*****************************************************************
05/02/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.100
*****************************************************************
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 Nuclear Obligations: Iran and the United States
2 AFP: Iran, N. Korean nuclear crises worsen as non-proliferation meet
3 Guardian Unlimited: Rice to N. Korea: U.S. Can Defend Itself
4 TIME Asia Magazine: North Korean nuclear crisis will be solved throu
5 Korea Herald: Seoul, Washington attempt to revive operation plan for
6 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: EDITORIALS Defense Ministry's serious lapse
7 Xinhua: US positive for bilateral contact with DPRK: Hill
8 US: [du-list] U.S. may allow nuke strikes over WMD
9 US: Journal Inquirer: Public travel on private tab - Don Michak
10 Nuclear Disarmament And Non-proliferation Require Action From Everyo
11 [du-list] "70 countries pursuing bunkers," Rumsfeld's reason
12 [du-list] US WMD in Vietnam - 30 years on
13 IPS-English DISARMAMENT: Nuclear Weapons Talks Open on Crisis
14 RIA Novosti: NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE TO OPEN IN UN HEADQUARTERS
15 BBC: An old treaty for a new world?
16 BBC: Will NPT conference make a difference?
17 Asia Times: Bush: US to help China with energy efficiency
18 CBC News: UN set to review 1970 nuclear treaty
19 Physics Today: Nuclear Power Needs Government Incentives, Says Task
20 Independent: Outdated nuclear treaty is a threat to us all, warns An
21 Pakistan Times: NPT signing only after recognition as N-state - Paki
22 Las Vegas SUN: Annan Urges Global Nuclear Concessions
NUCLEAR REACTORS
23 [NukeNet] Too - Hot Ukraine Nuclear Plant Shuts Down
24 US: [NukeNet] Vital Fire Protection At 14 N-Reactors Is Unsafe
25 US: TMI seeks renewal while on probation
26 US: Troubled Reactor Shutdown Again Due to Electric Problems*
27 Helsingin Sanomat: Nuclear power poll: Most Finns say five reactors
28 US: NRC: Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences Fiscal Year 2004
29 US: NRC: In the Matter of Andrew Siemaszko; Order Prohibiting Involv
30 US: NRC: Draft Report for Comment: ``Consideration of Geochemical Is
31 US: The Current - Opinions: Is nuclear power clean power? -
32 Scotsman.com News: Europe and Japan at Odds over 'Superpower' Reacto
33 Independent: British firm risks environment damage with 'unsafe' pla
NUCLEAR SECURITY
34 US: [NukeNet] Bennett Ramberg UPI Op-Ed Nuke Terrorism
35 US: [ISN] Ex-CIA chief warns of EMP nuke threat
36 US: UPI OpEd on Nuclear Terrorism
37 Hankyoreh: Non-Proliferation Treaty, Weakened By US
38 Guardian Unlimited: Concessions Urged As Nuclear Fears Rise
39 BBC: Iran issues nuclear warning to US
40 Economist.com: Nuclear arms control
41 Korea Times: 'Nuke Strike on Yongbyon Creates 550,000 Victims'
42 MCOT: Suspected uranium rods seized
NUCLEAR SAFETY
43 US: [du-list] Committee approves free screening for exposure to
44 [du-list] "Troops' families demand public inquiry into war..
45 News24: Ex-Pelindaba workers ill
46 US: NRC: Missing Gauge Containing Radioactive Material Found in Penn
47 Mail & Guardian: Former nuclear workers seriously ill, says report
48 US: Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Final hurdle for Tallevast
49 US: Spectrum: Woman donates downwinder funds to facility
50 US: NRC: Availability of Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation
51 US: NRC: Draft Report for Comment: ``Documentation and Applications
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
52 US: [du-list] BNF U enrichment in New Mexico
53 US: Cincinnati Enquirer: Waste no one else wants is welcome
54 Independent: Siberia could become the world's atomic waste dump, war
PEACE
55 US: [NYTr] Anti-War, anti-Nuke Protests in New York City on May Day
56 Hiroshima Mayor Calls on All Countries "Including U.S." to Abolish N
57 Nuclear Conference Opens, Hears UN Watchdog Call For Balance Between
58 US: Abolition Of Article IV Of NPT Crucial To N-Weapons Abolition
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
59 Tri-City Herald: HAB urges extending site contracts
60 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Fernald
61 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Nuclear Obligations: Iran and the United States
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 13:47:49 -0500 (CDT)
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Monday, May 2, 2005
Nuclear Obligations: Iran and the United States
A long-awaited review conference on the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) got
underway at the United Nations today, with the talks scheduled to last
until May 27. The NPT treaty obliges existing nuclear powers to dismantle
their arsenals and non-nuclear powers to refrain from obtaining nuclear
weapons.
ROSS POURZAL, torke@verizon.net
A Washington-based political analyst who is on the board of the Alliance of
Progressive Iranians, Pourzal said today: "The United States is in breach
of NPT and Iran is not. I am personally against nuclear power and nuclear
weapons; however, I advocate an even-handed approach. Iran is definitely
within its rights by any measure to take advantage of nuclear technology.
And Iran has offered repeatedly to give safeguards and assurances for the
world that need to be negotiated. These offers have not been taken up. ...
In the meantime, the Bush administration is developing new nuclear weapons."
SIMIN ROYANIAN, ciwhr@yahoo.com, http://www.women4peace.org
An economist and co-founder of Women for Peace and Justice in Iran,
Royanian said today: "What we need is the equal implementation of
international law, and an understanding for the fact that one government
does not have the right to interfere in the internal decision-making of
another government. Whether Iranians want to have nuclear energy or not is
a discussion for the people of Iran themselves. ... Iran is a signatory to
the NPT while North Korea, when faced with threats from the U.S., announced
its withdrawal from the treaty and has made no secret of its plan to
develop nuclear weapons."
ANNE MILLER, anne@nhpeaceaction.org
Miller, who has just returned from a 10-day trip to Iran, is currently in
New York. She met with a cross-section of Iranian society. Only 500
Americans a year go to Iran. Miller, the director of New Hampshire Peace
Action, said today: "Every Iranian with whom I spoke had generous words for
our country, if not our administration. The Iranian people unequivocally
want peace, not war. ... We need to accept this fact about the Iranian
regime: If it wants nuclear weapons, it will eventually acquire them. ...
We need to turn to the root causes of proliferation. For Iran, it is
clearly a rationale of deterrence -- deterrence against the threats of the
U.S. and Israel, and because countries with nuclear weapons have a higher
status internationally and are less likely to be invaded. The people do not
understand why they should not have nuclear weapons if Israel and Pakistan
can -- the idea that they should be denied simply makes no sense to them."
Miller added: "If we are serious about curbing proliferation in Iran, we
need a new strategy. ... Our government must reassure Iran in word and deed
that Iran's national security is not threatened by the U.S. or Israel."
KEVIN MARTIN, kmartin@peace-action.org, http://www.peace-action.org
Martin is the executive director of Peace Action. He said today: "Peace
activists around the world have gathered here in New York to demand that
the U.S. and the other nuclear powers fulfill their obligations under the
NPT and move towards disarmament."
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
_________________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
public@lists.accuracy.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org
For all list information and functions, including changing
your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page:
http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public
*****************************************************************
2 AFP: Iran, N. Korean nuclear crises worsen as non-proliferation meeting begins
Monday May 2, 8:53 PM
NEW YORK (AFP) - Some 190 nations begin a review of the nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty, with worsening crises in North Korea
and Iran showing how seriously the world's fight against the
spread of atomic weapons is imperiled.
The treaty, known as the NPT and which went into effect in 1970,
seems flawed if not outright ineffective ahead of the conference
at the United Nations.
Since the treaty was signed the world faces a new era of "rogue"
states, international nuclear smuggling rings, and
trans-national terrorist groups seeking weapons of mass
destruction.
"The world has changed but the regime has not changed with it,"
the Washington-based Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
said in a recent study.
Events over the past few days have shown how critical the
situation is.
The United States reported that a short-range missile was fired
early Sunday from the east coast of North Korea. It flew about
100 kilometers (62 miles) until it fell into the Sea of Japan,
White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card told CNN.
US State Department spokesman Kurtis Coope said: "We have long
been concerned about North Korea's missile program and
activities and urge North Korea to continue its moratorium on
ballistic missile tests."
North Korea shocked the world in August 1998 by firing a
long-range missile over Japan that landed in the Pacific Ocean.
On Thursday, US Defense Intelligence Agency director Vice
Admiral Lowell Jacoby told US lawmakers that North Korea is
believed capable of arming a long-range missile that could reach
the United States with a nuclear warhead.
North Korea is currently free of international surveillance of
its nuclear activities. It kicked out International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors in December 2002, withdrew from
the NPT the following month and now claims to have made atomic
bombs.
Iran is showing the strains in the non-proliferation treaty in
another way as the United States claims the Islamic Republic is
secretly developing atomic weapons under the cover of a civilian
nuclear power program that is under IAEA safeguards.
Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, on Sunday
dismissed Washington's concerns over Tehran's nuclear program,
the day after Iran said it was unhappy with the progress of
nuclear negotiations with Britain, France and Germany, and
warned it may resume uranium conversion activities in defiance
of a November agreement.
The European Union, backed by the United States, wants Iran to
halt all nuclear fuel cycle activities. In return, the EU is
offering in talks that began in December a package of trade,
security and technology incentives.
Iran has said repeatedly that its current enrichment suspension
is temporary and voluntary, as it insists on its right under the
NPT to conduct nuclear activities for peaceful purposes.
US Senator John Rockefeller last week urged President George W.
Bush to send Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the NPT
review conference, saying her presence would "focus increased
international attention on the two most pressing nuclear threats
we face as a country: North Korea and Iran."
The Democrat said the absence of a high-level representative
would lead other conference participants to "conclude that the
United States is not serious about strengthening the treaty,
despite strong statements to the contrary from you and others in
your administration."
The NPT had seemed to be working in the past as "many more
countries have given up nuclear weapons than have begun them,"
according to the Carnegie Endowment report.
But the report said there are now "rising doubts about the
sustainability of the non-proliferation regime."
The NPT received a rude blow with the unearthing two years ago
of an international black market network in technology that
could be used to make atomic weapons, run by the father of
Pakistan's atomic bomb Abdul Qadeer Khan and supplying Iran,
North Korea and Libya.
Experts are skeptical about the month-long treaty review
conference, the seventh such review held every five years since
1970, carrying out needed reforms.
Non-proliferation expert Gary Samore of London's International
Institute for Strategic Studies said the reason for this is that
non-nuclear-weapons states are bitter that promises by
nuclear-weapons states to disarm -- promises enshrined in the
NPT and repeated in "13 disarmament steps" adopted at the
previous review conference in 2000 -- have not been carried out.
On Sunday, thousands of demonstrators marched near the UN
headquarters in New York, demanding nuclear disarmament.
Copyright © 2002 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: Rice to N. Korea: U.S. Can Defend Itself
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday May 2, 2005 10:01 PM
AP Photo DCMC105
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Talking tough, Secretary of State Condoleezza
Rice informed North Korea on Monday the United States is able to
defend itself and its allies against nuclear and missile
threats.
Responding to reports that North Korea launched a short-range
missile into the Sea of Japan on Sunday, Rice said, ``I don't
think there should be any doubt about our ability to deter
whatever the North Koreans are up to.''
And, in reassuring South Korea, Japan and other allies in the
Pacific area, Rice told reporters: ``This is not just between
the United States and North Korea.''
A suggestion Thursday by Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, director of
the Defense Intelligence Agency, that North Korea might be able
to strike American territory with a nuclear-tipped missile also
has raised tensions and concerns.
Negotiations with North Korea on its nuclear weapons program are
stalemated. But Rice said North Korea's missile program should
be put on the agenda when and if the talks are resumed.
By contrast, South Korea and other Asian governments appeared to
take Sunday's missile test in stride. They said it was a
short-range weapon that could not reach even Japan and it had no
link to Pyongyang's nuclear weapons program.
The missile ``is far from the one that can carry a nuclear
weapon,'' South Korean Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon
said in an interview with South Korea's Yonhap news agency.
``This isn't a case to be linked to the nuclear dispute.''
Still, Japanese Foreign Minister Nobutaka Machimura said after a
40-minute meeting with Rice at the State Department that they
hoped China would try harder to get six-party negotiations
resumed.
The United States, Japan, China, South Korea and Russia hope to
negotiate an end to North Korea's nuclear program in exchange
for security assurances and economic benefits.
Talks were supposed to be resumed last September, but North
Korea withdrew its promise to attend. Since then, North Korea
and the United States have been exchanging angry rhetoric.
Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, denounced
North Korea on Sunday as a bully and called its leader, Kim Jong
Il, ``not a good person.''
On Saturday, North Korea called President Bush a ``philistine''
and a ``hooligan.''
The blunt aspersions were similar to those two years ago between
Undersecretary of State John R. Bolton and Pyongyang that have
become an issue in Bolton's struggle for Senate confirmation as
the next U.S. ambassador to the United Nations.
Critics have called Bolton undiplomatic for his verbal attacks
on North Korea.
Rice, by contrast, used a measure of diplomatic ambiguity in her
message Monday to North Korea. But it was clearly intended to be
a tough one.
``I don't think anyone is confused about the ability of the
United States to deter, both on behalf of itself and on behalf
of its allies, North Korea's nuclear ambitions or gains on the
(Korean) Peninsula,'' she said.
``We have, after all, a very strong alliance with South Korea
and a very strong alliance with Japan. And, of course, the
United States maintains significant - and I want to underline
significant - deterrent capability of all kinds in the
Asia-Pacific region,'' she said.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
4 TIME Asia Magazine: North Korean nuclear crisis will be solved through the six-party
talks. So what will the U.S. do now?
BY
KOREA NEWS SERVICE / REUTERS HOLDOUT: Kim's intransigence has
stalled negotiations
Monday, May. 02, 2005
U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill was clearly
frustrated last week when a reporter in Seoul asked him why
Washington isn't offering a "bold solution" to convince North
Korean dictator Kim Jong Il to abandon his nuclear-weapons
program. "Why are you blaming me?" asked Hill. "You should be
blaming Kim Jong Il." Hill later told TIME: "Frankly, it is time
to give Kim Jong Il a bit of a kick."
That last remark isn't quite on message. U.S. President George W.
Bush still publicly insists that six-party talks involving the
U.S., China, Japan, Russia, South Korea and North Korea, remain
the most viable way to rein in Kim. "It's better to have more
than one voice sending the same message," he said last week. But
evidence is mounting that the talks may be stalemated, perhaps
permanently, leaving the U.S. and its negotiating partners to
ponder riskier alternatives. After meeting with Chinese
officials, Hill told the press, "The future of the talks is very
much uncertain," and there are signs that Beijing is losing
heart, too. Diplomats in Beijing say China's President Hu Jintao
has postponed a visit to Pyongyang planned for this month because
Kim has refused to return to the talks. "Hu won't go unless the
trip is guaranteed to be a success," says a Chinese advisor to
the Foreign Ministry.
Meanwhile, the North's ability to wage nuclear war may be
growing, thereby increasing the ransom—food and fuel to prop up
Kim's ailing economy—that he's expected to demand as the price of
nuclear disarmament. North Korea recently shut down its Yongbyon
nuclear reactor, raising concerns that it might be harvesting up
to 8,000 spent plutonium fuel rods that could be used to build as
many as six atomic bombs. Equally troubling, the director of the
U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Admiral Lowell Jacoby,
testified in Congress last week that the North may now be capable
of putting nuclear warheads atop missiles that can reach Japan
and perhaps even America's West Coast. Bush commented: "We don't
know if he can or not, but I think it's best when dealing with a
tyrant like Kim Jong Il to assume that he can."
With dialogue stalled and Kim's military threat looming larger
than ever, the U.S. is increasingly debating its other options.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice raised the possibility of
pushing the U.N. Security Council to exert pressure on Kim.
Through the 2003 Proliferation Security Initiative, an
international accord to curtail trafficking in weapons of mass
destruction, the U.S. could possibly step up efforts to intercept
North Korean shipments of contraband. But China, the only country
with genuine influence over Kim, remains opposed to disruptions
in North Korea's aid and legal trade—and with a seat on the U.N.
Security Council, it can block any U.S. attempt to gain
international backing for economic sanctions. Beijing fears that
if North Korea plunges into political and economic chaos, a flood
of refugees might stream across the border into China.
Raising the stakes, Washington reportedly believes that the
North, which in February declared that it was a nuclear power,
may be preparing to prove it by testing a nuclear device. Seoul
says it has no evidence for this, and there are suspicions that
the U.S. could be stoking such fears merely to justify a tougher
policy toward North Korea. If Pyongyang were to test a nuclear
weapon, it might in fact play perfectly into Washington's hands,
convincing the international community to get serious about
imposing painful sanctions. "If North Korea takes such reckless
actions as conducting a nuclear test, it will further deepen its
isolation and take itself on a road where its future will not be
guaranteed," warned South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki Moon.
Kim's game of diplomatic poker is, of course, profoundly
unpredictable. But it's likely that he'll resist the temptation
to turn over his hole card by revealing conclusively that he does
indeed possess weapons of mass destruction. The more probable
outcome is that, through the six-party talks or some other
vehicle, the frustrating diplomatic game will continue. "At some
point, we are going to have to assess where we are and look for
other measures" beyond the six-party talks, says Hill. "I am not
prepared to say precisely when that will be."
—Reported by Matthew Forney/Beijing
and Kim Yooseung and Donald Macintyre/Seoul
From the May. 09, 2005 issue of TIME Asia Magazine
*****************************************************************
5 Korea Herald: Seoul, Washington attempt to revive operation plan for N. Korean
crisis
(smjoo@heraldm.com) By Joo Sang-min
2005.05.03
South Korea and the United States will discuss reviving a
previously rejected operational plan that deals with possible
internal turmoil in North Korea, although its scope will be
restricted to a conceptual level.
The Defense Ministry proposed to Washington last week that the
two allies supplement or develop a conceptual plan only, without
going into specifics.
The two nations had earlier crafted a basic plan code-named OPLAN
5029, which provided a conceptual idea of how the Korea-U.S.
Combined Forces Command would cope with possible contingencies in
the communist North.
Washington recently wanted to update the plan to OPLAN 5029-05,
listing specific scenarios on military actions to be taken
according to the level of internal North Korean troubles,
including massive North Korean defections, military coups and a
regime change.
U.S. Forces Korea commander Gen. Leon J. LaPorte (right) speaks
with Grand National Party lawmaker Park Hee-tae at a security
forum meeting at the National Assembly yesterday. [The Korea
Herald]
But the South Korean National Security Council rejected the move
on the grounds that the plan undermined this nation's sovereignty
and early intervention by U.S. troops could complicate dealing
with the isolated regime.
"We completely stopped making a scenario of OPLAN 5029-05, but we
also recognize the need to supplement and develop the concept of
OPLAN 5029," Defense Ministry spokesman Brig. Gen. Shin Hyun-don
told a news briefing yesterday.
The U.S. military in Korea signaled it understood Seoul's
position.
Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, U.S. Forces Korea commander, said military
action by American troop in case of instability in the North
should be agreed between Seoul and Washington first, and should
not be unilaterally decided, according to Rep. Song Young-sun of
the main opposition Grand National Party.
LaPorte, who discussed security issues with Korean legislators at
a forum held at the National Assembly, said Washington has no
intention of launching a preemptive attack on Pyongyang and its
nuclear facilities and is stepping up its efforts to resolve the
North Korean nuclear issue diplomatically. He made clear however
that the United States has the "capability" to act militarily.
*****************************************************************
6 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: EDITORIALS Defense Ministry's serious lapse
May 3, 2005 KST 13:44 (GMT+9)
The Ministry of National Defense reacted disappointingly to
North Korea's test firing of a missile, and we feel extremely
concerned about our nation's security.
The White House chief of staff quickly confirmed that the North
test-fired a short-range missile. Japan's chief cabinet
secretary also practically confirmed the information, saying
that a short-range missile had appeared to be test-fired based
on the intelligence coming from its neighbors.
While Korea's neighbors were confirming North Korea's sensitive
military action, South Korea's Defense Ministry remained
tight-lipped.
It is difficult to understand why the ministry is doing
everything to downplay the case, declining to issue an official
announcement.
Journalists requested confirmation from the ministry. The
ministry replied, "It is not a matter that can be discussed.
Please understand."
Then, some senior government officials said the missile test was
"nothing significant." If it is nothing significant, why can't
the government provide a detailed explanation to its people?
The ministry sources have been stressing that the range of the
missile fired was only 120 kilometers (75 miles) and it was a
part of a routine exercise that has taken place in the past.
The United States and Japan are even reacting more sensitively,
while South Korea's Defense Ministry is easygoing about the
missile test. That is a serious problem. Does the United States
fall within range of the missile? South Korea does fall within
its range, but the Defense Ministry said everything is okay. Are
they out of their minds?
Tensions between Washington and Pyongyang have been escalating
quickly over the North's nuclear arms aspirations. North Korea's
every move has been closely monitored. Washington and Tokyo have
been reacting sensitively. Even if it were a routine exercise,
it took place at an extremely sensitive time. Then, the
implication is not that simple.
But the Defense Ministry is talking about the "short" range of
the missile, seeing the matter as nothing extraordinary. Which
country is the ministry defending? Why is the Defense Ministry
showing such tolerance toward the North's missile test?
The world knows about North Korea's missile test, and the
ministry cannot hush it up. South Koreans are enraged,
questioning if the ministry would react the same even if a
missile were dropped on the South.
National security must be defended thoroughly and rigidly. It
can never be politicized. The defense minister and the military
leaders should consider this situation carefully.
