept regulatory authority for occupational safety and health 
over this site.
 
This Federal Register Notice is published as an addendum to the 
August 28, 1992 Memorandum of Understanding between the U.S. 
Department of Labor and U.S. Department of Energy. Federal OSHA 
has regulatory authority over occupational safety and health at 
privatized facilities leased to the University of Chicago for the 
construction and operation of a Regional Biocontainment 
Laboratory at DOE's Government-Owned and Contractor-Operated 
(GOCO) Argonne National Laboratory.
 
Dated: March 28, 2005.
 
Jonathan L. Snare, Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor for 
Occupational Safety and Health, Department of Labor.
 
Dated: April 6, 2005.
 
C. Russell H. Shearer, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Environment, Safety and Health, Department of Energy.
 
[FR Doc. 05-8370 Filed 4-26-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4510-26-P

 
*****************************************************************
 71 lamonitor.com: Council hears lab security updates 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
DARRYL NEWMAN, Monitor Staff Writer

Officials at Los Alamos National Laboratory are working to
increase security measures at the research facility, the
proposed effects of which mean restrictions of Pajarito Road and
the construction of a bypass to the ski area. 
Ed Wilmont, manager of the Department of Energy/National Nuclear
Security Administration Los Alamos Site Office, gave council an
update of lab activities during its Tuesday night meeting. The
objective of the lab's Security Perimeter Project, he said, is
to isolate core areas of LANL to enhance security.

"It's being directed by the guidance we get from our NNSA
headquarters," he said. 

The scope of the project includes the construction of multi-lane
access control points at the eastern entry to TA-3 and the
western boundary of the site. The new access points will replace
the temporary posts established after Sept. 11, 2001.

"We have gone out for bids, we have the bids back and we are
going to be re-examining the scope," he said. "We expect
construction to begin this summer. There is the possibility that
the bids will exceed the available funds." 
The construction of the project is expected to cost $20 million
and an additional $4 million has been set aside for other
project costs, Wilmont said.

With all the activity at LANL, Wilmont said he has been granted
additional staff from Albuquerque to help with the significant
workload at the Los Alamos Site Office. 
Also in the plans is a bypass to the ski hill that would serve
as a vehicle limitation device and a connector road to provide
access to the ski area.

Under the Ski Hill Proposed Access Control, it is expected that
vehicle access into the nuclear corridor would be controlled.

Entry is currently limited to DOE badge holders and is to have
vehicle barriers so that there is access only by West Road up to
the ski hill," Wilmont said. "Coming in from the Jemez, you
would have to go through the barrier and circle back to West
Road."

The Security Perimeter Project is slated to become operational
in the December 2006 timeframe.

"Ultimately, within the next few years, we will have to make
decisions about whether or not we have to close Pajarito Road,"
Wilmont said. "This is a significant consideration, as I have
already talked to other members of the community who are
concerned about the impact that it will have. I'm just giving
you a headsup that this is a serious consideration right now.
We're constrained by funding to meet the kinds of demands that
are being placed on us to protect this site."

Councilor Jim West expressed concern that the project will
increase traffic on East Jemez Road considerably.

"Have there been any discussions of upgrading East Jemez Road to
handle a higher volume of traffic?" West asked.

Wilmont answered in the affirmative, depending on the outcome of
the decision process.

Councilor Mike Wheeler questioned the other possible ways in
which a terrorist might access LANL, besides via vehicle.

"They have an infinite number of options and vehicles are only
one element of that," he said.

Councilor Jim Hall said it is important for the county to work
with LANL in exploring the possibilities of upgrading East Jemez
Road and the Front Hill Road.

"It could become a real choke point if we ever had a problem on
the Hill," Hall said.

Councilor Nona Bowman made similar remarks.

"I'm real concerned about our community being able to get off
the Hill," she said. "Has there been any consideration by the
DOE or NNSA in funding an alternative road?"

Wilmont responded that the office's discussions with NNSA
headquarters has been very limited in regard to the plans
proposed for Pajarito Road.

"When the fire came, we call-evacuated at different times except
White Rock when everyone left at the same time and it was very
congested," Bowman continued. "The safety of our citizens is
important."

In regard to the LANL contract, Wilmont said there is nothing
new to report.

"It will take two to three months to evaluate proposals and by
September we will have the contract in place," he said.

For more information on the LANL contract, visit
www.doeal.gov/lanlcontractrecompete.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 72 lamonitor.com: It's official, LANL RFP delayed 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
WIRE AND STAFF REPORT

The formal document soliciting proposals for managing Los Alamos
National Laboratory will take a little longer to finalize. 
The estimated release date had been announced as April 26, but a
spokesperson for the National Nuclear Security Administration
said the date has been extended to mid-May.

The NNSA is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, charged with
running the department's nuclear complex. 

Wilkes said Tuesday no specific date is set for the DOE to issue
its final request for bidders to manage the northern New Mexico
nuclear weapons lab.

A draft version of the contract terms has been under review
since December. 
"It's an important contract and an important process, and the
people who are key in that and are reviewing the contract and
are putting together the RFP ... just want to make sure that
they get it done right," Wilkes said.

The contract for the current manager, the University of
California, expires Sept. 30. 
The DOE decided to put the contract up for bid after a series of
management and security lapses at Los Alamos in recent years. UC
has managed Los Alamos since the lab's birth in 1943 as a
top-secret World War II project that built the world's first
atomic bomb.

The university's regents have not announced whether the school
will compete for the contract, but ordered officials to continue
to prepare as if it will. A decision will be made once the final
request for proposals has been released.

The NNSA made changes to the bidding criteria in February,
including requiring a stand-alone pension and benefits plan and
establishing a separate corporate entity to run the laboratory.
Bidders also will be scored, in part, on their proposed senior
management staff.

NNSA also requested that the current UC contract be extended, so
that employees would have a six-month interim period to review
the benefits plan of the next manager. Under that request, an
award would be made by the end of September 2005, and the
contract would go into effect April 1, 2006.

The DOE recently doubled the potential performance-based
management fee to $60 million a year for the seven-year
contract.   

  © 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: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************