2005.05.02
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
7 Xinhua: US positive for bilateral contact with DPRK: Hill
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-02 16:54:57
¡¡ SEOUL, May 2 (Xinhuanet) -- The US chief negotiator on the
nuclear crisis on the Korean Peninsula said he would leave the
door open for a two-way contact between Washington and Pyongyang
if the latter sticks to the multilateral talks.
In an interview with the Hankyoreh newspaper published on
Monday, Christopher Hill said the United States would deal
flexibly with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK)
as long as it holds fast to the six-party process.
"If they would like to talk to us in private, bilateral ways
within the six-party process, or if they would like
consultations between the rounds of the six-party process, I
would be very open to those proposals," he said in the interview
held here last week when he visited Seoul as part of his
Northeast Asian trip.
When asked if such bilateral contact could be made at a
venue separate from where the multilateral talks are held, Hill
said, "Ithink we can look at that suggestion positively. We
would be willing to talk, and I enjoy give-and-take."
The US diplomat, however, reiterated his opposition to
Pyongyang's demand to turn the six-way talks into a bilateral
process, saying, "We can be flexible within the six-party
mechanism, a broad platform on which one can do a lot."
"What we cannot do is allow a situation where they try to
bilateralize the talks and turn this into a US-North Korean talk
where the other four parties are just spectators," he said.
As for the possibility of referring the nuclear issue to the
UNSecurity Council, he said, "No one is talking about taking
this to(the) Security Council, but as Secretary Rice said, of
course we reserve the right to do this because that is the
purpose of the Security Council." Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
8 [du-list] U.S. may allow nuke strikes over WMD
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:32:11 -0700
U.S. may allow nuke strikes over WMD
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050502a3.htm
Proposal would reverse 10-year policy
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) The U.S. military is considering allowing regional
combatant commanders to request presidential approval for pre-emptive
nuclear strikes against possible attacks with weapons of mass destruction
on the United States or its allies, according to a draft nuclear operations
paper.
The March 15 paper, drafted by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is titled
"Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations," providing "guidelines for the
joint employment of forces in nuclear operations . . . for the employment
of U.S. nuclear forces, command and control relationships, and weapons
effect considerations."
"There are numerous nonstate organizations (terrorist, criminal) and about
30 nations with WMD programs, including many regional states," the paper
says in recommending that commanders in the Pacific and other theaters be
given an option of pre-emptive strikes against "rogue" states and
terrorists and "request presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons"
under set conditions.
The paper identifies nuclear, biological and chemical weapons as requiring
pre-emptive strikes to prevent their use.
Allowing pre-emptive nuclear strikes against possible biological and
chemical attacks would effectively contradict a "negative security
assurance" policy declared 10 years ago by the Clinton administration
during an international conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty.
Creating a treaty committing nuclear powers not to use nuclear weapons
against countries without nuclear weapons remains one of the most
contentious issues for the 35-year-old NPT regime.
A Pentagon official said the paper "is still a draft which has to be
finalized" but indicated that it is aimed at guiding "cross-spectrum"
combatant commanders how to jointly carry out operations based on the
Nuclear Posture Review report adopted three years ago by the Bush
administration.
Citing North Korea, Iran and some other countries as threats, the report
sets out contingencies for which U.S. nuclear strikes must be prepared.
It calls for developing earth-penetrating nuclear bombs to destroy hidden
underground military facilities, including those for storing WMD and
ballistic missiles.
"The nature (of the paper) is to explain not details but cross spectrum for
how to conduct operations," the official said, noting that it "means for
all services -- army, navy, air force and marine."
In 1991 after the end of the Cold War, the United States removed its
ground-based nuclear weapons in Asia and Europe as well as strategic
nuclear warheads on warships and submarines.
But the paper says the U.S. has the capability of reviving sea-based
nuclear arms.
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/05
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
9 Journal Inquirer: Public travel on private tab - Don Michak
By Don Michak, Journal Inquirer May 02, 2005
Members of Connecticut's congressional delegation have traveled
widely on the tab of corporate-backed think tanks, industry
associations, and other private interest groups, which have
shelled out nearly a quarter-million dollars for 120 trips by the
lawmakers since 2000.
Reports filed by the state's federal lawmakers reveal their
privately funded sojourns to a slew of foreign cities, including
top tourist destinations in China, Italy, Ireland, Russia, and
Spain.
Moreover, the records show that the congressional wanderlust
wasn't limited to Beijing or Brussels, Rome or Madrid, Davos or
Mexico City. The savvy travelers also got to see the U.S. from
Miami to Juneau, Louisville to Las Vegas, and Boca Raton to
Beverly Hills.
Many of the trips were taken during the winter to hot spots like
Hamilton, Bermuda, and San Juan, Puerto Rico. The subsidized
snowbirds were frequent flyers to sunny south Florida and
California.
While the reports usually don't reveal the solons' exact
accommodations, their locations are often a tip-off. A visit to
Aventura, Fla., for example, often means a stay at the posh
Fairmont Turnberry Isle Resort and Club, a gated tropical haven
for celebrities. A trip to White Sulphur Springs, W.Va., almost
always means a retreat at the Greenbrier, a super-deluxe resort
that features carriage rides and falconry along with spa
treatments, golf, and tennis.
Three of the Connecticut lawmakers reported trips to White
Sulphur Springs and a fourth reported a trip to Aventura.
Sponsors not fully disclosed?
Members of Congress frequently travel to foreign countries on
official business under the auspices of special delegations or
the committees on which they serve.
Over the last decade, for example, the House Committee on
Government Reform has sponsored U.S. Rep. Christopher Shays,
R-4th District, on 19 trips to Austria, Belgium, Germany, Hong
Kong, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, the
Netherlands, Russia, South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland,
Syria, Turkey, and the United Kingdom.
Similarly, the House Armed Forces Committee has sent U.S. Rep.
Robert R. Simmons, R-2nd District, and U.S. Rep. John B. Larson,
D-1st District, to Iraq and Kuwait, while U.S. Rep. Rosa L.
DeLauro, D-3rd District, has traveled with a delegation to
Italy, India, and the Czech Republic.
But federal lawmakers also travel extensively at the behest of
private interests. Such trips are allowed under House and Senate
rules if they relate to official business, and anyone other than
a lobbyist or foreign agent can pay for them. The lawmakers
simply must report such gifts -- for "reasonable and necessary
expenses" -- within 30 days of their trips.
A prominent sociologist, Amitai Etzioni, has decried the
ineffective enforcement of those rules, saying it has "become a
loophole through which interest groups circumvent regulations
capping private gifts" to members of Congress at $50.
The disclosures generally received scant publicity until
recently when they were the subject of stories in the Wall
Street Journal and on public radio done in conjunction with the
Northwestern University Medill School of Journalism.
The reports for the first time also have been incorporated into
a searchable database by PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan
Internet-based subscription service started by two former
Federal Election Commission staffers.
In its latest posting, the service calculated that more than
half of the $16 million in privately funded travel by all
members of Congress between 2000 and March was from tax-exempt
and other organizations that receive funds from others.
The original donors, it says, are not disclosed in the travel
reports, nor do the documents indicate whether they earmarked
funds for any of the trips. Lobbyists may encourage a client to
contribute to the organization paying for the travel and may
even personally serve on its board of directors.
Frequent flying leaders
No one from the Connecticut ranked among those receiving the
most gifts of travel, including five congressmen who accepted
dozens of trips worth a total of more than $160,000.
Shays reported receiving the most valuable gifts of private
travel in the delegation -- 25 trips valued at a total of
$59,828.
About half that amount came from the Aspen Institute, the
largest single sponsor of congressional travel, which sent Shays
and his wife on four trips. They included travels in January
2000 to a three-day "education conference" in Naples, Fla., at a
cost of $4,148 -- including $1,170 for meals alone and, a month
later, a five-day "global environment" conference in San Juan at
a cost of $4,684.
The institute also spent $15,692 to send Shays and his spouse to
China in the spring of 2002 for a conference on "U.S./China
relations."
Providing the congressman with other big-ticket trips were:
* The Campaign for America, which paid for a $4,722 two-day trip
to Los Angeles when Shays addressed the group in June 2001.
* The Human Rights Campaign, which paid $3,893 to have Shays
speak at a dinner in Los Angeles in March 2004.
* The Renaissance Institute, which paid $2,150 for Shays and his
wife to travel to Charleston, S.C., in December, 2001 for a trip
Shays described as "educational - enhance understanding of some
issues Congress may address this year, especially terrorism."
* The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which paid
$2,793 for Shays to speak at a members' meeting in Florida in
May 2004.
Running a close second to Shays was U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson,
R-5th District, who accepted nine travel gifts that cost a total
of $53,754.
Four trips for the lawmaker and her husband were paid for by the
Ripon Education Fund, a moderate Republican nonprofit policy
group. It twice treated the Johnsons to its annual
"transatlantic" conferences, paying $9,120 to send them to Rome
for eight days in the winter of 2000 and $15,204 to send them to
Scotland for 13 days in the summer of 2001.
The group also paid $8,878 to send the couple to San Francisco
in February 2002 as part of its "Ripon Society 2002 listening
tour" and $4,238 to fly them to Miami last January for a meeting
of its "congressional advisory board."
Johnson's other major benefactors included:
* The Brookings Institution, which paid $4,547 to send the
lawmaker and her husband to Scottsdale, Ariz., in January 2002
to consider "welfare reform and Beyond Congressional Retreat."
* The Commonwealth Fund and Harvard University's Kennedy School
of Government, which paid $1,760 to send Johnson a week later to
Aventura, Fla., for a "health policy conference."
* The Aspen Institute, which paid $9,476 for Johnson and her
husband to travel to Moscow for six days and attend a conference
on "U.S.-Russia" relations.
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd ranks third in private travel among the
delegation, having taken 22 trips that cost a total of $47,135.
Dodd is chairman of the U.S. Spain Council, a bilateral
organization whose members include high-ranking government
officials and leading corporations in Spain and the U.S. The
group paid $4,350 to send him to a three-day conference in
Madrid in 2000; $8,162 for another three-day meeting in Valencia
in 2001; and $1,950 for a two-day event in Coral Gables, Fla.
The ranking Democrat on a securities and investment
subcommittee, the senator's benefactors also included:
* The International Fiscal Association, which paid $1,314 to
send him to a three-day conference in Hamilton, Bermuda, in
January 2000.
* The Securities Industry Association, which paid $3,747 to have
him and his wife at its "spring legislative conference" in Boca
Raton, Fla., in March 2000.
* The World Economic Forum, which flew him to its "work economic
forum annual meeting" in Davos, Switzerland, in January, 2001.
* The Chicago Board of Trade and the Chicago Mercantile
Exchange, which paid $5,086 so he and his wife could attend the
"Futures Industry Association Conference" in Boca Raton in March
2001.
Middle of the pack
Simmons, with six privately funded trips valued at $27,450,
stands in the middle of the pack. His biggest benefactor was the
U.S.-Asia Foundation, which paid $16,725 to send him and his
wife to several Chinese cities in October 2003 so he could "meet
with Chinese government officials" and "build computer lab in
rural community."
The congressman's other sponsors included:
* Population Action International and the U.S. Committee for
United National Population Fund, which paid $5,437 to send him
to Mexico City for four days in February "to examine programs
funded by the UN Population Fund and discuss issues concerning
Homeland Security."
* The Nuclear Energy Institute, which paid $1,629 for a two-day
trip to Las Vegas and Yucca Mountain in Nevada so Simmons could
tour a proposed nuclear waste site.
* The American Shipbuilding Association, which paid $1,563 to
send him to Naples, Fla., in December 2003 for a "discussion of
policy and issues pertaining to the shipbuilding industry" and
$1,310 again in December 2004 to attend a "forum for members and
industry to share ideas of concern and discuss policy to rebuild
sea services and the shipbuilding industry."
Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman reported taking 49 trips that cost
private interests a total of $20,200.
Half of those ventures, however, involved visits to the
Washington, D.C., studios of national television networks --
usually at a cost of less than $150 -- or were part of a
promotional tour organized by his book publisher, Simon &Shuster
Inc., for which the costs were not immediately disclosed.
None of Lieberman's trips took him to foreign countries, and the
most expensive typically were sponsored by Jewish organizations:
* The State of Israel Bonds, which paid $3,030 to send the
senator and his wife to a dinner in Palm Beach in January 2000,
where he was a keynote speaker;
* The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which paid
$2,490 so Lieberman could deliver another keynote address at a
dinner in Beverly Hills, Calif., in October 2001.
* The Dallas Area Torah Association, which paid $1,323 to bring
Lieberman to that city as a keynote speaker in March 2001.
Relative stay-at-homes
Larson reported taking seven trips from private interests valued
at $12,941. All were to domestic locations and the most
expensive -- a $3,538 visit to Las Vegas for a "speech at
educational conference on energy issues" -- was covered by the
State Legislative Leaders Foundation, whose corporate sponsors
range from Anheuser-Busch to the Wine Institute.
Larson also made two treks to White Sulphur Springs: a $1,580
two-day visit accompanied by his wife and three children to a
"bipartisan Congressional Retreat" sponsored by the Aspen
Institute in March 2001, and a $1,783 four-day stay with his
wife and two of his children sponsored by the Public Governance
Institute in March 2003.
His other sponsors included:
* Merrill Lynch and the New York Stock Exchange, which paid
$1,082 to send the congressman to New York in January 2000 "to
learn more about the securities markets and financial services;"
* The Democratic Leadership Council, which twice paid to send
him and his wife to New Orleans, first for a $1,152 "spring
educational retreat" in April 2000 and for a $2,466 "spring
retreat" two years later.
DeLauro reporting taking two privately funded trips valued at
$3,748. The Alaska Rainforest Campaign paid $2,482 to send the
congresswoman and her husband to Juneau, Alaska, in June 2002
for a "Tongass National Forest fact-finding trip."
She also traveled to Fort Lauderdale, Fla., in March 2004 to
deliver a breakfast address of a conference of the Generic
Pharmaceutical Association, which paid $1,266 for the trip.
©Journal Inquirer 2005
*****************************************************************
10 Nuclear Disarmament And Non-proliferation Require Action From Everyone - Annan
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 14:00:51 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on pascal.ctyme.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ORG,
SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham
version=3.0.3
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT AND NON-PROLIFERATION REQUIRE ACTION FROM EVERYONE
– ANNAN
New York, May 2 2005 2:00PM
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan today challenged the
parties to the 1968 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to recognize
that disarmament, halting the spread of nuclear weapons and
the right to peaceful use are all vital – and far too important
“If we are truly committed to a nuclear weapon-free world, we must
move beyond rhetorical flourish and political posturing, and start
to think seriously about how to get there,” Mr. Annan said in
an opening <"http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=1427">address
to the <"http://www.un.org/events/npt2005/">2005 Review Conference
of the Parties to the NPT. “I challenge you to recognize that
[disarmament, non-proliferation and the right to peaceful uses]
An important step would be for former Cold War rivals to commit themselves
irreversibly to further cuts in their arsenals, so that
warheads number in the hundreds, not in the thousands. “We can only
hope to achieve such major reductions if every State has a clear
and reliable picture of the fissile material holdings of every
other State, and if every State is confident that this material
The Conference, which kicked off today at UN Headquarters in New
York and will run through 27 May, brings together top officials every
five years to review the status of the NPT, the world’s most
widely adhered-to multilateral disarmament accord, with 188 States
parties , including the five declared nuclear-weapon States.
Recalling the horrific explosions of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which
had ushered in the nuclear age, the Secretary-General painted a
dire picture of “chaos and confusion” in the immediate aftermath
if such a nuclear catastrophe were to occur in a major city today.
“Tens of thousands of people would die in an instant, and many
more would die from exposure to radiation,” he said, adding that
carefully nurtured collective security mechanisms could also be
In the 35 years since entering into force, the landmark NPT has “confounded
the dire predictions of its critics,” Mr. Annan said,
noting that nuclear weapons have not spread to dozens of States and
that indeed, more States have given up their ambitions for such
weapons than have acquired them. A watchful eye has also been kept
on the supply of materials to make nuclear weapons, and recent
steps had been taken to dismantle weapons and reduce stockpiles.
“The global non-proliferation norm has been firmly established,”
he said, but added: “We cannot afford to be complacent. The plain
fact is that the regime has not kept pace with the march of technology
and globalization, and developments of many kinds in recent
But Mr. Annan said that he firmly believed “our generation can build
a world of ever-expanding development, security and human rights
– a world ‘in larger freedom,’” echoing the UN Charter and the
He urged State parties to ensure that measures for compliance are
made more effective, to maintain confidence that States are living
up to their obligations. They must also act to reduce the threat
of proliferation not only to States, but to non-state actors.
“As the dangers of such proliferation have become clear, so has the
universal obligation for all States to establish effective national
“The obligation therefore falls on all States – nuclear and non-nuclear
alike – to increase transparency and security,” he declared.
“Indeed, unless all States recognize that disarmament, like non-proliferation,
requires action from everyone, the goal of general
and complete disarmament will remain a distant dream.” <"http://webcast.un.org/ramgen/conferences/npt2005/npt050502am.rm?start=%2200:15:33%22&end=%2200:32:43%22"
style="text-decoration:
none">
Video of address
[17mins]
2005-05-02 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
11 [du-list] "70 countries pursuing bunkers," Rumsfeld's reason
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:31:48 -0700
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=719669
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/05
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EA3HyD/3MnJAA/79vVAA/FGYolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/du-list/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
12 [du-list] US WMD in Vietnam - 30 years on
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:31:50 -0700
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4494347.stm
Item ends....
The US sprayed 80m litres of poisonous chemicals during Operation
Ranchhand. There were many Agents used, including Pink, Green and White,
but Agent Orange was used the most - 45m litres sprayed over a 10th of
Vietnam.
It was also used - mostly in secret - over parts of neighbouring Cambodia.
But Agent Orange in particular was laced with dioxins - extremely toxic to
humans. Dioxins accumulate in the body to cause cancers. Anyone eating or
drinking in contaminated areas then receives an even higher dose.
Spraying stopped in 1971, after more than 6,000 missions and growing public
disquiet.
But the ground in many areas of Vietnam remains contaminated by Agent
Orange. A number of people in these areas believe they are victims of the
chemical.
One woman said the herbicide had caused a skin disease which gave her
"great suffering".
"If the US and Vietnamese governments could care for people like me, that
would be comforting," she added.
Another man said his legs have "wasted away" as a result of Agent Orange.
"When I realise I have been contaminated with poisonous chemicals, and the
US government hasn't done anything to help, I feel very said, and it makes
me cry," he added.
"Now I always get severe headaches. My first child has just died - he had
physical deformities. The second one is having headaches like me."
Cancers and disease
Food and supplies are still delivered to victims of Agent Orange. Many were
not born when the US sprayed the area - but there is strong evidence the
chemicals are still having an effect.
A disproportionately large number of children in the areas affected are
born with defects, both mental and physical. Many are highly susceptible to
cancers and disease.
And Vietnamese doctors are convinced Agent Orange is to blame.
"This is due to the US sprayings," said Dr Hong Tien Dong, village doctor
who has lived in the area all his life.
"Before, in this area, the environment was quite clean.
"Now it has become like this."
In the late 1990s, a Canadian study tested soil, pond water, fish and duck
tissue, as well as human blood samples, and found dangerously high levels
of dioxin travelling up the food chain to humans.
Dioxin concentrations have been found to be 13 times higher than average in
the soil of affected areas, and, in human fat tissue, 20 times as high.
A Japanese study, comparing areas sprayed with those that were not, found
children were three times more likely to be born with cleft pallets, or
extra fingers and toes.
There are eight times as many hernias in such children, and three times as
many born with mental disabilities.
In 2001, scientists found that people living in an Agent Orange "hotspot"
at Binh-Hoa near Ho Chi Minh City have 200 times the background amount of
dioxin in their bloodstreams.
Humanitarian opportunity
America "normalised" relations with Vietnam 10 years ago, and the country
has now embraced the free market.
No representative of the US government in Vietnam would talk to One Planet
about Agent Orange.
However, in 1984, chemical companies that manufactured the Agent paid $180m
into a fund for United States veterans following a lawsuit. They did not,
however, admit any wrongdoing.
Meanwhile in 2004 - at the same time Mr Nguyen first brought his lawsuit -
a joint-US-Vietnamese project to examine the long-term genetic impact of
Agent Orange was cancelled.
Some Americans in Vietnam fear that the legacy of Agent Orange is
overshadowing the new friendship between the two countries.
"Many of the other obstacles have been dealt with - trade and exchange and
diplomatic relations," said Andrew Wells-Dang, from the Fund For
Reconciliation And Development - an American organisation set up in the
1980s with the aim of improving relations between the countries.
He pointed out that the US has provided funding for clearing mines that it
dropped on Vietnam during the war.
"We think the US should do the same with Agent Orange" he added.
"It's not going to go away, because it affects a huge number of people in
Vietnam.
"We would see this as an opportunity for the US to take humanitarian action
so that it doesn't become an obstacle between the countries."
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/05
[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/
*****************************************************************
13 IPS-English DISARMAMENT: Nuclear Weapons Talks Open on Crisis
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:28:11 -0700
ROMAIPS NA WD IP
DISARMAMENT: Nuclear Weapons Talks Open on Crisis Note
By Haider Rizvi
UNITED NATIONS, May 2 (IPS) - When world powers adopted a treaty to stop
the spread of nuclear weapons some 35 years ago, many hoped it would pave
the way for total disarmament. Instead nations, including some that created
the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), have stockpiled thousands
of nuclear weapons and even now are making new ones.
"The present crisis is the worst," said Douglas Roche, a former Canadian
diplomat and lawmaker who once led the United Nations' disarmament
committee. ''It's very, very serious. It's an immense threat to humanity.''
Roche, who followed the NPT for about 20 years, said he sees the United
States and other established nuclear powers as being responsible for the
proliferation crisis now facing the international community.
''The nuclear countries are setting up a two-class system in the world,''
he said. ''This is unacceptable to the non-nuclear countries.''
Washington has made cuts in nuclear arsenals in recent years but continues
to build a new generation of nuclear weapons. When spending on delivery
systems and command and control is included, U.S. appropriations for
nuclear forces amount to about 40 billion dollars a year, according to the
Lawyers Committee on Nuclear Policy, a New York-based disarmament advocacy
group.
On Monday, Roche joined colleagues from civil society groups at U.N.
headquarters, where government leaders from 188 countries began
negotiations over what more can be done to strengthen the treaty. Held
every five years, the NPT review conference runs through May 27.
Disarmament advocates said they are working through ''middle power''
governments to encourage and educate nuclear weapons states to take
immediate practical steps that reduce nuclear danger, and to start talks to
eliminate nuclear weapons.
Middle power countries are politically and economically significant,
internationally respected countries that have renounced the nuclear arms
race, a standing that disarmament advocates and diplomats alike have said
gives them political credibility.
Last December, the middle powers -- including Brazil, Egypt, New Zealand,
South Africa, and Sweden -- introduced a General Assembly resolution urging
disarmament. The measure was adopted by a vote of 151-6, with 24
abstentions. The United States opposed the move.
The resolution called upon nations to fully comply with their commitments
on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation and ''not to act in any way
that may be detrimental to nuclear disbarment or non-proliferation, or that
may lead to a new nuclear arms race.''
Observers note that the middle powers, also known as the New Agenda
Coalition, are getting wider support from other nations, including
traditional U.S. allies.
North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) members Belgium, Canada,
Lithuania, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Turkey voted for the
General Assembly resolution. Also, it was the first time since 2000 that
staunch U.S. allies such as Japan and South Korea endorsed the resolution.
The argument in support of the initiative to eliminate nuclear weapons also
stems from a 1996 ruling by the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which
stressed the need for negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in ''all
its aspects under strict and effective international control.''
''The illegality of nuclear weapons is apparent,'' said Christopher
Weeramantry, a former vice president of the ICJ. ''The NPT was made to
avoid the law of jungle.''
While peace advocates like Roche try to push the disarmament agenda forward
by means of lobbying diplomats from the sidelines of the NPT review
conference here, a coalition of anti-nuclear groups took their case to the
public.
On Sunday, the day before the NPT review conference opened here, thousands
of people staged a demonstration in front of U.N. headquarters in New York
to demand the complete abolition of nuclear weapons.
''No war, no nukes,'' roared the crowds as they marched past Times Square,
a tourism and entertainment hub.
The demonstrators included more than 1,000 Japanese peace activists
including the mayors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the two cities destroyed by
U.S. nuclear bombing in 1945, toward the end of World War II.
''No more Hiroshimas, no more Nagasakis,'' read a large banner held up by a
Japanese protester.
A day later, their voices seemed to be echoed from within the U.N.'s corridors.
''The only way to guarantee that nuclear weapons will never be used is for
our world to be free of such weapons,'' U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan
told conference delegates. ''If we are truly committed to a nuclear
weapon-free world, we must move beyond rhetorical flourish and political
posturing, and start to think seriously how to get there."
In a recent report, a high-level panel commissioned by Annan urged ''prompt
negotiations of a fissile material cut-off treaty for all states.'' The
panel of experts also recommended a moratorium on testing and an early
entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT). It further
urged nuclear powers to ''de-alert'' their existing weapons, meaning to
separate warheads from delivery systems.
Diplomats familiar with NPT negotiations said they saw no major
breakthrough at the end of this month's conference.
A senior U.N. official said this was because there was the treaty simply
needed strengthening, not a major overhaul.
Roche, however, said the outcome likely would be inconclusive because of a
lack of political will to make significant progress toward non-proliferation.
''The U.S. role is the core of the problem,'' he said. ''We are appealing
to the U.S. to adopt a positive attitude. You just can't turn your back on
these promises.''
Annan, in his speech to delegates, called upon former Cold War rivals
Russia and the United States to significantly reduce their nuclear arsenals.
*****
+ Middle Powers Initiative (www.middlepowers.org)
+ Abolition Now (www.abolitionnow.org)
(END/IPS/NA/WD/IP/HR/AA/05)
= 05022236 ORP011
NNNN
*****************************************************************
14 RIA Novosti: NPT REVIEW CONFERENCE TO OPEN IN UN HEADQUARTERS
NEW YORK, May 2 (RIA Novosti, Andrei Loshchilin) - The seventh
Review Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) is opening today in
the United Nations headquarters in New York City. Such forums
are held every five years in keeping with Article 8 of the NPT.
Since the 2000 review conference, Cuba and Timor Lesti have
signed up to the Treaty while North Korea has pulled out.
North Korea's decision to withdraw from the NPT will be high on
the agenda of this year's conference, to run through May 27.
Other issues expected to be discussed include nuclear
disarmament, inspections of nuclear sites by the International
Atomic Energy Agency, peaceful nuclear programs, and the
prevention of nuclear materials falling into the hands of
terrorists.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan has pointed out that states
possessing nuclear weapons should make more efforts to reaffirm
their commitment to the obligations assumed under the Treaty
while non-nuclear powers should agree to more rigorous control
of their compliance by IAEA inspectors. Annan has described the
NPT as the cornerstone of global security, noting that its
efficiency and reliability are being subjected to serious
testing.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was approved by the UN
General Assembly on June 12, 1968, and opened to accession on
July 1, 1968, in Moscow, London and Washington, D.C.
The NPT came into force on March 5, 1970, after instruments of
ratification had been submitted by the three depositary states
(the USSR, the U.S., and the UK) and forty other countries.
As many as 191 UN member states have joined the NPT, making it
the largest international treaty. Only Israel, Pakistan and
India are staying away.
© 2005 "RIAN Novosti"
*****************************************************************
15 BBC: An old treaty for a new world?
Last Updated: Monday, 2 May, 2005
By Jonathan Marcus BBC Diplomatic Correspondent
[Satellite image of North Korea's Yongbyon Nuclear Centre]
Is N Korea, a NPT signatory, developing nuclear weapons?
The entry into force of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or
NPT in March 1970 represented a milestone for a world living in
the shadow of the nuclear bomb.
Its aim was to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons beyond the
five "declared" nuclear armed powers: Britain, France, China,
the United States and the then Soviet Union.
There were fears that without such an agreement there might be
15 or 20 nuclear-armed states within a similar number of years.
In that goal the Non-Proliferation Treaty has been successful.
But today, with countries like India, Israel and Pakistan
effectively nuclear powers, and with growing worries over North
Korea and Iran's nuclear activities, many wonder if the
Non-Proliferation Treaty still serves a useful purpose.
Strength in numbers
Rose Gottemoeller of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington DC -
herself a former senior US arms control official - argues
emphatically that it does.
There are only three countries in the world, she told me, that
are not members of the NPT regime - India, Pakistan and Israel.
Otherwise, it is almost a universally held treaty, so, she
argues, "it is very important to remember that most countries of
the world do live up to the regime and most countries do believe
it is important".
The NPT regime's foundations, she insisted, remained firm.
The foundations may be strong, but many people fear that the
super-structure is looking shakier than ever.
Weaknesses
Gary Samore is a non-proliferation expert at the International
Institute for Strategic Studies in London.
He argues that a whole series of episodes had highlighted
weaknesses in the regime - North Korea's withdrawal from the NPT
after it was found to be cheating on its commitments, not to
mention what he described as Iran's efforts to develop a nuclear
weapons capability under the cover of a peaceful nuclear
programme.
None of the nuclear weap states are prepared to give up their
nuclear arsenals Gary Samore
Non-proliferation expert
In addition there was the Abdul Qadeer Khan's network in
Pakistan, which demonstrated weaknesses in the whole export
control system relating to nuclear technologies.
All of these events, he told me, had prompted a range of ideas
to reform and strengthen the NPT regime.
This Review Conference will provide an opportunity for those
different ideas to be discussed and debated.
But he doubts if any real consensus will be achieved.
Grand bargain
That is because the essential bargain at the heart of the NPT is
under strain like never before.
[Preliminary installation of a turbo generato at Iran's Bushehr
nuclear power plant] The treaty: Q
At the heart of the Non-Proliferation Treaty's success lies a
"grand bargain".
Other than the big five nuclear powers, all other countries
joined the treaty as non-nuclear armed states.
They gave up any ambition to develop nuclear weapons; they agreed
to open up all their facilities to inspection; and in return they
were guaranteed the benefits of peaceful nuclear technology.
But, as Rose Gottemoeller told me, this 'bargain' is wearing a
little thin and for good reason.
As she explained, "There is a very close relationship between the
peaceful uses of nuclear technology, for energy purposes for
example, and the creation of fissile material for nuclear bombs."
There was, she said, "great concern about countries like North
Korea that can step up to the edge of the treaty constraints and
then jump outside it" and this conference will be focused on that
issue.
Worries on Iran
The worries over Iran's nuclear programme are very similar.
Could it gain a nuclear capability within the NPT regime and then
simply abandon the treaty and press ahead with a weapons
programme?
Indeed in the on-going talks between Iran and a trio of European
countries, Tehran is actually being asked to give up any idea of
having a nuclear fuel enrichment programme, something it is
entirely within its rights to pursue under the NPT regime.
The Non-Proliferation Treaty in fact faces a crisis of
compliance. Indeed it is a double crisis.
Because, as part of the "grand bargain", the five declared
nuclear powers undertook eventually to give up their nuclear
arms.
And many believe they have simply not been honouring this
commitment.
Complex problems
As Gary Samore told me, "none of the nuclear weapon states are
prepared to give up their nuclear arsenals" and each of them in
some ways, perhaps with the exception of the UK, are actually
taking measures to prolong their capability or even to find new
roles for nuclear bombs.
The US is investigating new types of nuclear weapons to attack
deeply-buried targets; China is busy modernising its nuclear
arsenal to make it more mobile; and Russia and China have both
altered their nuclear doctrines in ways which might make the use
of nuclear arms more likely.
"Their collective behaviour", he told me, "will certainly hang as
a cloud over the Review Conference."
Few of the experts that I've spoken to had any great hopes that
this gathering in New York would produce any ground-breaking
initiatives.
Nonetheless the NPT still provides a basic bench-mark in a
troubled world.
Its near universality is a great strength.
But there are doubts that the NPT is really sufficient to deal
with the much more complex problems of non-proliferation in
today's world.
Trying to re-draft the treaty would probably lead to it coming
apart at the seams.
Many experts believe that real progress in dealing with the
difficult cases like North Korea and Iran can only come from
tailor-made diplomatic initiatives outside the treaty itself.
*****************************************************************
16 BBC: Will NPT conference make a difference?
Last Updated: Monday, 2 May, 2005
[Anti-nuclear protestors in New York]
A conference on atomic arms control has opened in New York with
the world's nuclear powers facing demands to speed up
disarmament.
The UN Secretary General has told delegates the current treaty
limiting the spread of nuclear weapons needs revising.
Kofi Annan said "in our interconnected world, a threat to one is
a threat to all and we all share responsibility for our
security".
This is the seventh review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) since it came into force in 1970.
Does the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty still serve a useful
purpose? Should the nuclear powers fulfil their obligation to
disarm? How should it change for the 21st Century? Send us your
comments.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have
received so far:
The NPT is a noble idea b hasn't worked and probably will never
work Eric, Detroit, USA
The NPT is a noble idea but hasn't worked and probably
will never work. All the countries in the world would have to
trust each other to comply with the treaty and to trust each
other not to engage in war. I don't see this type of world trust
happening in my lifetime. Eric, Detroit, USA
I am appalled to read that Israel has nuclear weapons. I am in
disbelief to hear that it refuses to give account of it. Why is
the world not acting toward Israel the same as for Iran and North
Korea? Victor, Miami
I think the Non Proliferation Treaty was always an attempt by the
winners of World War II to keep the most efficient weapons in the
hand of the western countries and leave everyone else at their
mercy. This treaty must be modified so other countries can have
some defence capability against the western powers that are in
their mode of invading other countries like Iraq under the name
of democracy. Atiq, San Francisco, USA
The first country that should disarm and lead by example is
France. Everyone loves France, both East and West, and would
never attack them anyway. Why on earth do they need nukes for
protection? They should show their courage, leadership and high
moral standing and abolish their nuclear arsenal. Frank, North
Carolina, USA
The main
obstacle has alwa been the shameful hypocrisy of those who have
nuclear weapons
Carlos Cortiglia, London, United Kingdom
The main obstacle has always been the shameful hypocrisy
of those who have nuclear weapons and this includes Britain. We
cannot tell others not to have nuclear weapons when we in Britain
are just planning to increase the British arsenal of nuclear
weapons. If North Korea, Iran and Argentina want to have nuclear
weapons, good for them. The whole treaty is an idiotic way of
telling others 'do what we say, but not what we do.' Carlos
Cortiglia, London, United Kingdom
NPT may lose its credibility if doesn't recognise Iran's right to
use atomic energy in peaceful purposes. Nima, Shiraz, Iran
I for one am perfectly happy for the Iranians, the Russians,
North Koreans, and all the other countries who are being
subjected to American pressure to disarm keep their weapons as a
deterrent to the Americans and their satellites, who are seeking
to dominate the whole planet. Israel is now the biggest threat to
peace in the Middle East as Iraq ever was. Thomas Lowry, Leeds UK
The ironic part to be kept in mind is that nuclear weapons are
the ultimate weapons and they are the peace keepers. The only
reason there hasn't been a world war in 60 years, and it's
unlikely for one to occur is because of the Mutual Assured
Destruction (MAD) doctrine of the nuclear weapons. Which is why
the US and USSR never fought overtly. And which is why today, an
India Pakistan war is ever so remote despite Pentagon calling it
a "hotspot". Long live nuclear weapons. Prabodh, Mysore, India
The 21st
century is the ti for nuclear superpowers to stop dictating rules
purely for others Jon Huhm, Sao Paulo, Brazil
If the US and Russia feel safer keeping their nuclear
arsenals, why can't Iran, North Korea and others? Something is
surely out of order and out of date. The 21st century is the time
for nuclear superpowers to stop dictating rules purely for others
and start developing a new international system of uniform laws
for all nations, poor and rich, big and small. Jon Huhm, Sao
Paulo, Brazil
As long as the nuclear powers such as the United States and
Britain boast and increase their nuclear arsenal, do whatever
they want, and try to control other nations (through new means of
colonization), why shouldn't other countries build nuclear
weapons as a deterrent? Muhammad, TX, USA
What right does the US have to say that other countries cannot
have nuclear weapons while they support the second largest
population of nuclear weapons? Sounds like the pot calling the
kettle black. Jonathan, Milwaukee, WI
How can Iran and North Korea be expected to comply with
disarmament treaties, when even America and other "nuclear
powers" have failed in their commitments to comply? They are
hardly setting a good example. Jack, London/Memphis
Reduction
would send the rig message Kit, Memphis, USA
The treaty could be useful for two reasons. Even though
we will never eliminate these weapons, it is important that there
be a system for reduction in countries like Russia, which still
has more warheads than it can safely manage. Second, it is
hypocritical for the US to demand that other countries remain
disarmed while we develop new types of nukes. Reduction would
send the right message. Kit, Memphis, USA
As long as some nations have this power and others do not, there
will be problems. Everyone needs to disarm their nuclear
arsenals. It is my guess that this is not going to happen, as
some like to stay on top, and have the most bargaining power.
With India, Israel and Pakistan now having nuclear power,
proliferation has already taken place. It now seems more
dangerous for nations to have this power than not to have it. The
pendulum has most certainly swung the other way as more nations
are working on nuclear power. M. Clark, UK/US
NPT "was" a noble endeavour for world peace. However, it is just
another tool in the Western world's arsenal of domination. They
are too willing to talk about the obligations of the non-weapon
states, but they easily forget their obligations under the NPT
treaty. Kim, Istanbul
Israel is a country surrounded by millions of people who wish it
would cease to exist. Demanding Israel to sign this treaty is
like asking someone to sign his own death penalty. Yotam,
Jerusalem, Israel
Nations will find a reason keep such weapons Scott, USA
Until you eliminate the reasons nations go to war, there
is no hope of eliminating nuclear weapons and little hope of
preventing their spread. Whether it is the desire for dominance
or the desire for survival, nations will find a reason to keep
such weapons. The best hope is to reduce the number of weapons
but still maintain a credible deterrence. I believe that the
existence of nuclear weapons has prevented WW3. Scott, USA
When everyone else disarms, then maybe we will. But until you can
come up with a way to make sure everyone else has disarmed, we
will continue to employ our strategic deterrent. Peace through
strength is what won the Cold War, and the idea of us giving up
our weapons while other nations have them is utterly
preposterous. Zach Smith, Bloomington, IN, USA
The NPT should be compulsory for every nation and if nations
decide not to sign they should be banned from having any type of
nuclear technology. There should also be a new treaty drawn up
limiting all nations with nuclear weapons to keeping an absolute
minimum of operational warheads. Paul B, Swindon, UK
There is no way that you will ever get rid of these weapons. We
have the knowledge to make them and that can never be eliminated.
MAD - mutually assured destruction is all we have now. Todd,
Virginia, USA
National interests and econom prospects-chasers are the main
obstacles to any solutions
Mary McCannon, Budapest, Hungary
In general conferences can make a difference, but in recent years
it is not highly typical. Did we get closer to any solution
through any of the conferences held in recent years? National
interests and economic prospects-chasers are the main obstacles
to any solutions. I am afraid that this NPT conference will be
the same. Mary McCannon, Budapest, Hungary
Total nuclear disarmament is a pipe dream. Imagine if the US, UK,
and dare I say France, disarm. Now that would leave a whole lot
of options for countries like Russia and China, wouldn't it? And
I'm sure North Korea and Iran would finally see the utopian light
and suddenly agree to play by the rules? Get real. Patrick,
Arlington, VA
It serves no purpose so long as the UN turns a blind eye as more
and more countries become armed with nuclear ordnance. Why would
the US and other nuclear powers reduce their arsenals if the
world body sits on its hands as more and more nations try to
force their way into the nuclear club? This is the end result of
world organisations with no backbone. John, San Antonio, Tx, USA
All existing nuclear powers should by all means begin to disarm
all nuclear weapons. Call me naive, but I don't think any country
would ever use a nuclear weapon because of the very real
possibility of massive nuclear war that would ensue. Isn't it
time that billions of dollars are spent on something other than a
better way of annihilating mankind? Salman Hoda, Oakville, Canada
Shouldn't we be creating peace by building up alliances and
friendships with other nations, rather than keeping peace through
the underlying nuclear threat? Tom, UK
Reducing the arsenals is only the icing on the cake. A huge
reduction will still leave any of the larger nuclear countries
capable of reducing another to ash. These weapons are not
designed to be used, the keyword is deterrence. Let them stay.
Paul Beckett, London, UK
The only way to minimi nuclear weapons is to limit them for
everyone Jim, San Francisco, USA
The NPT is worthless. Three nuclear countries (Israel,
Pakistan and India) are not even parties to it and I expect Iran
to pull out soon. The only way to minimise nuclear weapons is to
limit them for everyone, including the US. Jim, San Francisco,
USA
The clearest problem with the conference is the fact that the
biggest nuclear threats in the world, such as North Korea and
Iran, will not be at this conference and until these countries
are brought to question, until they are put under mass worldwide
pressure, non-proliferation will not happen. Added to this is the
fact that countries such as the US and Russia are a law upon
themselves and they will always point the finger at someone else.
Jason Robinson, Dublin, Ireland
The nuclear powers should fulfil their obligations to disarm.
They have to lead by example. If they don't disarm, how can they
convince other countries to disarm? As for the 21st century,
countries should be geared towards eradicating poverty instead of
spending a fortune on nuclear weapons. Omorodion Osula, Boston,
USA
America will never disarm. It's stated global strategy is not
just to maintain American dominance, but to ensure that no other
power can ever challenge this dominance. Nuclear weapons are an
essential part of this strategy. Rob, Guildford, UK
Even if all nations that have nuclear weapons did disarm, the
problem will not go away. These nations will still hold the
technology, skills and knowledge to make more. All they will need
is a strong enough reason and we are all back to square one. You
can take away someone's cooker but you'll never stop them from
knowing how to use a cooker. If the NPT is to be of any use, then
not only must it follow tactics suggested by Josh, USA, but it
must also ensure that nations are not given any reason to re-arm.
Aaron David Hall, Worcester, UK
The NPT certainly still serves a purpose in that very few
countries have pursued nuclear weapons capabilities compared to
35 years ago. However, the main problem with the treaty is that
it relies on fear - of nuclear war in general, of sanctions, of
ostracism on the international stage - to keep nuclear arms in
check. The only way to make something like this work is to
engender a feeling of international importance. If it only serves
the ends of the current nuclear powers, it loses validity in the
eyes of other nations. In the spirit of the greater good then,
current powers should seek to reduce their arsenals. This would
also put others who feel threatened by the current nuclear powers
more at ease. Josh, Traverse City, Michigan, USA
Let me guess, a treaty will be drafted for global nuclear
decommissioning yet the only country not to sign up will be the
good old USA? And maybe France will abstain as there's still a
few Pacific islands that haven't yet been used as test sites.
Steve, UK
Country without nuclear capabilities would be stupid to listen to
the ones that already got nuclear weapons. I see no reason why
countries such as US, UK, Israel, France, Pakistan etc would be
allow to defend themselves but not Iran. It is incredibly naive
to ask for this. Nicolas Gibert, Paris, France
*****************************************************************
17 Asia Times: Bush: US to help China with energy efficiency
WASHINGTON - Stressing the importance of reducing US dependence
on foreign sources of energy, President George W Bush said one
of the ways to achieve that goal was by helping growing
consumers such as India and China use energy more efficiently,
thereby reducing the demand for fossil fuels.
There are four key ways to reduce dependence on foreign sources
of energy, including greater use of energy-saving technology;
finding ways to make the most use of natural gas and coal; the
development of clean nuclear power and other existing energy
resources; and developing new sources of energy such as
hydrogen, ethanol and bio-diesel, he said.
Envisioning possible technical aid on the energy issue to India
and China, Bush told a nationally televised news conference
yesterday, "we must help growing energy consumers overseas, like
China and India, apply new technologies to use energy more
efficiently and reduce global demand for fossil fuels."
On issues relating to terror and democracy, he said he was
confident that the US and its allies are winning the war on
terror but emphasised that the long-term solution for terror is
the spread of democracy. "We will be relentless against terror
and we are winning that war" but in the long term "the answer to
terror is democracy," Bush said. He said it was not advisable to
fix a date in advance to withdraw form Iraq and made it clear
that the Iraqis are being trained to protect Iraq themselves.
(Asia Pulse/PTI)
Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong
Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
*****************************************************************
18 CBC News: UN set to review 1970 nuclear treaty
Last Updated Mon, 02 May 2005 22:48:19 EDT CBC News
UNITED NATIONS - Negotiators from 189 nations begin reviewing
the international treaty designed to halt the spread of nuclear
weapons on Monday, amid fears that actions by Iran and North
Korea are making it irrelevant.
+ INDEPTH:
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty came into effect 35 years
ago at the height of the Cold War, when the former Soviet Union
and the United States were locked in an unnerving arms race.
The 1970 treaty promised a world free of nuclear weapons.
+ INDEPTH:
Today, U.S. President George W. Bush says the treaty actually
helps regimes like those running Iran and North Korea.
Bush administration officials believe North Korea may be on the
verge of its first nuclear test, while Iran is again threatening
to restart nuclear enrichment and may soon develop its own bomb.
+ FROM MAY 1, 2005:
The treaty lets countries such as these legally develop nuclear
power plants, then simply leave the treaty, without any
penalties, and go on to use newly acquired materials and
technology to make a bomb.
"We must also prevent governments from developing nuclear
weapons under false pretenses," Bush said in a recent speech.
In particular, he calls North Korean Leader Kim Jong-Il "a
dangerous person" who could soon have the world's most dangerous
weapon in his hands.
Many other nations taking part in the month-long review of the
treaty say it is the U.S. and other big nuclear powers that are
ignoring the treaty by not reducing their own arsenals.
+ FROM APRIL 28, 2005:
Daryl Kimball, the director of the Arms Control Association,
said the Bush administration is repudiating the treaty at every
turn.
It has rejected a ban on nuclear tests, cancelled the
anti-ballistic missile treaty and is even toying with building
new types of nuclear weapons, Kimball said.
+ FROM APRIL 29, 2005:
"In their mind's eye, the problem of nuclear weapons is a
problem of dangerous weapons in the hands of dangerous regimes,
rather than looking at nuclear weapons as inherently dangerous."
Joe Cirincione of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
is worried that the review of the treaty will turn into a
deadlocked failure because of a lack of leadership from
countries such as the United States, which is sending only
mid-level officials to the talks.
"If this conference fails, if the Iranian crisis is unresolved,
if North Korea consolidates as a nuclear weapons state, you can
imagine a very different and darker future five years from now,"
he warned at congressional hearings last week.
Copyright © CBC 2005
*****************************************************************
19 Physics Today: Nuclear Power Needs Government Incentives, Says Task Force -
May 2005
A high-profile US government task force says it is in the
national interest to use nuclear power as a clean and
increasingly economical way to meet the growing demand for
electricity.
Citing economics, climate change, and the projected growth in
global energy demand, a US Department of Energy (DOE) task force
cochaired by former Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) chairman
Richard Meserve and former New Hampshire Governor John H. Sununu
has recommended that the federal government help revitalize the
US nuclear power industry by sharing the up-front costs of the
first few of a new generation of nuclear power plants. After
citing three decades of increasing efficiency, decreasing
operating costs, and solid safety records at the 103 existing US
nuclear power plants, the task force noted that "despite this .
. . achievement, and the fact that nuclear power generation does
not result in greenhouse gas emissions, no new US nuclear power
plants have been ordered and subsequently built since 1973."
Economic case
To restart the nuclear industry, the authors of the report—the
nuclear energy task force of the Secretary of Energy Advisory
Board (SEAB)—say "there should be government-supported
demonstration programs and financial incentives to overcome the
uncertainties and economic hurdles that would otherwise prevent
the first few new plants from being built." Their key
recommendation is a cost-sharing program for "first-of-a-kind
engineering" (FOAKE) costs "inherent in building the first
facility of a new design."
The task force recommended fifty-fifty cost sharing up to a
maximum of $200 million in government money "for each of three
major competing design types, with the secretary of energy being
given discretion to select the types to be supported." While the
report does not call the cost-sharing program a government loan
to industry, it does say that much of the money could be repaid
from the profits of future nuclear power plants built using the
designs.
Although the report is essentially a document making an economic
case for government subsidies to restart the US civilian nuclear
power industry, task force member C. Paul Robinson, the former
director of Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New
Mexico, said the economic arguments "are just becoming very
timely in terms of electrical needs. We have looked at all the
alternatives and certainly if you believe in the threats of
greenhouse gases, then it is important to have something that
can produce electricity with good efficiency and cost, and be
emission free."
Another task force member, physicist Burton Richter, former
director of SLAC, said that the FOAKE recommendation for cost
sharing came because it "looks very much as if, once you get
past the extra costs of a first-of-a-kind plant, then the costs
of nuclear power are competitive with coal. That's a surprise to
most people. If you can replace coal, you do good for air
pollution, the economy, energy supply, and competitiveness."
Richter noted that the US, along with the rest of the globe, is
"due for a big expansion in electricity demand, and we're better
off for environmental and other reasons if we do it with nuclear
power instead of coal. Government should lead industry to do the
right thing rather than the wrong thing."
In addition to urging legislative support and funding for FOAKE,
the task force made two other recommendations to help rejuvenate
the nuclear power industry:
+ Early site permit and combined construction and operating
license demonstration programs jointly funded by DOE and
industry. In the past, one of the more significant barriers to
new nuclear power plant construction was the two-step licensing
process. The NRC issued a construction permit, and only after
construction was substantially completed was an operating permit
issued. Outside parties had numerous opportunities to intervene
and delay or halt a project, which made the process of building
a nuclear power plant a risky, high-stakes affair. The NRC has
established a streamlined combined licensing procedure that
significantly cuts the financial risk of building a nuclear
plant, but the procedure has never been tested. The report
recommends that DOE share the licensing costs with early
applicants so that a real-world model can be developed.
+ A "basket of support programs for the first few reactors of
each new supported design to provide efficient financial
options." This basket would include secured loan guarantees, tax
credits, accelerated depreciation, and other economic incentives
from which a nuclear power plant builder could pick and choose.
The incentives package could not exceed $250 million in
government money for each nuclear reactor.
In the leadership issues section of the report, the task force
warns nuclear-industry leaders that they must "recognize that
the federal government should not and cannot eliminate all the
risks and vagaries of the energy markets for them." The nuclear
industry, the report says, "must clarify its needs and
prioritize its requests" and "must also convey information to
federal policymakers in clear, sharply defined terms with
specific recommendations."
Industry reaction
Richard Myers, senior director of business and environmental
policy at the Nuclear Energy Institute, said the task force
report was a "well thought out piece of work." The nuclear
industry, which NEI represents, is looking at $400 to $500
million as the FOAKE cost of a new nuclear plant, he said, so
the report's fifty-fifty cost-sharing proposal with a $200
million limit was reasonable. "We think the report, on balance,
is pretty sensible.. . . Once the first ones are done, we think
Wall Street and the companies will recognize the licensing
process is manageable, costs are predictable . . . and we can
move forward from that point on and finance them
conventionally."
Policymakers in both the administration and Congress must
develop "a clear commitment to a national energy policy" that
gives nuclear power a strong role, the report says. "We urge
that the president identify this as a critical priority for the
nation and that Congress take the necessary steps to meet this
priority." The report doesn't mention the controversy
surrounding the Yucca Mountain radioactive waste storage project
in Nevada (see the story on ), but it does say the waste storage
problem must be resolved. But the authors make clear that "the
absence of a licensed repository is not a valid reason for
postponing additional nuclear construction."
Another critical aspect of encouraging a new generation of power
plants is the concern over nuclear proliferation, especially in
the wake of September 11th. The task force's bottom-line
conclusion is that the rest of the world is going to move
forward with energy generation from nuclear power regardless of
what the US does, and the US would be better off participating
than sitting on the sidelines.
An increase in the use of nuclear power in the US would actually
"serve our non-proliferation objectives," the report says,
because "one of the most efficient and certainly the most
thorough ways of disposing of that nuclear material is to burn
it as fuel in commercial nuclear reactors."
Robinson said task force members "had several discussions with
the folks over at the White House to understand what the traffic
would bear" in terms of government support for the nuclear
industry. "We've been getting the right words to do at least one
such [reactor construction and startup]." That would shore up
the confidence that all of the work that was done to speed up
the regulatory process has worked, he said. "The object is . . .
to show that nuclear power is a good investment."
And it is economics, not safety, that killed nuclear power
development in the US, Robinson said. "Nuclear power was grossly
overbuilt because of predictions that energy growth was going to
double every seven or eight years," he said. When that didn't
happen, it became uneconomical, especially with the uncertain
licensing procedures, to invest in nuclear power, he said.
"So it's going to take a big infusion of courage for the next
person in the finance community to take the first step," he
said. That courage will be easier to find if it is bolstered by
a federal cost-sharing program, the report concludes. Jim Dawson
*****************************************************************
20 Independent: Outdated nuclear treaty is a threat to us all, warns Annan
By Rupert Cornwell in Washington
03 May 2005
Kofi Annan, the United Nations secretary general, warned
yesterday that the cornerstone international treaty curbing the
spread of nuclear weapons was in urgent need of repair, if it
was to keep pace with globalisation and the advance of atomic
technology.
Mr Annan delivered his bleak warning as delegates from more than
180 countries began a conference at the UN in a bid to
strengthen the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The
month-long review comes at a time of rising tensions, spurred by
North Korea's suspected development of a nuclear weapon, and
Iran's apparent pursuit of such arms.
Warning of a possible nuclear calamity in a major city, he said
that in an interconnected world, "a threat to one is a threat to
all, and we all share responsibility for each other's security."
The plain fact was "that the regime has not kept pace with the
march of technology and globalisation, and developments of many
kinds in recent years have placed it under great stress." Mr
Annan said that all countries, nuclear and non-nuclear powers,
had to play their part. Russia and the US accounting for more
than 90 per cent of the estimated 17,000 nuclear warheads in the
world should cut their arsenals "so that warheads number in
the hundreds, not in the thousands".
For Iran, engaged in delicate ands fitful negotiations with the
EU to freeze its uranium enrichment programme, Mr Annan had the
message that it should "not insist" on manufacturing nuclear
fuel domestically, but acquire it from multilaterally controlled
agencies. All countries, he said, must work "towards a world of
reduced nuclear threat."
But his words may fall on deaf ears. The conference began
without an agreed agenda, while Iran and the US were on a
collision course, as Tehran prepared to reject demands to
dismantle its nuclear power programme, arguing its purposes were
peaceful.
In a speech scheduled for today, Kamal Kharrazi, Iran's foreign
minister, is likely to raise the diplomatic temperature further
by arguing that his country is perfectly entitled to such
technology. He may also accuse the US of not doing enough to
reduce the threat, by failing to ratify a comprehensive test ban
treaty, and exploring the development of a new generation of
nuclear weapons.
The US is demanding that Iran place its programme under
international control. If not, Washington says it will seek
sanctions against Iran at the UN or elsewhere. In the meantime,
the US is spearheading an effort to plug a glaring loophole in
the NPT, whereby a signatory country is allowed to build nuclear
fuel facilities but can then opt out of the treaty with impunity
as it takes the crucial step further and produces weapons grade
material.
That, broadly, was the course followed by North Korea now
believed be close to conducting its first underground nuclear
test when it pulled out of the NPT in 2003. Washington and its
European allies suspect Iran, still a signatory, plans to do the
same.
Many non-nuclear countries accuse the US and other traditional
nuclear powers Britain, Russia, France and China of
hypocrisy by not reducing their arsenals.
©2005 Independent News &Media (UK) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
21 Pakistan Times: NPT signing only after recognition as N-state - Pakistan
(PakistanTimes.net | DailyPakistanTimes.com)]
By Aziz Malik - Pakistan Times Federal Bureau Chief
ISLAMABAD: Responding to a renewed Japanes[Federal Minister for
Culture, Sports and Youth Affairs Mohammad Ajmal Khan see off
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi at Islamabad Airport
on Sunday.] e demand for signing the NPT, Pakistan has said it
would join the global non-proliferation treaty only after its
recognition as a nuclear state.
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who left Islamabad
Sunday for Luxembourg after a two-day visit, urged the top
Pakistani leadership to sign Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
(NPT) as he conveyed his country’s concerns over nuclear
proliferation to his host authorities.
However, the official sources here said, the Japanese Prime
Minister was told that any positive change in Pakistan’s policy
on NPT would not be forthcoming before it was recognized as a
nuclear weapon state.
Backdrop
The renewed demand by Japanese Premier for signing NPT came two
days ahead of the international conference to review NPT
starting today, Monday at UN headquarters in New York.
The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty came into effect in 1970
with the aim of preventing the spread of nuclear weapons and
promoting the peaceful use of atomic energy.
Under the treaty, only five states — Britain, China, France,
Russia and the United States — are allowed to have nuclear arms,
with other signatory countries banned from possessing them.
Of Arms Race
It is also aimed to prevent an arms race by requiring the five
nuclear powers to negotiate reductions of nuclear weapons in
good faith, said a report of foreign news wire service.
Pakistan, India and Israel have yet to join the NPT club. The
South Asian nuclear rivals conducted nuclear tests back in 1998
whereas Israel is believed to own nuclear weapons.
The NPT Conference in New York is expected to review some
proposals to restrict the peaceful use of atomic energy.
Some reports suggest; the United States has proposed that the
countries be prevented from starting uranium enrichment and
plutonium reprocessing.
Japanese PM leaves after visit to Pakistan
The Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi left Islamabad for
Luxembourg on Sunday morning after completing two-day visit to
Pakistan.
He was seen off at the airport by Federal Minister for Sports,
Culture and Youth Affairs Muhammad Ajmal Khan, Japanese
Ambassador to Pakistan Nobuaka Tanaka and senior officials of
Foreign Office.
The Japanese Premier was presented an album by Akram Shaheedi,
Principle Information Officer of Ministry of Information and
Broadcasting.
The album contains glimpses of the engagements of Japanese Prime
Minister in the federal capital.
Recap
While in Islamabad, Koizumi held talks with President General
Pervez Musharraf and Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz.
The Japanese Premier also announced the resumption of Yen Loan
Programme for Pakistan which was discontinued in 1998. The
leaders of the two countries also declared to enter into a new
era towards a renewed, enhanced and robust relations.
Three agreements that include $80 million worth of grant
assistance for a water supply and irrigation projects and the
accord on technical cooperation were also singed during the
visit.
Under the new Yen loans, Japan has decided to extend about
16,400 million Yen (approximately 164 million US dollars) which
include 12,523 million Yen for the Lower Chenab Canal System
Rehabilitation Project and upto 3,839 million Yen for the Load
Dispatch System Up-gradation Project.
The two countries also signed a Joint Declaration to further
expand their strong collaboration at all levels.
"With the visit of the Prime Minister Koizumi to Pakistan,
relations between the two countries have entered into a new
phase where they are further expanding their strong
collaboration at all levels," said the joint declaration.
Perspective
Koizumi's visit to Pakistan was the first by the Japanese Prime
Minister since his predecessor Yoshiro Mori in 2000.
Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz hosted a banquet in the honour of
the distinguished guest at the Prime Minister House.
Speaking at the banquet, the Prime Minister expressed the hope
that the visit by the Japanese Premier would be the harbinger of
a new era in relations between the two countries.
He appreciated Koizumi's bold and innovative style of leadership
and the skill with which he steered Japan's affairs at a
difficult juncture in world history. "The economic up-turn in
Japan after a long period of relative stagnation has vindicated
your structural reform drive," he added.
Prime Minister said in Pakistan too, the government has made
concerted efforts to follow the road of peace and progress.
Shaukat Aziz said, "Today, I can say with confidence that
Pakistan's economic fundamentals are sound and we are set on the
course of sustained economic growth".
Prime Minister Aziz said as part of overall strategy, the
government has created an ambience that is investor-friendly.
"Our moderate policy orientation, as well as strategic location
turned Pakistan into an attractive destination for trade and
investment," he added.
Optimism
He expressed the confidence that the resumption of Japan's Yen
Loans for Pakistan will accelerate bilateral economic
cooperation and will have a salutary effect on the Japanese
private sector's interest in Pakistan.
The Japanese Premier in his remarks said his main purpose of the
visit was to exchange views on the whole area of bilateral
relations and " I believe I have indeed achieved this objective".
Koizumi said he was extremely encouraged to hear from the
Japanese working in Pakistan that they are happy to work in a
country which has warmed feelings about Japan.Ï
www.PakistanTimes.net | www.DailyPakistanTimes.com
*****************************************************************
22 Las Vegas SUN: Annan Urges Global Nuclear Concessions
Today: May 02, 2005 at 13:40:37 PDT
By CHARLES J. HANLEY ASSOCIATED PRESS
UNITED NATIONS (AP) -
Secretary-General Kofi Annan challenged the United States and
Russia on Monday to slash their nuclear arsenals irreversibly to
just hundreds of warheads, and urged nonweapons states like Iran
to give up potential bomb technology in return for international
guarantees of nuclear fuel.
The U.N. atomic energy chief followed with an offer to begin
work on a system of international fuel supplies.
The two spoke at the opening of a monthlong conference to review
the workings of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The session
comes at a time of mounting nuclear tensions over North Korea's
withdrawal from the 189-nation pact and Iran's program to enrich
uranium, a possible step toward a bomb.
"Developments of many kinds in recent years have placed it under
great stress," Annan said of the treaty.
The United States wants the review conference to focus heavily
on North Korea, Iran and the nuclear fuel issue. But many states
without nuclear arms want equal emphasis on what they see as a
softening commitment by the big powers to nuclear disarmament.
Because of the differing priorities, treaty members were unable
to agree on a complete agenda for the conference. Organizers
hope to have agreement before the nuts-and-bolts work of
committees begins next week.
Under the 35-year-old NPT, states without nuclear arms pledge
not to pursue them, in exchange for a commitment by five nuclear
powers - the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China -
to move toward nuclear disarmament. Three other nuclear states -
Israel, India and Pakistan - remain outside the treaty.
The NPT is reviewed every five years at conferences whose
consensus political commitments are not legally binding, like a
treaty, but give valuable support to nonproliferation
initiatives. At the 2000 sessions, the nuclear powers committed
to "13 practical steps" toward disarmament, but critics complain
the Bush administration - by rejecting the nuclear test-ban
treaty, for example - has come up short.
All nations must work toward "a world of reduced nuclear threat
and, ultimately, a world free of nuclear weapons," Annan told
delegates in his keynote speech.
The nuclear powers must find ways to rely less on nuclear
deterrence, the U.N. chief said, and he called on Washington and
Moscow "to commit themselves - irreversibly - to further cuts in
their arsenals, so that warheads number in the hundreds, not the
thousands."
Under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, the United States and Russia are
to cut back their deployed warheads by two-thirds, to between
1,700 and 2,200 each, by 2012. But the agreement has been
criticized for not requiring destruction of excess warheads, or
providing a transparent timetable and open verification of
reductions.
The Iran question hinges on the NPT's Article IV, which
guarantees nonweapons states the right to peaceful nuclear
technology, including uranium enrichment equipment to produce
fuel for nuclear power plants.
That same technology, with further enrichment, can produce
material for nuclear bombs, and the United States alleges that's
what Iran plans - a charge Tehran denies.
Annan said states such as Iran "must not insist" on possessing
such sensitive technology, but instead should have access
internationally to nuclear fuel.
Following Annan to the U.N. podium, Mohamed ElBaradei,
director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
renewed his call for a moratorium on new fuel-cycle facilities
while international controls are negotiated. He offered,
meanwhile, to investigate ways to guarantee international fuel
supplies for those who need them.
ElBaradei has proposed putting nuclear fuel production under
multilateral control by regional or international bodies.
President Bush proposes an outright ban on nuclear fuel
technology except in the United States and the dozen other
countries that have it. Neither idea has generated widespread
support.
The Tehran government is negotiating on and off with Germany,
France and Britain about shutting down its enrichment operations
in return for economic incentives. After the latest round failed
to produce agreement Friday, the Iranians said they would
probably restart enrichment-related operations this week.
North Korea, which pulled out of the NPT in 2003, said in
February it has already built nuclear weapons. The review
conference is not expected to focus on this first NPT defector,
in order not to complicate efforts, via now-suspended six-party
talks, to draw Pyongyang back into the treaty fold.
--
*****************************************************************
23 [NukeNet] Too - Hot Ukraine Nuclear Plant Shuts Down
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:30:31 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
1. MOX Special Fuel Arrives at Nuclear Power Plant
2. Too - Hot Ukraine Nuclear Plant Shuts Down
1.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-MOX-Fuel.html
Special Fuel Arrives at Nuclear Power Plant
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 29, 2005
ARTICLE TOOLS
Printer-Friendly Format
Most E-Mailed Articles
1. Op-Ed Columnist: 'What, Me
Worry?'
2. Op-Ed Columnist: A Private
Obsession
3. Rock, Paper, Payoff: Child's
Play Wins Auction House an Art Sale
4. Movie Review | 'The
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy': The Way the
World Ends, With a Shrug and a Smile
5. From Apple, a Tiger to Put in
Your Mac
Go to Complete List
Filed at 9:40 p.m. ET
COLUMBIA, S.C. (AP) -- A shipment of nuclear power
plant fuel made from weapons-grade plutonium has
been delivered to a South Carolina power station
that will be the first in the United States to use
it, officials said Friday.
The MOX fuel, a mixture of plutonium oxide and
uranium oxide, was converted at a nuclear plant in
France and shipped back to the Charleston Naval
Weapons Station earlier this month.
It was then transported to the Catawba Nuclear
Station on Lake Wylie, about 20 miles south of
Charlotte, N.C., where it will be tested,
officials said. The plan is part of a 2000
U.S.-Russia disarmament accord under which both
countries promised to destroy 34 tons of military
plutonium each.
''We're going to use this and actually look at how
it performs,'' said Duke Energy spokeswoman Rita
Sipe.
Activists have argued that the MOX shipment posed
environmental and terrorist threats. The
environmental organization Greenpeace also opposes
the use of MOX to run reactors, saying it becomes
hotter and more radioactive than the enriched
uranium used to fuel most reactors.
However, Sipe said the nuclear station is meeting
all Nuclear Regulatory Commission security
requirements.
''It's an opportunity for us to help out not only
our country, but the world,'' she said. ''We feel
good that we are making a contribution to ridding
the world of this surplus plutonium for weapons.''
After this first test run, U.S. officials plan to
build a MOX conversion facility with French help
at the Savannah River nuclear site, near Aiken, to
dispose of the rest of the plutonium the United
States has agreed to destroy. Another conversion
facility would be built in Russia.
No U.S. plant is capable of making MOX, which is
produced only in France and Britain.
2.
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-Ukraine-Nuclear.html
Too - Hot Ukraine Nuclear Plant Shuts Down
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: April 29, 2005
Filed at 9:29 p.m. ET
KIEV, Ukraine (AP) -- A nuclear reactor in western
Ukraine shut down automatically Friday when
sensors indicated rising temperatures in one of
its systems, officials said.
There was no increase in radiation levels at
reactor No. 2 in western Ukraine's Khmelnitsky
nuclear power plant, said Ilona Zayats, a
spokeswoman for the state-run Energoatom company.
Advertisement
The reactor has faced a series of shutdowns since
its high-profile launch in August. Officials had
said it was part of fine-tuning and testing
procedures.
Ukraine was the site of the world's worst nuclear
accident, the 1986 explosion and fire at the
Chernobyl nuclear plant, which spewed radiation
over much of northern Europe. Chernobyl was
shuttered in 2000.
This ex-Soviet republic continues to operate 15
nuclear reactors, and it has said it is committed
to modernizing all of them.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
24 [NukeNet] Vital Fire Protection At 14 N-Reactors Is Unsafe
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:31:33 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Gang,
We all need to get on the phone and
call our Senators and Reps.
They can all be reached
through the congressional switchboard at:
202-224-3121. Fax #s can be obtained from them
after calling and at: http://www.senate.gov &
http://www.house.gov . Please pass this around to
any interested parties you may know. Also please
tell these polititians that NRC must be dismantled
and replaced with a true watchdog, not an
institution which is a revolving door between
industry. We want safe energy sources, not
terrorist targets or accidental meltdown sites or
boil offs.
When you call ask
your Senators & Rep etc. weather they value the
nuclear industry more than they do our safety?
Actions always speak louder than words.
Fires are believed to be one of the most important
threats to nuclear reactors.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/28/nyregion/28indian.html
Wrap Protecting Vital Equipment From Fire in Atom
Plants Is Unsafe, U.S. Agency Says
By MATTHEW L. WALD
Published: April 28, 2005
ASHINGTON, April 27 - A material being used at 4
nuclear reactors in New York and 10 others around
the country to prevent fire damage to vital
equipment would shrink during a fire and expose
the equipment to unacceptable amounts of heat,
according to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The discovery that the material, sold under the
trade name Hemyc, does not provide enough
protection to meet the commission's rules, follows
a major effort to replace a different material,
Thermo-lag, used for the same purpose. Problems
with Thermo-lag were discovered in 1992.
"If we were smarter we would have not allowed this
stuff to be used in the first place," Brian W.
Sheron, associate director of the project
licensing and technical analysis office of the
commission, said in an interview on Tuesday. As
potential problems are discovered, he said, the
commission moves to make the reactor owners
correct them, at a pace that depends on estimates
of the degree of the hazard. In this case, the
immediate risk may be small, commission officials
said.
The commission was prompted to study Hemyc, Mr.
Sheron said, when an inspector noticed that it did
not look much different from other material being
replaced. Hemyc is made of a silicon and a
ceramic. The commission plans a meeting Friday
with reactor owners to ask them to demonstrate why
their plants should not be shut down until the
problem can be fixed.
Hemyc, which is produced in blanket form, is often
wrapped around cable trays or junction boxes and
stitched together. Commission rules require that
cables that power or control crucial equipment,
usually pumps or valves, be protected with a fire
barrier that would last an hour if the area has
fire-detection equipment and sprinklers or other
suppression systems. In other areas, the fire
protection material is supposed to last three
hours.
According to tests commissioned by the agency,
Hemyc shrinks by about 8 percent if exposed to
temperatures of about 800 degrees Fahrenheit and
could then expose the cables. It is not clear
whether a fire could reach that temperature, but
the material does not meet the agency's standard.
Mr. Sheron said that Hemyc was available in a form
that was already shrunk and thus would not shrink
further when heated, but that a different form was
found in the reactors.
In New York, Hemyc is used at Indian Point 2 and
3, in Buchanan, and the James A. FitzPatrick
reactor, near upstate Oswego. All three of those
plants are operated by Entergy, and a spokesman
for the company, James Steets, said Entergy had
established fire patrols in the area where Hemyc
was used until it can determine the extent of the
hazard and decide whether replacement is
warranted.
The Robert E. Ginna plant near Rochester also uses
the material.
Fires are believed to be one of the most important
threats to nuclear reactors. In March 1975, a fire
in a cable room under the control rooms for two of
the Tennessee Valley Authority's reactors at
Browns Ferry in Alabama burned for more than six
hours and destroyed cables that controlled the
operation of crucial pumps and valves, or supplied
them with electric power.
David Lochbaum, a nuclear engineer at the Union of
Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit group that is
often critical of nuclear safety, said it was not
clear why the commission was still discovering
inadequate materials 30 years after the Browns
Ferry fire. "It would sure be nice someday to get
a one-hour fire wrap that works," he said.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
25 TMI seeks renewal while on probation
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:30:34 -0700
Associated Press
Three Mile Island License Renewal Sought
04.29.2005, 08:45 PM
AmerGen Energy Co. plans to seek a 20-year license extension for its reactor
at Three Mile Island, the site of the nation's worst nuclear accident,
officials said Friday.
The company will begin working on its application for the Unit 1 reactor to
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the summer and submit it to the agency
in mid-2007 for a review process that is expected to take another two years,
said Rusty West, the site's vice president.
The Unit 1 reactor, which opened in 1974, has been the only functioning
reactor at Three Mile Island since a partial meltdown occurred in the Unit 2
reactor in 1979. Unit 1's current 40-year license expires in 2014, and the
extension would run through 2034.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman David McIntyre said the renewal
process involves extensive safety and environmental reviews. Obtaining an
extension "isn't a slam-dunk," McIntyre said.
Eric Epstein, chairman of the Three Mile Island Alert group, said his
organization will oppose the application. Epstein contends the company has
failed to clean up radioactive waste at Unit 2, and he noted that the
plant's training program for control room workers was placed on probation in
December after an accrediting agency found that improvements were needed.
"They're operating with a wounded plant," he said.
-----
TMI seeks license renewal
AmerGen will spend $4 million to extend the life of the reactor through
2034.
By SEAN ADKINS
Daily Record/Sunday News
Saturday, April 30, 2005
AmerGen Energy will assemble a 12-member team to develop an application to
extend the operational life of Three Mile Island Unit 1 in Dauphin County.
The utility, a wholly-owned company of Exelon Generation, expects to submit
the license renewal application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by
mid-2007.
The commission¹s approval would extend TMI Unit 1¹s operating license to
April 2034. The reactor¹s current 40-year license is set to expire April 19,
2014.
TMI Unit 1 went online Sept. 2, 1974.
In anticipation of its successful license renewal, AmerGen expects to spend
$600 million within the next 15 years on the replacement of the reactor¹s
two steam generators and computer and digital upgrades.
That investment also will fund the replacement of feedwater heaters,
upgrades of the plant¹s cooling towers and condenser, and the improvement of
other components.
Those upgrades are not contingent on license renewal but rather make
economic sense should the plant operate for an additional 20 years, said
Rusty West, TMI¹s site vice president.
³We feel very confident that the license renewal will be approved,² he said.
Neil Sheehan, NRC spokesman, said utilities usually make major improvements
such as those planned by TMI if the plant is expected operate for an
extended period of time.
³Plants want to have the certainty that they will recoup the money they will
invest,² he said.
Eric Epstein of Three Mile Island Alert said he considers AmerGen¹s decision
to extend the life of the TMI Unit to be ³arrogant and premature.²
Created in 1977, TMI Alert is a group of activists concerned about the state
and national regulation of the nuclear-power industry.
³You don¹t make ($600 million) in improvements if you don¹t feel good about
being re-licensed,² Epstein said. ³This announcement should not have been
made until they were cleared by the National Nuclear Accrediting Board.²
In December, the National Nuclear Accrediting Board voiced its concerns
about how plant workers would respond to abnormal conditions when it put
TMI¹s control room operator training program on probation.
³They need to get their house in order,² Epstein said.
West said he was confident that the board will renew TMI¹s accreditation in
June.
Regardless of TMI¹s past issues, the utility plans to spend $4 million on
its efforts to seek license renewal for its Unit 1 reactor. That endeavor
will not be easy.
For the next two years, the plant will run internal inspections to look at
whether or not the aging of the plant has been and will be properly managed,
Sheehan said.
Plant officials will review what types of environmental impacts, if any,
might come about by extending the life of the plant by 20 years, he said.
³This is a review process that we don¹t take lightly,² Sheehan said. ³We
expect the applications to be of the highest quality.²
All of TMI¹s internal inspections and findings in regard to plant aging and
site environmental impacts will be included in its re-licensing application.
Once the plant submits its application, the NRC will conduct its own
inspections to verify TMI¹s reviews.
The commission will create a site environmental impact statement that will
be available to the public.
³We have a standardized review process that is very rigorous and thorough,²
Sheehan said.
In total, the commission has approved 30 reactors for license renewal,
including Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station¹s Unit 2 and Unit 3 reactors.
In May 2003, the NRC extended the operating license for Peach Bottom Atomic
Power Station¹s Unit 2 to Aug. 8, 2033, and Unit 3 to July 2, 2034.
Rep. Bruce Smith, R-Dillsburg, said he is not pleased that TMI has started
to develop an application for license renewal.
³The residents near TMI care greatly about safety at the plant as a result
of our misfortune in 1979,² Smith said.
TMI Unit 2 suffered a partial meltdown in 1979 and has been mothballed ever
since.
³I personally have not been comfortable with the operation of a nuclear
power plant since March 1979,² Smith said. ³(A license renewal) means that
it will be that much longer before TMI is dismantled.²
*****************************************************************
26 Troubled Reactor Shutdown Again Due to Electric Problems*
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:30:51 -0700
Troubled Reactor Shutdown Again Due to Electric Problems*
On Thursday, April 28, 2005 at 7:19 am , PPL shut down the Unit 2
nuclear reactor for the second time in a month due a malfunction with a
plant electrical transformer.
The main transformer is a non-nuclear component of the plant
that increases the voltage of the electricity for distribution on the
electrical
transmission network. The malfunction appears to be related to the cooling
system for the transformer.
Unit-2 was still shut down on April 29, 2005.
Unit-2 shut four days due to embrittled wires
On Sunday, April 10, 2005, PPL manually shut down the Unit 2
reactor
at Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Luzerne County to repair a battery
charger that is part of the site's electrical system. The plant returned to
service
on April 14, 2005.
An ³expert team² determined that two embrittled wires near a resistor
came into contact with each other, creating a short circuit that caused
three
fuses in the charger to fail April 10, PPL spokesman Lou Ramos said. The
charger
provides a back-up power source for pump breakers, isolation valves, and
other
components, he said.
PPL found three similar chargers elsewhere in the reactor and now
has configured them to make sure they won¹t have the same problem, he
said. When PPL has collected and analyzed information from the repair and
inspection, the company ³probably will put something out to industry,² as
other
plants probably have similar battery chargers, he said.
____
For more information contact: ericepstein@comcast.net or 717-5412-1101.
Please refer to the following page for a detailed CHRONOLOGY of
ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS at the SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC
STATION.
CHRONOLOGY of ELECTRICAL PROBLEMS
at the
SUSQUEHANNA STEAM ELECTRIC STATION
ˆ June 25, 1983 - Susquehanna automatically to shut down due to an
electrical problem inside a transformer.
³Eight hours after the shut down, workers were still trying to
determine
the nature of the malfunction, spokesman Ira Kaplan said. He said the plant
would
not be restarted until the transformer is repaired² (UPI, June 14, 1983.)
(Please reference the following dates for a list of chronic electrical
problems at the
SSES: ³1986²; September, 1988; February 6, 1990; July 23, 1997; June 8-16,
1999; April 8, 200; and April 12, 2005.)
ˆ 1986 - PP&L reported safety violations to the NRC ³after it
discovered
that a number of cable splices and electrical terminals did not meet new
standards passed in 1985. We did have some of those terminal blocks and
splices
in service beyond the date were were supposed to be in compliance²
according to
PP&L spokesman, Herb Woodeshick (UPI, September, 1988. (See September,
1988, for information on a $50,000 fine.)
ˆ September, 1988 - The NRC leveled a $50,000 fine against
Pennsylvania Power & Light for not properly testing electrical equipment
(See
³1986² for background information).
ˆ February 6, 1990 - ³A short circuit Saturday that temporarily cut off
cooling water to the Unit 1 reactor at the Susquehanna Nuclear plant...has
been traced to a failed insulator, according to the unclear Regulatory
Commission.² (³Patriot News², February 6, 1990.)
i
ˆ July 23, 1997 - ³The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a
$210,000 fine against Pennsylvania Power & Light Co. for several alleged
violations of agency guidelines at the utility¹s Susquehanna nuclear power
plant
in Berwick, Pa. The alleged infractions fall into two major areas: the
misalignment of a circuit breaker for an emergency diesel generator that
left
in operable, and plant operators¹ repeated failure to detect this problem;
and
the improper deactivation of a containment isolation valve:
³...All told, the generator was out of service for almost three weeks.
However,
in their equipment test records, the operators incorrectly reported that the
circuit breaker was inn the appropriate position.
³Further, alarm tests that were supposed to have been done during
rounds by
the non-licensed operators were listed as having been performed when in
many
cases that did not occur. The operators failed to perform the required
panel tests
on approximately 157 occasions between January and June 1996.
ˆ BERWICK, Pa., April 28, 2004 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- PPL's
Susquehanna nuclear power plant in Luzerne County declared an end to an
"unusual event" at 3:52 p.m. EDT on Wednesday (4/28), and plant operators
have begun to return the Unit 2 reactor to full power.
The plant entered the lowest of the four emergency classifications
for
nuclear power plants at 1:25 p.m. EDT Wednesday because of an electrical
failure in a power distribution panel located in the Unit 2 reactor
building. As a
result, the unit's power was reduced to about 80 percent.
"Plant equipment and personnel reacted as expected for this type of
situation," said Herbert D. Woodeshick, special assistant to the president
for PPL
Susquehanna. "Workers isolated the electrical failure and restored power to
the
affected systems through an alternate electrical supply."
The damaged distribution panel supplied power to the cooling system for
the
main generator and to the system that removes certain gases from the
turbine's
main condenser, without which the unit cannot operate at full power.
"The plant was in a stable condition throughout the event, and Unit 1
remains
at full power," Woodeshick said.
ii
*****************************************************************
27 Helsingin Sanomat: Nuclear power poll: Most Finns say five reactors are enough
Tuesday 3.5.2005
More than half of Finns feel that the upcoming fifth
commercial nuclear reactor is good for Finland. A fresh poll
commissioned by Helsingin Sanomat and conducted by Suomen Gallup
shows that the ongoing project is favoured by 52%, while only
one in three are opposed to it.
The poll also shows that a slight majority, 51%, oppose
calls for a sixth reactor, while 40% are in favour of it.
The fifth installation is already under construction, and
discussions on a sixth have intensified over the spring.
Representatives of Finnish industry recently asked if the
nuclear option would be available at the end of the next decade.
The study indicates that supporters of the opposition
conservative National Coalition Party are the most enthusiastic
supporters of a sixth nuclear power plant. Nearly half of
supporters of the Social Democratic Party also want to increase
the use of nuclear energy.
Voters of the Green League and the Left Alliance are
overwhelmingly opposed to more nuclear energy, while 50% of
supporters of the Centre Party are against, and 43% are in
favour of a sixth plant.
The poll also showed that most men were in favour of more
nuclear power. Only one fourth of women are pro-nuclear.
There were also some differences among the various age groups.
The proportion of supporters of more nuclear energy was slightly
higher than average among those aged 50 - 64 (46%). Only 34% of
those aged 25 or less want more nuclear power.
Senior clerical workers were among the most pro-nuclear
professional groups. Students were most opposed.
There were few geographical differences in attitudes.
Respondents were also asked which forms of electricity
production they felt should be increased in the future.
The most popular sources were wind power, as well as wood,
peat, and other biological sources of energy. Attitudes were
also very positive toward natural gas and hydroelectric power.
Helsingin Sanomat
2.5.2005 - TODAY
*****************************************************************
28 NRC: Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences Fiscal Year 2004
FR Doc 05-8173
[Federal Register: May 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 83)] [Notices]
[Page 22722-22728] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02my05-114]
Dissemination of Information Section 208 of the Energy
Reorganization Act of 1974 (Pub.
L. 93- 438) defines an abnormal occurrence (AO) as an unscheduled
incident or event which the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) determines to be significant from the standpoint of public
health or safety.
The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Pub. L.
104-66) requires that AOs be reported to Congress annually.
During fiscal year 2004, 17 events that occurred at facilities
licensed or otherwise regulated by the NRC and/or Agreements
States were determined to be AOs. The report describes four
events at facilities licensed by the NRC. One event involved a
uranium hexafluoride release at a fuel cycle facility. Another
event, also at a fuel cycle facility, revealed excessive uranium
concentrations found in ash deposits in various locations in an
incinerator. A third event involved a patient undergoing
therapeutic brachytherapy treatment. The fourth event involved an
unintentional excessive dose of sodium iodide (I-131)
administered to a patient. The report also addresses 13 AOs at
facilities licensed by Agreement States. [Agreement States are
those States that have entered into formal agreements with the
NRC pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) to
regulate certain quantities of AEA licensed material at
facilities located within their borders.] Currently, there are 33
Agreement States. During FY 2004, the NRC received notification
of 13 events that occurred at Agreement State-licensed
facilities, including 8 therapeutic medical events, 3 diagnostic
medical events, 1 event involving an unintentional dose of I-131
to an embryo/fetus, and 1 event involving an extremity
overexposure to a radiopharmacy trainee. As required by Section
208, the discussion for each event includes the date and place,
the nature and probable consequences, the cause or causes, and
the action taken to prevent recurrence. Each event is also being
described in NUREG-0090, Vol. 27, ``Report to Congress on
Abnormal Occurrences, Fiscal Year 2004.'' This report will be
available electronically at the NRC Web site
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/ staff/.
Nuclear Power Plants During this period, no events occurred at
U.S. nuclear power plants that were significant enough to be
reported as AOs.
Fuel Cycle Facilities (Other Than Nuclear Power Plants) During
this period, two events occurred at U.S. fuel cycle facilities
that were significant enough to be reported as AOs.
04-01 Uranium Hexafluoride Release at Honeywell Speciality
Chemicals, Inc. in Metropolis, Illinois Date and Place--December
22, 2003; Honeywell International, Inc., Honeywell Specialty
Chemicals, Metropolis, Illinois.
Nature and Probable Consequences--On December 22, 2003, a uranium
hexafluoride (UF6) release occurred from one of the plant's
chemical process lines. The release occurred due to improper
valve alignment which caused inadvertent pressurization of the
system.
The licensee did not have a written procedure for a process that
was performed infrequently and relied on the operator's memory to
perform the required actions. The release lasted approximately 40
minutes. The licensee observed a visible cloud crossing the site
boundary and declared a site area emergency, which was terminated
approximately 4 hours later. Approximately 25 members of the
public were temporarily evacuated from their homes, and
approximately 75 persons remained sheltered in their homes for a
time. Four members of the public went to the hospital. Three of
the four were examined and released, while the fourth was held
for observation and released the next day.
This individual showed skin reddening on portions of his face and
part of one arm, which indicated a hydrogen fluoride (HF) acid
burn. Honeywell's initial estimate of a release of 7 pounds of
UF6 was later refined to be approximately 70 pounds. Honeywell
shut the plant down and agreed to discuss corrective actions with
the NRC before restarting operations to determine whether the NRC
had any objection to restarting specific operations.
Cause(s)--An NRC Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) and Honeywell's
Root Cause Investigation Team identified similar root and
contributing causes. The Honeywell Root Cause Investigation Team
provided its findings to the NRC in a meeting on February 11,
2004.
Key causes were as follows: The licensee failed to have a written
procedure for an infrequent evolution and, thus, relied on the
operator's memory to perform the required actions.
The licensee's corrective action program had not adequately
corrected a previously identified lack of procedures for certain
activities, the licensee had not adequately aligned staff to the
need for procedures for activities.
The licensee did not have an alarm to warn operators that the
system was becoming pressurized. The licensee did not have
procedures or measures to respond to abnormal conditions during
operations. The licensee did not have procedures or processes for
documenting when equipment was not in proper working order.
In addition, the AIT and Honeywell Root Cause Investigation Team
identified problems in implementing the emergency plan once the
licensee identified the release, including problems in
communication with State and local authorities.
[[Page 22723]] Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--In
addition to the Root Cause Investigation Team, Honeywell
chartered a Plant Engineering Team, a ``Triangle of Prevention''
Team, and a Corporate ``Deep Dive'' Team to review the facility
and operations. These teams reviewed certain UF6 safety and
environmental improvements, management processes, change
management, mechanical integrity, and the emergency plan. As a
result of these reviews, Honeywell developed a list of corrective
and improvement actions to be completed before restarting
operations. On March 4, 2004, Honeywell submitted a list of the
actions to be taken for each phase of the restart. Honeywell has
also worked with State and local authorities to improve emergency
response, and the company conducted an emergency drill with local
agencies on March 11, 2004. That drill identified items that
needed to be improved, including use of the dedicated phone for
communicating with off site authorities. Honeywell plans to
improve this communication method. In addition, Honeywell is in
the process of implementing other corrective and improvement
actions.
NRC--The NRC developed a Restart Readiness Oversight Plan to
review Honeywell's actions, including safety and emergency
preparedness improvements. The NRC has reviewed actions the
licensee planned to prevent recurrence. In addition, the NRC
observed an emergency drill of the revised Emergency Plan and
procedures.
The NRC held two public meetings in Metropolis, Illinois (on
March 18 and April 21, 2004) during the restart phase to inform
the public of the licensee's plans and progress and to describe
the NRC's oversight activities and results. In addition, the NRC
completed inspections of the licensee's corrective actions before
the restart of licensed operations. On May 10, 2004, the NRC
issued a Notice of Violation for two significant violations
identified during the AIT inspection. Specifically, those
violations involved (1) reconfiguration of the fluorination
system without detailed instructions (which allowed a UF6 leak to
occur), and (2) failure to maintain and execute various response
measures in the emergency response plan.
The NRC performed followup inspections specifically focused on
Honeywell's implementation of its corrective actions on June 10
and August 13, 2004. The areas inspected included plant
operations, chemical safety, emergency preparedness, maintenance
and surveillance, management organization and controls, and
operator training. The June inspection did not identify any
violations, but the August inspection identified two Severity
Level IV violations. Those cited violations concerned the conduct
of operations that were not adequately described in written
operating procedures and an inadequate evaluation of the
radiological conditions associated with storage of bed material
and filter fines.
On September 30, 2004, the NRC held a public meeting with
Honeywell to discuss the company's progress in implementing
long-term corrective actions that will ensure sustained
performance improvements. Honeywell's long-term efforts were
primarily directed at procedures and training, plant material
conditions, and emergency preparedness.
The NRC also described the additional inspections completed since
the restart of licensed operations at the site and the agency's
plan to continue increased oversight.
The NRC performed an additional inspection in December 2004, and
identified a violation that involved the failure of the
licensee's operations personnel to properly perform pre-fill
inspections of UF6 cylinders. This failure resulted in
Honeywell's shipment of 14 cylinders with prohibited Hunt valves
attached. Based upon the results of this inspection, together
with those of the previous inspections, the NRC has determined
that the heightened oversight of licensed activities performed at
the Honeywell facilities will continue.
This event is open for the purpose of this report.
* * * * * 04-02 Incinerator Event at Westinghouse Columbia Fuel
Fabrication Facility in Columbia, South Carolina Date and
Place--Discovered on March 5, 2004; Westinghouse Columbia Fuel
Fabrication Facility; Columbia, South Carolina.
Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee uses a standard
industrial incinerator to reduce uranium-contaminated process
waste volume and facilitate uranium recovery from the waste.
During a technical review of a proposed procedure change, the
licensee determined that its incinerator off-gas system was being
operated outside the approved safety basis. Samples of ash
deposited at various locations in the incinerator exceeded the
assumed uranium concentration for incinerator ash. The licensee
immediately stopped incinerator operations and performed a
complete incinerator clean-out. The licensee determined that
approximately 271 kilograms of ash at a maximum uranium
concentration of approximately 30 wt% had accumulated in the
incinerator's secondary combustion chamber. The licensee had
performed a criticality analysis that concluded no ash would
accumulate in the secondary combustion chamber, and the maximum
uranium concentration of ash in the incinerator system could not
exceed 21.6 wt%. No criticality safety controls were in place to
prevent the accumulation of fly-ash containing excessive uranium
concentrations.
Cause(s)--The licensee's criticality safety staff failed to
recognize that fly-ash could accumulate in the incinerator's
secondary combustion chamber, and ash uranium concentrations
could exceed 21.6 wt%. Contributing factors were the failure to
control incinerator operations that allowed the increased uranium
concentration in the fly- ash, and failure to recognize excessive
material accumulation or uranium concentration increases.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--The licensee
immediately stopped incinerator operations and initiated a
project to prevent future material accumulations. The licensee
also initiated a program to upgrade criticality safety at the
plant, including assigning additional staff to the nuclear
criticality safety program, improving ownership of criticality
safety by production and engineering staff, improving management
and ownership of change, performing a comprehensive review of
existing criticality safety analyses, using the integrated safety
analysis process to prioritize changes to administrative
criticality safety controls, and implementing a comprehensive
program throughout the plant to ensure procedure compliance.
NRC--On May 13, 2004, the NRC issued Inspection Report 70-1151/
2004-001, which described the event. On July 19, 2004, the NRC
issued an Information Notice to fuel cycle licensees concerning
the use of less-than-optimal bounding assumptions in criticality
safety analyses at fuel cycle facilities. On July 28, 2004, the
NRC issued a Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil
Penalty in the amount of $24,000 to the licensee for failure to
establish and maintain double- contingency protection in the
incinerator and failure of management controls to detect the
accumulation of a critical mass of fissile material in an unsafe
geometry vessel. Although the normal civil penalty assessment
process
[[Page 22724]] would have fully mitigated the civil penalty, the
NRC exercised enforcement discretion in accordance with Section
VII.A.1 of the Enforcement Policy and proposed a base civil
penalty to reflect the safety significance of the issue, which
resulted in a substantial increase in the likelihood of a nuclear
criticality event. On October 21, 2004, the NRC conducted a
management meeting with the licensee to discuss the incinerator
event and its proposed corrective actions. The NRC will follow
the corrective actions through the agency's inspection and
oversight programs.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
* * * * * Other NRC Licensees (Industrial Radiographers, Medical
Institutions, etc.) The NRC determined that the following events
which occurred at facilities, licensed or otherwise regulated by
the NRC, during this reporting period were significant enough to
be reported as AOs: 04-03 Iodine-125 Brachytherapy Seed Medical
Event at Albert Einstein HealthCare Network in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania Date and Place--October 16, 2003 (identified on
November 20, 2003); Albert Einstein HealthCare Network in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Nature and Probable Consequences--A patient received a permanent
brachytherapy implant using iodine-125 (I-125) seeds as treatment
for prostate carcinoma on October 16, 2003. The authorized user
prescribed a dose of 145 Gy (14,500 rads) to the prostate gland.
The implant was performed under ultrasound guidance, and 89
sources were implanted as prescribed in the written directive. On
November 17, 2003, the patient returned for a routine
postoperative computerized tomography (CT) scan. On November 20,
2003, a review of the scan revealed that many of the seeds were
not located in the prostate as intended, but were in adjacent
tissue where they were ineffective during treatment. As a result,
the prostate gland received an inadequate dose of 18.6 Gy (1,860
rads), while the adjacent tissue received a dose of approximately
115 Gy (11,500 rads). An NRC medical consultant determined that
the probable consequences to the patient would be comparable to
the effects of external beam radiation treatment for prostate
cancer and would not cause further damage to the patient. The
patient and the patient's referring physician were notified of
the event.
Cause(s)--The licensee determined that this medical event was
caused by human error, the most likely being the
misidentification of the prostate gland on the intra-operative
ultrasound. Other possible causes include shifting of the needle
grid in the patient on the operating room table or the suction of
the seeds into the needle tract after the removal of the
individual needles from the patient.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--The licensee's
corrective actions for future prostate brachytherapy treatments
include new requirements that an outside radiation oncologist
with expertise in prostate brachytherapy will monitor authorized
users, and an experienced prostate brachytherapist will observe
authorized users as they perform prostate implant procedures. In
addition, the licensee implemented revised procedures, including
performing a pre-operative CT scan; reviewing pre-planned
ultrasound studies prior to, during, and after the procedure; and
reviewing postoperative pelvic x-rays within 1 day of the
procedure. Furthermore, the Radiation Safety Committee will
review all forms, documents, education, and oversight associated
with the permanent prostate implant program, and will make
recommendations or amendments, as necessary, to reflect
programmatic changes.
NRC--The NRC staff conducted a special safety inspection on
December 5, 2003, and did not identify any violations associated
with the licensee's actions. The NRC also reviewed the licensee's
current prostate implant program, and concluded that 12 other
I-125 prostate implants had been completed without incident.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
* * * * * 04-04 Diagnostic Medical Event at William Beaumont
Hospital in Royal Oak, Michigan Date and Place--June 8, 2004;
William Beaumont Hospital; Royal Oak, Michigan.
Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that a
patient was prescribed a dose of 0.37 megabecquerels (MBq) [10
microcuries ([mu]Ci)] of I-131 for a thyroid uptake procedure,
but instead received 33.86 MBq (915 [mu]Ci) of I-131. The pipette
used to prepare I-131 therapy dosages earlier in the day was
inadvertently used to draw the 0.37 MBq (10 [mu]Ci) I-131 uptake
dosage. The technician properly disposed of the I-131 uptake
dosage after identifying the error.
The technician then obtained the ``uptake'' pipette and prepared
a second dosage from the I-131 bulk uptake solution. However, the
``uptake'' pipette had inadvertently been switched with the
``therapy'' pipette used earlier. This may have occurred because
both the thyroid ``uptake'' pipette and the ``therapy'' pipette
had illegible labels. As a result, the second dosage contained
0.074 MBq (2 [mu]Ci) of I-131 remaining from the earlier therapy
administrations and the newly drawn I-131 prepared for the
thyroid uptake. The total activity for the second dosage measured
33.86 MBq (915 [mu]Ci). The technician focused on drawing the
calculated volume required to obtain the prescribed activity,
rather than the radioactive activity measured in the dose
calibrator and interpreted the ``0.915 millicuries (mCi)''
displayed on the dose calibrator as ``9.15 [mu]Ci.'' The
technician electronically transferred the dosage measurement from
the dose calibrator to a dosage label. A second technician
administered the dosage to the patient. Assuming a 55% uptake,
the absorbed dose to the patient's thyroid was 26.75 Gy (2,675
rads) with an effective dose equivalent of 0.81 Gy (81 rads). The
patient and referring physician were notified of the medical
event on June 9, 2004. The licensee indicated that the additional
dosage administered to the patient would not result in any
increased risk or biological effect to the patient.
Cause(s)--This event was caused by human error. The nuclear
medicine technologist who drew the dose misinterpreted the
reading on the dose calibrator, and the technician who
administered the dose did not verify the dose before
administration.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--The licensee
implemented a requirement to use a new pipette each time an I-131
uptake dose is prepared, reprogrammed the computer to accept
uptake dose activity rather than volume and stopped the computer
from printing a dose label when the activity is not within the
established range. The licensee also trained the radiopharmacy
staff not to override the computer's failsafe mechanisms, and
retrained the nuclear medicine technologist in the process for
dose verification prior to administration.
NRC--The NRC staff conducted a special safety inspection on June
10, 2004. Then, on September 14, 2004, the NRC issued a Notice of
Violation for a significant violation involving the
administration of a dosage of liquid I-131 to a patient for a
thyroid uptake study that was approximately 90 times
[[Page 22725]] larger than the 10-[mu]Ci dosage prescribed by the
authorized user physician.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
* * * * * Agreement State Licensees The NRC determined that the
following events, which occurred at Agreement State licensed
facilities during this reporting period, were significant enough
for reporting as AOs: AS 04-01 I-125 Brachytherapy Seed Medical
Event at Central Arkansas Radiation Therapy Institute in Conway,
Arkansas Date and Place--December 4, 2003; Central Arkansas
Radiation Therapy Institute; Conway, Arkansas.
Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that a
patient received a radiation dose to an unintended area during an
I-125 prostate-seed implant procedure. The patient was prescribed
treatment with 122 I-125 seeds, with each seed containing an
activity of 13.3 MBq (0.36 mCi). During the patient's
post-implant CT scan on December 18, 2003, the licensee
discovered that the seeds had been implanted 2 centimeters (cm)
too low and missed treating the upper portion of the prostate
gland. As a result, 68 cm\3\ of adjacent tissue received the
prescribed dose of 144 Gy (14,400 rads). The licensee reported
that the adjacent tissue should not be affected adversely by the
dose delivered by the seeds. The licensee administered additional
treatment to deliver the intended dose to the upper 2 cm of the
prostate gland. The licensee notified the patient and the
patient's referring physician of the event.
Cause(s)--This event was attributed to human error in that the
treatment site was not verified.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--The licensee wrote
a new procedure to implement the use of fluoroscopic guidance to
ensure the correct placement of seeds.
State Agency--The State has reviewed and accepted the licensee's
corrective actions.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report * * * * *.
AS 04-02 Dose to Fetus at Hillcrest Hospital of Mayfield Heights,
Ohio Date and Place--November 20, 2003, Hillcrest Hospital;
Mayfield Heights, Ohio.
Nature and Probable Consequences--The Ohio Bureau of Radiation
Protection reported that a 19-year-old female patient was
administered 5.18 gigabequerels (GBq) (140 mCi) of I-131 as
prescribed for thyroid carcinoma. At the time, the patient was
unaware that she was pregnant and she completed the required
forms indicating that she was not pregnant. However, on December
5, 8, and 11, 2003, quantitative tests confirmed that the patient
was pregnant. The licensee provided the results to the patient's
endocrinologist, who recommended performing a fetal dose
calculation. The licensee was notified and its consultant
informed the endocrinologist that the fetus would have received a
whole body dose of 0.19 Gy (19.8 rads). The endocrinologist sent
the results to the Center for Human Genetics at the University
Hospital in Cleveland, Ohio, where an assessment determined that
the pregnancy could safely continue.
Cause(s)--This event was caused by human error. At the time of
the administration, the patient was unaware of her pregnancy
status and completed forms indicating that she was not pregnant.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--The licensee has
implemented pregnancy testing for patients of child bearing age,
who receive radiation therapy.
State Agency--The Ohio Bureau of Radiation Protection was
notified of this event on January 16, 2004, and performed a
special inspection on January 22, 2004. The State found the
licensee's corrective actions adequate to prevent recurrence.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
* * * * * AS 04-03 High Dose Rate Afterloader Medical Event at
New Orleans Cancer Institute at Memorial Medical Center,
Louisiana Date and Place--March 31, 2004; New Orleans Cancer
Institute; New Orleans, Louisiana.
Nature and Probable Consequences--A cancer patient undergoing
therapeutic radiation treatment for prostate cancer received 18
Gy (1,800 rads) to the wrong treatment site. This error occurred
using a high dose rate (HDR) afterloader device with a
radioactive source containing 270.7 GBq (7.32 Ci) of Ir-192. The
event occurred after the dosimetrist made an error while
inputting data into the afterloader's dosimetry software program.
Although the dosimetrist appropriately clicked the ``catheter
tip'' selection, the dosimetrist did not highlight and choose
``catheter tip.'' Therefore, the computer cursor stayed on the
``connector end'' selection. This resulted in a 2-cm positioning
error, which caused the source to stop short of the target so
that the total prescribed dose was not delivered. The patient was
informed of the event, and the remaining dose was delivered by
external beam therapy. According to the Radiation Oncologist, no
detrimental effects are expected. The patient was self-referred
for the therapeutic treatment.
Cause(s)--This event was attributed to operator error.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Actions taken to prevent
recurrence include implementing procedures to add a visual check
and documentation that the treatment plan was administered with
the source position calculated from the tip end of the catheter
or needle. This procedure will be added to the pre- treatment
checklist, which is performed and signed by the radiation
oncologist, physicist, and dosimetrist. The checklist will be
performed prior to initial treatment and at treatment plan
changes, and will be part of the patients' permanent records.
Also, the licensee contacted the device's manufacturer regarding
the confusion associated with the default orientation in the
software program, and requested an adjustment to the program. The
manufacturer stated that this could not be done at this time, but
is discussing the issue. The manufacturer offered additional
training to the licensee's employees, and the licensee is sending
its employees to the training.
State Agency--The State accepted the licensee's implementation of
new procedures and its corrective actions as appropriate.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
* * * * * AS 04-04 Diagnostic Medical Event at Northeast Alabama
Regional Medical Center, Alabama Date and Place--August 10, 2004;
Northeast Alabama Regional Medical Center; Montgomery, Alabama.
Nature and Probable Consequences--A patient received 111 MBq
(3,000 [mu]Ci) of I-131 instead of the prescribed dose of 0.93
MBq (25 [mu]Ci). The licensee discovered the event on August 12,
2004, when the patient returned for the whole body scan 48 hours
later. The referring physician had requested a diagnostic I-131
scan to assess a thyroid nodule, which requires 0.93 MBq (25
[mu]Ci). The technologist misunderstood the order by assuming
that the referring physician wanted a whole body scan to assess
thyroid cancer, and administered 111 MBq (3,000 [mu]Ci) of I-131
without
[[Page 22726]] requesting clarification or approval from the
authorized users.
Two authorized users determined that the patient could become
hypothyroid. Therefore, patient followup assessments included
thyroid profiles and thyroid uptakes to determine thyroid
function. The patient and the referring physician were informed
of the event.
Cause(s)--This event was attributed to human error. The
technologist misunderstood the treatment ordered by the referring
physician and failed to verify the written directive.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--The licensee
implemented corrective measures to ensure that authorized users
approve all procedures involving the administration of
radiopharmaceuticals and re-instructed nuclear medicine
personnel.
State Agency--The State conducted an inspection.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
* * * * * AS 04-05 Occupational Exposure at Palmetto Health and
Baptist Hospital in Columbia, South Carolina Date and
Place--March 17, 2004; Palmetto Health and Baptist Hospital;
Columbia, South Carolina.
Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that a
pharmacist trainee received an extremity exposure resulting in a
shallow dose equivalent to the hand of 7,420 mSv (742 rem), a
deep dose equivalent to the hand of 70 mSv (7.02 rem), and a
thyroid dose of 0.9 mSv (0.09 rem). The exposures occurred when a
spill took place while compounding I-131 from a vial. The
pharmacist trainee cleaned up the area, decontaminated his skin,
and reported the spill to the imaging manager the following day.
The imaging manager conducted a second survey of the area, which
showed that no contamination remained from the spill. The
pharmacist trainee completed a spill report but did not reveal
his contamination in the report. The pharmacist trainee left for
vacation and 11 days later, after his return, informed the
Radiation Safety Officer (RSO) that his forearm had been
contaminated during the I-131 spill. Immediate actions were taken
to determine whether any contamination still remained on his arm.
Elevated levels were discovered on his right forearm and left
fingertips. The appropriate hospital/nuclear medicine personnel
were notified. The pharmacist trainee was suspended from any and
all duties involving radioactive material.
Cause(s)--This event occurred as a result of human error and
failure to follow established procedures. An initial crimp
failure on the vial may also have contributed to the spill.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--The licensee
retrained all staff in spill procedures, emphasizing proper
notification of supervisors. Additionally, at the prompting of
the licensee, the vial supplier reevaluated the process of
ensuring that each crimp is acceptable for shipment, although the
supplier believed it was more likely an isolated incident.
State Agency--The State agency conducted inspections and cited
the licensee for violations of regulations for controlling
radiation.
* * * * * AS 04-06 Gamma Stereotactic Radiosurgery (Gamma Knife)
Medical Event at Radiosurgical Center of Memphis in Memphis,
Tennessee Date and Place--January 24, 2003; Radiosurgical Center
of Memphis; Memphis, Tennessee. This event was not determined to
be an AO until the preparation of the FY2004 report.
Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that a
patient received 27 Gy (2,700 rads) to a brain metastasis instead
of the intended 18 Gy (1,800 rads) during gamma knife treatment.
The physicist did not determine that an error had occurred until
the treatment was complete. The RSO determined that one of the
four brain metastases received greater than the prescribed dose.
The other three brain metastases received the prescribed dose.
The tumor that received the incorrect dose was at the periphery
of the brain next to the skull in a non-critical area so that
much of the extra dose was delivered to the space between the
brain and the skull. The cause of the incident was that a
14-millimeter (mm) (.55-inch) collimator helmet was used instead
of the prescribed 8-mm (.31 inch) collimator helmet. The
personnel setting up the treatment neglected to change the
helmet. The tumor that received the unintended dose was located
at the periphery of the brain, adjacent to the skull. Because
most of the unintended dose was delivered to a non-critical
space, between the brain and skull, the additional radiation
exposure should have no significant effect on the patient.
The referring physician was notified of the event and informed
the patient's family of the unintended dose.
Cause(s)--The cause was human error, in that the event resulted
from use of the wrong collimator helmet.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--The licensee
established a new procedure to require the physician, physicist,
and nurse to sign off on the treatment time, helmet size, and
position before each shot. Also, new labels identifying the size
of the helmet were attached to each of the four helmets. These
labels can be seen by personnel via the TV monitor located at the
control panel outside the treatment room. The physician will
verify the correct size before the control panel button is pushed
to start the treatment.
State Agency--The State reviewed and approved the licensee's new
procedures.
* * * * * AS 04-07 Strontium-90 Eye Applicator Brachytherapy
Medical Event at St. Francis Hospital in Memphis, Tennessee Date
and Place--March 25, 2004; St. Francis Hospital; Memphis,
Tennessee.
Nature and Probable Consequences--A 79-year-old patient was
prescribed radiation treatment for pterygium (an eye
abnormality). The patient was to receive 20 Gy (2,000 rads), but
instead received 70 Gy (7,059 rads). The prescribed dose was to
be administered via a Sr-90 radioactive source with an activity
of 3.7 GBq (100 mCi) for a duration of 42.5 seconds. However, the
manual timer was incapable of being set for fractions of a second
and interpreted the entry to be 4 minutes and 25 seconds. During
the treatment, the physician questioned the treatment time and
terminated the treatment after 2 minutes and 30 seconds. The
Radiation Oncologist concluded that the maximum possible dose
delivered to the sclera was well below the sclera tolerance dose
and that the optic nerve and retina did not receive any
meaningful dose. The patient and the referring physician were
notified of the event.
Cause(s)--The wrong treatment time was programmed for the
patient's eye treatment.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--The licensee
updated its procedures, which require use of an additional person
to operate a second timer during brachytherapy eye treatment.
State Agency--The Tennessee Department of Radiological Health
conducted an onsite inspection on March 29, 2004. The State
investigated, reviewed, and approved the licensee's new
procedures.
This event is considered closed for the purpose of this report.
* * * * *
[[Page 22727]] AS 04-08 Therapeutic Medical Event at Southern
Regional Medical Center in Riverdale, Georgia Date and
Place--July 1, 2004; Southern Regional Medical Center; Riverdale,
Georgia.
Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee informed the
Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GDNR) that a patient
received 3.7 GBq (100 mCi) of I-131 instead of the prescribed
dose of 0.64 GBq (17.3 mCi). Three patients were scheduled for
I-131 treatments on the same day. An inpatient was scheduled to
receive 3.7 GBq (100 mCi), and two outpatients were scheduled to
receive less than 1.2 GBq (33 mCi). One of the outpatients was
mistakenly injected with the 3.7 GBq (100 mCi) dose intended for
the inpatient and was also allowed to leave the facility without
receiving proper instructions. The licensee did not discover the
error until after the patient had left the facility with her
children. The authorized user who signed the written directive
was at the facility when the dose was administered. The temporary
RSO was at South Fulton Hospital, but was notified of the event.
The patient and referring physician were immediately notified of
the event by the licensee. The GDNR received a report from the
licensee's medical physicist consultant estimating the dose to
the patient's children was 0.5 mSv (0.05 rem), with a maximum
possible dose of 1.0 mSv (0.1 rem). The radiation should not have
any effects on the patient's children or other individuals. The
medical significance to the patient is the possibility of
developing hypothyroidism which would require thyroid medication.
Cause(s)--This event was attributed to human error. The wrong
patient was administered a therapeutic dose of I-131 that was
prescribed for someone else.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--The licensee
discussed the incident with all technicians who prepare and
administer I-131, revised nuclear medicine protocols pertaining
to the therapeutic use of I-131 and patient instructions, and
revised procedures to incorporate better practices to prevent
this type of error from recurring.
State Agency--The State agency reviewed and approved the
corrective actions that the licensee implemented to prevent
recurrence.
This event is considered closed for the purpose of this report.
* * * * * AS 04-09 Intravascular Brachytherapy Medical Event at
Ireland Cancer Center in Middleburg Heights, Ohio.
Date and Place--December 22, 2003; Ireland Cancer Center;
Middleburg Heights, Ohio.
Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that a
patient received a radiation dose to an unintended site 3 cm
proximal to the prescribed treatment site during an intravascular
brachytherapy (IVB) treatment procedure. The dose delivered to
the unintended site was approximately 18.40 Gy (1,840 rads). The
event involved an IVB device that used a 3.5-mm catheter and a
source train that contained Sr-90 with an activity of 2.0 GBq
(53.8 mCi). The source train traveled to a location approximately
3 cm proximal to the intended treatment site. It was determined
that there was a kink in the delivery catheter, which kept the
source train from traveling to the correct site.
The kink was not substantial enough to affect the flow of sterile
water used to send and retrieve the source train. The kink was
discovered the following day during medical physics quality
checks. The referring physician and patient were notified of the
event. According to the licensee, no adverse effects are
expected.
Cause(s)--The cause of the event was determined to be a kink in
the delivery catheter, which kept the source train from traveling
to the correct site.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--Corrective actions
incorporated by the licensee included additional films taken
during procedures to verify the placement of the catheter. When
there is any doubt of the placement of the catheter, the
treatment will be aborted. The treatment team will then evaluate
whether to attempt treatment with a different catheter.
State Agency--The Ohio Department of Health conducted an
investigation, reviewed the licensee's corrective actions, and
found them adequate to prevent recurrence.
This event is considered closed for the purpose of this report.
* * * * * AS 04-10 Intravascular Brachytherapy Medical Event at
Swedish Medical Center in Seattle, Washington Date and
Place--November 18, 2003; Swedish Medical Center; Seattle,
Washington.
Nature and Probable Consequences--A patient undergoing an
intravascular brachytherapy (IVB) treatment for coronary
restenosis received 13.78 Gy (1,378 rads) to an unintended site
(healthy tissue). The licensee reported that the source train was
partially inserted into a small artery, and the routing did not
follow a direct path.
When the difficulty occurred, the source train had been partially
inserted 65 mm proximal to the intended site. The source train
contained a total activity of 2.91 GBq (78.56 mCi). A 143-second
exposure time elapsed before the cardiologist withdrew the source
train, even though the licensee's procedure requires sources to
be immediately withdrawn once a problem occurs. The delay
occurred as the cardiologist first worked to fully insert the
source train and then discussed correcting the problem with the
oncologist. The catheter was examined, and there were no kinks or
bends. It was determined that there were no failures of the IVB
device. It was suspected that the pressure from the artery and
the tortuous route to the site caused a contraction of a portion
of the catheter and resulted in the seeds becoming stuck at a
particular location. The cardiologist was suspended from licensed
activities until the details of the event were fully understood.
According to the licensee, no adverse health effects are
expected. The patient and the patient's referring physician were
notified of the event.
Cause or Causes--It is suspected that the pressure from the small
artery and the tortuous route to the site caused a contraction of
a portion of the source train and resulted in the seeds becoming
stuck at a particular location.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--Corrective actions
included reemphasizing the importance of adhering to established
procedures and protocols before administering
radiopharmaceuticals, and ensuring that all staff completed
refresher training.
State Agency--The State reviewed and approved the corrective
actions taken by the licensee and will follow-up at the next
inspection.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
* * * * * AS 04-11 Diagnostic Medical Event at Swedish Medical
Center in Seattle, Washington Date and Place--September, 24,
2004; Swedish Medical Center; Seattle, Washington.
Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that a
patient received 190.9 MBq (5.16 mCi) of I-131, instead of the
prescribed 74 MBq (2 mCi) for a post thyroid treatment follow-up
scan. The prescribing physician
[[Page 22728]] realized that the error occurred on September 27,
2004, when the patient underwent the scan. A viable follow-up
scan was performed even though the error occurred. The referring
physician notified the patient of the error on September 27,
2004. The nuclear medicine physician indicated there would be no
negative health effects from this administration.
Cause or Causes--The licensee stated that human error led to
procedural checks not being performed prior to the
administration.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--Corrective actions
included re-emphasis on the importance of adhering to established
procedures and protocols prior to the administration of
radiopharmaceuticals and the completion of staff refresher
training.
State Agency--The State reviewed and approved the corrective
actions taken by the licensee and will follow-up at the next
inspection.
This event is considered closed for the purpose of this report.
* * * * * AS 04-12 Therapeutic Medical Event at University of
California at Los Angeles Harbor Medical Center in Torrance,
California Date and Place--June 7, 2002; Los Angeles County
Harbor University of California at Los Angeles (UCLA) Medical
Center; Torrance, California. This event was not identified as an
AO until the preparation of the FY 2004 report.
Nature and Probable Consequences--A patient receiving treatment
for thyroid ablation was administered a dose of 4.74 GBq (128
mCi) of I-131 instead of the prescribed dose of 1.18 GBq (32 mCi)
of I-131. On June 7, 2002, five patients were scheduled to be
treated with I- 131. Five vials containing I-131 arrived from the
radiopharmacy and were properly labeled with the patients' names.
The nuclear medicine technologist incorrectly thought that the
name on the 4.74 GBq (128mCi) vial did not match any of the
patient's names scheduled for treatment that day. Assuming that
this vial was incorrectly labeled, the 4.74 GBq (128 mCi) dosage
was administered to the patient for whom the technologist thought
the dose was intended. However, the technologist failed to verify
whether any of the remaining four dosages were labeled for that
patient. In fact, a vial was correctly labeled as prepared for
that patient.
The authorized user was present during the administration to
supervise the administration of the radiopharmaceutical, and to
verify that the correct radiopharmaceutical and dosage were
administered. The authorized user did not perform an independent
verification, but instead assumed that the nuclear medicine
technologist had verified that the dosage was correct. The error
was discovered about 5 hours later, when the patient scheduled to
receive the 4.74 GBq (128 mCi) dosage arrived at the medical
center for treatment. The patient and the referring physician
were notified. The authorized user went to the home of the
patient who received the inadvertent administration and verified
that appropriate radiation safety precautions were in place. The
patient's treatment plans were modified to accommodate the larger
dosage. The authorized user stated that the dosage was intended
to ablate the thyroid and render the patient hypothyroid, and
that was accomplished with the larger dose. He further stated the
patient is doing well, with no complications.
Cause(s)--This medical event was caused by human error which
resulted in the licensee's failure to follow proper policies and
procedures and verify the prescribed dosage for a specific
patient.
Actions Taken To Prevent Recurrence Licensee--The licensee
re-instructed all nuclear medicine personnel on the importance of
following the division's policies and procedures and the use of a
third party to check the prescription dose and patient
identification before administration. Additionally, the RSO will
review all I-131 therapy documents and administrations.
State Agency--The State cited the licensee for failure to provide
written notification to the referring physician and the patient
within 15 days after the occurrence of the medical event. The
State has reviewed and approved the licensee's corrective
actions.
* * * * * AS 04-13 Diagnostic Medical Event at University
Hospital in Cincinnati, Ohio Date and Place--March 10, 2004;
University Hospital; Cincinnati, Ohio.
Nature and Probable Consequences--The licensee reported that a
patient was given 74 MBq (2,000-Ci) of I-131 for a thyroid cancer
work- up instead of the prescribed dose of 7.4 MBq (200-Ci) of
I-123 for a thyroid uptake scan. The patient scheduled to receive
the I-123 dose responded affirmatively to being the patient that
was to receive the I- 131 dose. The technologist did not follow
procedures regarding proper identification of the patient, which
requires two separate methods for verifying patient
identification. A follow-up scan revealed the patient does have
hypothyroidism, and as a result, the 74 MBq (2,000-Ci) of I- 131
would have been prescribed based on the scan results. The
referring physician and patient were notified. No adverse health
effects are expected.
Cause or Causes--The technologist failed to follow established
procedures.
Actions Taken to Prevent Recurrence Licensee--The licensee
disciplined the technologist in accordance with hospital policy
and reiterated to all technologists the need to thoroughly check
patient identification using two approved methods. Additionally,
the Radiation Safety Committee modified the Quality Management
Program to require a photo as one method of verifying patient
identification.
State Agency--The Ohio Department of Health conducted an
investigation of the event on May 11, 2004, and reviewed the
licensee's corrective actions. The State found the licensee's
corrective actions adequate to prevent a recurrence of the event.
This event is closed for the purpose of this report.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day of April 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 05-8173 Filed 4-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
29 NRC: In the Matter of Andrew Siemaszko; Order Prohibiting Involvement
FR Doc E5-2070
[Federal Register: May 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 83)] [Notices]
[Page 22719-22722] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02my05-113]
in NRC-Licensed Activities Mr. Andrew Siemaszko was previously
employed as a system engineer at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
Station (Davis-Besse) operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating
Company (FENOC or Licensee). The Licensee holds License No. NPF-3
which was issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or
Commission)
[[Page 22720]] pursuant to 10 CFR part 50 on April 22, 1977. The
license authorizes the operation of Davis-Besse in accordance
with the conditions specified therein. The facility is located on
the Licensee's site near Oak Harbor, Ohio.
On February 16, 2002, Davis-Besse was shut down for refueling and
inspection of control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) reactor pressure
vessel (RPV) head penetration nozzles. Using ultrasonic testing,
the Licensee found cracks in three CRDM penetration nozzles and
on March 6, 2002, the Licensee discovered a cavity in the RPV
head in the vicinity of CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The cavity
measured approximately 5 to 7 inches long, 4 to 5 inches wide,
and penetrated though the 6.63 inch-thick low-alloy steel portion
of the RPV head, leaving the stainless steel clad material
(measuring 0.202 to 0.314 inches-thick) as the sole reactor
coolant system (RCS) pressure boundary. A smaller cavity was also
found near CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 2. The Licensee had
conducted a root cause evaluation and determined that the
cavities were caused by boric acid from the RCS released through
cracks in the CRDM penetration nozzles. The Licensee conducted
limited cleaning and inspections of the RPV head during the
Twelfth Refueling Outage (12RFO) that ended on May 18, 2000.
However, neither the limited RPV head cleaning nor the resultant
inspections during 12RFO were sufficient to ensure that the
significant boric acid deposits on the RPV head were only a
result of CRDM flange leakage as supposed and were not a result
of RCS pressure boundary leakage.
On March 6 and March 10, 2002, the Licensee provided information
to the NRC concerning the identification of a large cavity in the
RPV head adjacent to CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The NRC
conducted an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) inspection at the
Davis-Besse Station from March 12 to April 5, 2002, to determine
the facts and circumstances related to the significant
degradation of the RPV head. The results of the AIT inspection
were documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-346/2002-03,
issued on May 3, 2002. A follow-up special inspection was
conducted from May 15 to August 9, 2002, and on October 2, 2002,
the NRC issued the AIT Follow-up Special Inspection Report No.
50-346/2002-08 documenting ten apparent violations associated
with the RPV head degradation. Based upon an investigation into
the causes for the apparent violations documented in the special
inspection report, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI)
determined that the apparent violations involved deliberate
failures to comply with NRC requirements and regulations. The OI
investigation results were documented in OI Report No.
3-2002-006, dated August 22, 2003 and the matter remains under
Federal investigation.
Based on the results of the special inspection conducted by the
NRC staff and the OI investigation, the NRC determined that Mr.
Andrew Siemaszko engaged in deliberate misconduct that caused the
Licensee to be in violation of the NRC requirement to maintain
and provide to the NRC materially complete and accurate
information, 10 CFR 50.9. Andrew Siemaszko, a System Engineer at
Davis-Besse Station, was responsible for ensuring the RPV head
was cleaned during April 2000. Davis-Besse Work Order No.
00-001846-000 described the problem to be resolved as: Large
boron accumulation was noted on the top of the RX [reactor] head
and on top of the insulation. Boric acid corrosion may occur * *
* Work Description * * * Clean boron accumulation from top of
reactor head and on top of insulation. See Andrew Siemaszko
(Plant Engineering) * * * for additional details.
On April 25, 2000, in the ``Failure Evaluation/Description of
Work Performed'' section of Work Order No. 00-001846-000, Mr.
Siemaszko wrote ``work performed without deviation.'' Mr.
Siemaszko initiated Condition Report (CR) No. 2000-1037 on April
17, 2000, and described the condition as: Inspection of the
Reactor Head indicated accumulation of boron in the area of the
CRD [control rod drive] nozzle penetrations through the head.
Boron accumulation was also discovered on top of the thermal
insulation under the CRD flanges. Boron accumulated on the top of
the thermal insulation resulted from the CRD leakage.
The CRD leakage issues are discussed in CR 2000-0782.
Entered in the ``Remedial Actions'' Section of CR No.
2000-1037 was, Accumulated boron deposited between the reactor
head and the thermal insulation was removed during the cleaning
process performed under W.O. (Work Order) 00-001846-000. No boric
acid induced damage to the head surface was noted during the
subsequent inspection.
Also included on Condition Report No. 2000-0137 was, MODE 4
RESTRAINT--Complete all actions necessary to restore equipment to
allow the Mode change. When all actions are complete, document on
a Cause/Action Sheet (ED83242B) and provide a copy of the CR to
Quality Programs.
Information that Mr. Siemaszko told OI during a sworn,
transcribed interview indicated that Mr. Siemaszko knew at the
completion of 12RFO that the RPV head had not been cleaned of all
boric acid deposits, yet he provided information on Condition
Report No. 2000-0137 and Work Order No. 00-001846-000 indicating
that the RPV head was cleaned of boric acid deposits.
The Licensee removed the restraint to changing operations to Mode
4 on April 27, 2000, based, in part, on the information provided
to the Licensee by Mr. Siemaszko that the reactor vessel had been
cleaned of boric acid deposits, as documented on CR No. 2000-1037
and Work Order No. 00-001846-000. 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B,
Criterion XVI, requires that the Licensee establish measures to
ensure that conditions adverse to quality, such as failures,
malfunctions, deficiencies, deviations, defective material and
equipment, and nonconformances are promptly identified and
corrected. In the case of significant conditions adverse to
quality, the measures shall ensure that the cause of the
condition is determined and corrective action taken to preclude
repetition. The identification of the significant condition
adverse to quality, the cause of the condition, and the
corrective action taken shall be documented and reported to
appropriate levels of management.
10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XVII, requires, in part,
that the Licensee maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence
of activities affecting quality, including records of work
performance.
Condition Report (CR) No. 2000-1037 described a significant
condition adverse to quality and the corrective actions taken to
preclude repetition. Work Order No. 00-001846-000 is a record of
an activity affecting quality and documented work performance.
Review of documents and videotapes concerning the inspection of
the RPV head during 12RFO, that ended on May 18, 2000, and the
inspections of the RPV head during Refueling Outage 13, that
began on February 12, 2002, indicated that boric acid deposits
remained on the RPV head following 12RFO. This is contrary to
information Mr. Siemaszko documented in: (1) Work Order No.
00-001846-000 that work was performed without deviation; and (2)
CR No. 2000-1037 that the accumulated boron deposited between the
reactor head and the thermal insulation was removed during the
cleaning process performed and no boric acid induced damage to
the head surface was noted during the subsequent inspection.
10 CFR 50.9 requires, in part, that information required by
statute or by the Commission's regulations, orders, or license
conditions to be maintained by
[[Page 22721]] the licensee shall be complete and accurate in all
material respects.
Based on the above information, the NRC concludes that Mr.
Siemaszko deliberately provided materially incomplete and
inaccurate information in CR No. 2000-1037 and Work Order No.
00-001846-000, that are records the NRC requires the Licensee to
maintain. The information provided by Mr. Siemaszko in CR No.
2000-1037 and Work Order No. 00- 001846-000 was material to the
NRC because the presence of boric acid deposits on the RPV head
is a significant condition adverse to quality that went
uncorrected, in part, due to Mr. Siemaszko's incomplete and
inaccurate description of the work activities and corrective
actions.
Based on the above, Mr. Andrew Siemaszko, while employed by the
Licensee, engaged in deliberate misconduct that has caused the
Licensee to be in violation of 10 CFR 50.9 by deliberately
providing to the Licensee information that he knew to be
incomplete or inaccurate in a respect material to the NRC, in
violation of 10 CFR 50.5. The NRC determined that these
violations were of very high safety and regulatory significance
because they documented a pattern of deliberate inaccurate or
incomplete documentation of information that was required to be
maintained or submitted to the NRC. Had the NRC been aware of
this incomplete and inaccurate information, the NRC would likely
have taken immediate regulatory action to shut down the plant and
require the licensee to implement appropriate corrective actions.
As a direct result of these violations, the NRC determined that
FENOC started up and operated the plant, for the last operating
cycle prior to the February 16, 2002, shutdown without: (1) Fully
understanding or characterizing the condition of the reactor
pressure vessel head and the control rod drive penetrations; (2)
determining the cause of significant boric acid build up on the
reactor pressure vessel head, the control rod drive penetrations,
and several other components in the reactor containment building;
(3) properly identifying the presence of ongoing reactor coolant
system pressure boundary leakage and taking appropriate
corrective actions; and, (4) identifying a very significant
ongoing degradation of the reactor pressure vessel head which
required a number of years to reach the level of material wastage
observed in March 2002. Finally, the NRC determined that the
inaccurate and incomplete information provided by Mr. Siemaszko
contributed to continued operation of the plant with ongoing
reactor coolant system pressure boundary leakage and the
significant degradation of the reactor pressure vessel head, a
significant condition adverse to quality.
The NRC must be able to rely on the Licensee and its employees to
comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to
provide information and maintain records that are complete and
accurate in all material respects. Mr. Siemaszko's action caused
the Licensee to violate 10 CFR 50.9 and raised serious doubt as
to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements
and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC.
Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that
licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the
Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the
public will be protected if Mr. Siemaszko is permitted to be
involved in NRC- licensed activities. Therefore, the public
health, safety and interest require that Mr. Siemaszko be
prohibited from any involvement in NRC- licensed activities for a
period of five years from the effective date of this Order.
Additionally, Mr. Siemaszko is required to notify the NRC of his
first employment in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five
years following the prohibition period.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and
186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 30.10, and 10
CFR 150.20, it is hereby ordered that: 1. Mr. Andrew Siemaszko is
prohibited for five years from the effective date of this Order
from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. The NRC considers
NRC-licensed activities to be those activities that are conducted
pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC,
including those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted
pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. 2. If Mr.
Siemaszko is currently involved with another licensee in
NRC-licensed activities, he must immediately cease those
activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone
number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the
employer.
3. For a period of five years after the five year period of
prohibition has expired, Mr. Siemaszko shall, within 20 days of
acceptance of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed
activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities,
as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the
Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of the name, address, and
telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or
will be, involved in NRC-licensed activities. In the
notification, Mr. Siemaszko shall include a statement of his
commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the
basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will now
comply with applicable NRC requirements.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or
rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr.
Siemaszko of good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Andrew Siemaszko must, and any
other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an
answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order
within 90 days of the date of this Order. However, since this
enforcement action is being proposed prior to the U.S. Department
of Justice completing its review of the OI investigation results,
consideration may be given to extending the response time for
submitting an answer as well as the time for requesting a
hearing, for good cause shown. A request for extension of time
must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and
include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer
may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this
Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or
affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge
made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and
law on which Mr. Siemaszko or other person adversely affected
relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been
issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555.
Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the
Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and
Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator,
NRC Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4352, and
to Mr. Siemaszko if the answer or hearing request is by a person
other than Mr. Siemaszko. Because of continuing disruptions in
delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is
requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to
the Secretary of the Commission either by means of
[[Page 22722]] facsimile transmission to (301) 415-1101 or by
e-mail to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General
Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to (301)
415-3725 or by e- mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person
other than the Mr. Siemaszko requests a hearing, that person
shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his
interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address
the criteria set forth in 10 CFR Sec. 2.309. If a hearing is
requested by Mr. Siemaszko or a person whose interest is
adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order
designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is
held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether
this Order should be sustained.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the
provisions specified in Section IV above shall be effective and
final 90 days from the date of this Order without further order
or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing
has been approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall
be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not
been received.
Dated this 21st day of April 2005.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ellis W. Merschoff, Deputy Executive Director for Reactor
Programs, Office of the Executive Director for Operations.
[FR Doc. E5-2070 Filed 4-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
30 NRC: Draft Report for Comment: ``Consideration of Geochemical Issues
FR Doc E5-2073
[Federal Register: May 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 83)] [Notices]
[Page 22728-22729] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02my05-115]
in Groundwater Restoration at Uranium In-Situ Leach Mining
Facilities,'' NUREG/CR-6870 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.
Background: Some mining processes use fluids to dissolve (or
leach) a mineral without the need to remove physically the ore
containing the mineral from an ore deposit in the ground. In
general, these ``in- situ'' leach mining operations at uranium
mines are considerably more environmentally benign than
traditional mining and milling of uranium ore. Nonetheless, the
use of leaching fluids to mine uranium may contaminate the
groundwater aquifer in and around the region from which the
uranium is extracted. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) requires licensees to restore the
[[Page 22729]] aquifer to established water-quality standards
following the cessation of in-situ leach mining operations.
The NRC also requires licensees to ensure that sufficient funds
will be available to cover the cost of decommissioning their
facilities. For these uranium mines, restoration generally
consists of pumping specially treated water into the affected
aquifer and removing the displaced water--and thereby the
undesirable contaminants--from the system. Because groundwater
restoration can represent approximately 40 percent of the cost of
decommissioning a uranium leach mining facility, a good estimate
of the necessary volume of treatment water is important to
estimate the cost of decommissioning accurately.
The subject report, prepared for the NRC by the U.S. Geological
Survey, summarizes the application of a geochemical model to the
restoration process to estimate the degree to which a licensee
has decontaminated a site where a leach mining process has been
used. Toward that end, this report analyzes the respective
amounts of water and chemical additives pumped into the mined
regions to remove and neutralize the residual contamination using
10 different restoration strategies. The analyses show that
strategies that used hydrogen sulfide in systems with low natural
oxygen content provided the best results. On the basis of those
findings, this report also summarizes the conditions under which
various restoration strategies will prove successful. This, in
turn, will allow more accurate estimates of restoration and
decommissioning costs.
The subject report will be useful for licensees and State
regulators overseeing uranium leach mining facilities, who need
to estimate the volume of treatment water needed to decontaminate
those facilities.
Solicitation of Comments: The NRC seeks comments on the report
and is especially interested in comments on the utility and
feasibility of the modeling techniques described in the report.
Comment Period: The NRC will consider all written comments
received before June 17, 2005. Comments received after July 17,
2005, will be considered if time permits. Comments should be
addressed to the contact listed below.
Availability: An electronic version of the report is available in
Adobe Portable Document Format at and can be read with Adobe
Acrobat Reader software, available at no cost from .
Hard and electronic copies are available from the contact listed
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John D. Randall, Mail Stop
T9C34, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852, telephone (301) 415-6192, e-mail .
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of April 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Cheryl A. Trottier, Chief, Radiation Protection, Environmental
Risk & Waste Management Branch, Division of Systems Analysis and
Regulatory Effectiveness, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. E5-2073 Filed 4-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
31 The Current - Opinions: Is nuclear power clean power? -
[TheCurrentOnline.com]
Home > Opinions
Is nuclear power clean power?
By Catherine Marquis-Homeyer Published: Monday, May 2, 2005
Is nuclear power "clean power?" It depends on how you define
"clean."
With Earth Day fresh in memory and gas prices at persistently
high levels, everyone is talking about new energy sources.
Geologists tell us we have found most of Earth's easily
accessible oil. New big discoveries are becoming less likely and
new fields are more often in places harder to reach or more
costly to refine. Environmental concerns about global warming
and climate change focus on oil in particular. Whether you
believe plenty of oil will be found somewhere or think that the
days of cheap oil are already gone, looking for new energy
sources seems like a good idea.
Energy is a hot topic right now. Finding a replacement for oil
poses a problem. We have abundant supplies of coal but coal is a
"dirty" fuel. In the nineteenth century, coal was the common
fuel, along with wood. Coal is very good at producing heat but
it produces a great deal of soot and carbon dioxide. Much of the
famous fog of the London of Sherlock Holmes and Jack the Ripper
was really smog from coal fires, which became clear when the
coal fires were replaced. Both coal and natural gas, a fuel that
avoids the soot issue, still add to the carbon dioxide in the
atmosphere, the major "greenhouse" gas.
Although with coal and natural gas, another energy source often
suggested is nuclear power. Nuclear power does not have coal's
soot and does not add to greenhouse gases in the same way. This
has led some people to define nuclear as a "clean" power.
However, the issues with nuclear are not the same as the fossil
fuels of oil, coal and natural gas. Nuclear power brings a new
set of problems. The major problem with nuclear is not that the
plant will suddenly turn into a nuclear bomb and explode. The
major problem is what to do with the waste.
Spent nuclear fuel is too spent to power the power plant but not
too spent to be dangerous. Nuclear waste is dangerous for
thousands to millions of years, depending on the isotope, but
our storage solutions are all for twenty, fifty, maybe one
hundred years. Those kinds of storage solutions are just
shifting the problem to another generation. The hope is that the
future will have a solution but the odds are just as good that
the waste facilities could be forgotten or neglected. Imagine
how our present government would want to deal with a hazardous
waste problem from one hundred years ago, assuming they were
aware the waste site existed. Time and political changes
sometimes mean that information gets lost.
Having a permanent way to deal with the waste is a major
obstacle to going nuclear on a big scale. Another issue is the
terrorist target. Dropping a conventional bomb on a nuclear
power plant is pretty much as good as dropping a nuclear bomb,
as you will get a nuclear explosion and have radiation that
lasts thousands of years spewed all over the area. Nuclear power
plants also produce the fuels of nuclear bombs, plutonium or
enriched uranium. In fact the first nuclear power plants were
built to produce fuel for bombs. This means that promoting
nuclear power world wide is always problematic, as you have to
continually monitor the plant to make sure bomb-making
activities are not taking place. All recent nations who went
nuclear got there through a "peaceful" nuclear power plant
approach. How good an option is this for a major power source?
There are other options but they require more research and the
industries need to grow. Wind and solar on a large scale can be
a source for electricity in some cases. Research into hydrogen
fuel is worth investing, as well as recycled fuels, like burning
waste cooking oil and other renewable sources. However, the most
overlooked solution is often efficiency. Going with electric or
hybrid cars is a solution for right now, as electricity can be
made from a variety of sources. Supplementing endless crowded
freeways in urban and suburban areas with rail, especially high
speed rail, could get rid of the traffic jams and rush hour
nightmares. If we shifted investment from building highways to
building railways the cost could be minimal.
And then there is the matter of the efficiency of our cars, our
appliances, of all our technology. More things that can be
repaired and recycled and more things that use energy as
efficiently as possible could allow future generations to enjoy
the good life we have now.
*****************************************************************
32 Scotsman.com News: Europe and Japan at Odds over 'Superpower' Reactor
Mon 2 May 2005
"PA"
Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi is in Luxembourg for
talks with European Union officials about economic and political
issues, including a stand-off over where to build an experimental
international nuclear fusion reactor.
The two sides have been at pains to craft a compromise over
competing Japanese and French bids to host the £6.8billion
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor.
The ITER plant, intended to show that nuclear fusion is a vast
and safe source of energy, is to be jointly funded by the US,
Russia, Japan, South Korea, China and the EU.
Backed by the US and South Korea, Tokyo wants it at Rokkasho in
northern Japan. Russia, China and Paris’ EU partners want it
at Cadarache in southern France.
Koizumi, leading a high-level Japanese mission, will meet with
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, EU External
Relations Commissioner Benita Ferrero-Waldner, EU security
affairs chief Javier Solana and Luxembourg Prime Minister
Jean-Claude Juncker, whose country now holds the EU presidency.
The EU and Japan will assess political and economic aspects of
their relationship and global issues such as the environment,
the upcoming ministerial meeting of the World Trade Organisation
in Hong Kong and political topics such as Japan’s currently
touchy relations with China.
In recent years, the two sides have stepped up cooperation to
promote peace and security, enhance trade and tackle such
challenges as global warming. The EU is pursuing more
cooperation in customs matters, science and technology and the
peaceful use of nuclear energy.
Increased across-the-board cooperation in recent years reflects
a desire in both the EU and Japan – which together account for
40% of global economic output – to project their influence on
the world stage.
EU officials expected Koizumi to raise Tokyo’s bid for a
permanent seat on the UN Security Council. The 25 EU leaders are
to debate proposed United Nations reforms in June. Germany wants
a UN Security Council seat, as do Brazil, India and Japan.
Koizumi discussed the seat issue on a visit to India last week.
After India, he visited Pakistan, a country he praised for its
efforts in the war against terrorism. Koizumi said Japan would
resume loans to the South Asian country, which were suspended
after Islamabad’s 1998 nuclear tests.
*****************************************************************
33 Independent: British firm risks environment damage with 'unsafe' plant in US
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
02 May 2005
Britain is involved in a plan to build a $1.2bn (£0.6bn) uranium
enrichment facility in the New Mexico desert, defying calls from
the UN's nuclear watchdog for a five-year moratorium on such
facilities.
A consortium led by a company one third-owned by British Nuclear
Fuels (BNFL) is looking to develop the plant close to the city
of Eunice. Campaigners say the project risks polluting the
environment, using scarce water resources and creating many tons
of nuclear waste. They also say Urenco - the
British-Dutch-German company heading the consortium - was
previously involved in the largest leak of nuclear technology in
history and there has been insufficient investigation to ensure
such a leak is not repeated.
But most local people and many politicians have welcomed the
project saying it will provide decent paying jobs in an
economically depressed area. With the oil and gas industry no
longer providing the jobs once offered, unemployment in the area
south-east of Roswell is up and people are leaving the area.
"We have to have something else or communities like Eunice will
just disappear," said the city's mayor, James Brown. "The oil
industry won't be able to support our economy 20 or 30 years
from now."
Republican Senator Pete Domenici, who has long lobbied to lure
such a plant to New Mexico, said: "There are no downsides."
The enrichment facility which is going through a public
consultation stage has been proposed by a consortium called the
Louisiana Energy Project (LES), that is 70 per cent controlled
by Urenco. If it is built, it would be the first privately
operated enrichment plant in the US and the first to use
centrifuge technology, rather than an older process known as
gaseous diffusion.
LES wanted to build the project in rural Louisiana, but backed
out in 1998 after opponents accused it of targeting a
predominantly poor and black community. Then it withdrew from a
similar proposal in Hartsville, Tennessee, in 2003 after running
into opposition from the former vice president Al Gore.
The latest site proposed by LES is in the flat, scrub-covered
desert 340 miles from Albuquerque in the south-eastern corner of
the state, close to Texas. LES has promised the plant will
employ 400 workers during the construction phase and, once it is
up and running, 210 people, with a payroll of more than $10m.
But campaigners are trying to give LES a bloody nose. The Sierra
Club, a US environmental group, said a rogue Pakistani
scientist, Abdul Qadeer Khan, was working for a firm contracted
to Urenco when he stole secrets and sold them to Pakistan,
Libya, North Korea and Iran. Marilyn Snell, editor of the
group's magazine, Sierra, said the US Department of Energy had
failed to conduct a thorough security review.
LES declined to comment. Urenco said it always managed its
security "in strict accordance with national and international
security regulations".
©2005 Independent News &Media (UK) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
34 [NukeNet] Bennett Ramberg UPI Op-Ed Nuke Terrorism
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:31:36 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Bennett Ramberg is the author of three books, and
editor of three others on
nuclear security issues. He served in the
Department of State's Bureau of
Politico-Military Affairs in the administration of
President George H.W. Bush.)
The NAS conclusion: "A terrorist attack that
partially
or completed drained a spent fuel pool could lead
to ... the release large
quantities of radioactive material to the
environment." The academy added that
NRC's efforts to belittle the risk are "not
prudent."
As an immediate remedy, the NAS called upon
utilities to modify the spent
fuel configuration and density to allow better
cooling and water-spray systems to
douse any terrorist ignition. It further
recommended a plant-by-plant survey
of unique vulnerabilities.
CRAC-2 Report, Plant By Plant Study Of
Fatalities, Cancers, Injuries, $$ Damage:
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html
United Press International
April 28, 2005
Outside view: The future of nuclear terror
By Bennett Ramberg
Outside View Commentator
Los Angeles, CA, Apr. 28 (UPI) -- This month marks
Chernobyl's 19th
anniversary. It comes at a time of continuing
concern about the motivation and ability
of terrorists to inflict an intentional Chernobyl
upon the United States.
Despite Washington's recognition of the risk, 31/2
years after the attack on the
World Trade Center, it is still attempting to sort
out what to do. The
dithering ill serves national security.
Testifying before the Senate Senate's Select
Committee on Intelligence on
Feb. 16, FBI Director Robert Mueller succinctly
laid out problem.
Commenting that 9/11 "al-Qaida planner Khalid
Sheik Mohamed had nuclear power
plants as part of his target set," Mueller
ominously warned, "... (W)e have
no reason to believe that al-Qaida has
reconsidered." Indeed, the director
placed nuclear power plants at the top of the hit
list of infrastructure targets
that terrorists would be tempted to attack.
The FBI's conclusion begs the question: Has the
United States done all it can
to prevent or reduce the consequences of nuclear
sabotage since Sept. 11,
2001?
The answer: Not really. In fairness, the country's
nuclear infrastructure is
more secure today. Utilities have bolstered
defenses against ground assaults.
Intelligence is more focused. Airport security
better protects against
airplane hijacking. Yet, the National Academy of
Science's April 6 report on the
vulnerability of nuclear spent fuel pools belies
the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's persistent mantra that our nuclear
plants are effectively immune.
Prompted by nongovernmental scientists' claims
that terrorist ground or air
assaults could drain the pools and ignite the
highly radioactive spent fuel
assemblies resulting in consequences exceeding
Chernobyl, Congress asked the
academy for an evaluation. The NAS conclusion: "A
terrorist attack that partially
or completed drained a spent fuel pool could lead
to ... the release large
quantities of radioactive material to the
environment." The academy added that
NRC's efforts to belittle the risk are "not
prudent."
As an immediate remedy, the NAS called upon
utilities to modify the spent
fuel configuration and density to allow better
cooling and water-spray systems to
douse any terrorist ignition. It further
recommended a plant-by-plant survey
of unique vulnerabilities.
The NRC will require further political prodding to
implement recommendations
since the academy is only an advisory group.
Unfortunately, the terrorists'
calendar to do us harm may not comply with the
commission's labored pace.
The commission must also do a better job in
protecting power reactors, a
matter the academy addressed marginally. It
remains unclear whether the NCR's
post-9/11 "Orders" requiring beefed up plant
security meets the challenge.
Guards repeatedly have complained they neither
have the training, armament or
sufficient personnel to foil a sophisticated
ground assault. The commission
has not provided the public with ample information
to judge the results of mock
attack exercises intended to test defenses.
Furthermore, the NRC still clings
to the mistaken belief that intelligence will
provide timely warning of an
increasing attack risk environment to bolster
security.
However, one fact remains clear: nuclear power
plants are naked against a
Sept. 11, 2001-like air attack. Plaintively, the
commission argues that the
"defense in depth" engineering built into reactors
to prevent serious accidents
should suffice although it continues to "study"
the matter. It contends that the
first line of defense ought to be airport
security; if that fails, military
aircraft could intercept suspicious airplanes.
Unfortunately, this "action plan" is flawed.
Engineers did not design reactor
containments to withstand an intentional,
high-speed impact by a large
commercial airliner. Then there is the risk that
such an attack could disrupt "soft"
vital lifelines outside the containment that could
prompt a meltdown.
Airport security already has failed to prevent
general aviation "buzzing" of
reactors.
Other defensive measures could be deployed.
However, the commission opposes
antiaircraft guns or missiles at reactor sites
fearing that they could shoot
down innocent planes. The fact that other
countries pursued this path without
mishap has not made an impression.
There yet remains passive defenses. Utilities
could put in place large World
War II-like barrage balloons to entwine light
aircraft in their tether.
Another option, heavy steel I-beams can be placed
over reactor sites to
fragment incoming aircraft dramatically reducing
their ability to penetrate
sensitive structures. The beams also could anchor
defensive steel cabling and netting
to further deflect impact. The NRC has before it a
formal petition for
rulemaking to accomplish this option.
Unfortunately, the commission is not likely to
implement such insurance as
long as it clings to the view that attacks are
improbable and plants are well
protected. This year's Chernobyl commemoration
should serve as a useful reminder
of what can happen if the presumptions prove
wrong.
--
(Bennett Ramberg is the author of three books, and
editor of three others on
nuclear security issues. He served in the
Department of State's Bureau of
Politico-Military Affairs in the administration of
President George H.W. Bush.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View"
commentaries are written by
outside contributors who specialize in a variety
of important issues. The views
expressed do not necessarily reflect those of
United Press International. In the
interests of creating an open forum, original
submissions are invited.)
to use this article? Click here for options!
Copyright 2005 United Press International
All site contents copyright © 2005 News World
Communications, Inc.
Privacy Policy
Nation/Politics World Commentary
Classifieds
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
35 [ISN] Ex-CIA chief warns of EMP nuke threat
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:32:06 -0700
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [ISN] Ex-CIA chief warns of EMP nuke threat
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 01:27:47 -0500 (CDT)
From: InfoSec News
Reply-To: isn@c4i.org
To: isn@attrition.org
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=44069
By Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
May 2, 2005
WASHINGTON - Former CIA chief James Woolsey affirms the work of a
special commission investigating the threat of a nuclear-bomb
generated electromagnetic pulse attack on the U.S. by rogue states or
terrorists and is urging the country to take steps necessary to
protect against the potentially devastating consequences.
In testimony before the House International Terrorism and
Non-Proliferation Subcommittee, chaired by Ed Royce, R-Calif.,
Woolsey, director of the CIA from 1993 through 1995, referred to the
nuclear EMP threat, characterized in intelligence circles, he said, as
"a SCUD in a bucket."
"That is a simple ballistic missile from a stockpile somewhere in the
world outfitted on something like a tramp steamer and fired from some
distance offshore into an American city or to a high altitude, thereby
creating an electromagnetic pulse effect, which could well be one of
the most damaging ways of using a nuclear weapon," he said.
Woolsey commended the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United
States from EMP Attack for its years of work on the subject and for
its dire report concluding that it is a means of attack that could
lead to the defeat of the U.S. by a much smaller enemy and utter
devastation of the country.
"That is a very serious threat," he told the committee. "And one thing
we need badly to do is to figure out ways to harden our electricity
grid and various types of key nodes so that electromagnetic pulse
blasts of nuclear weapons, or other ways of generating electromagnetic
pulse, even if it knocks out our toaster ovens will not knock out, for
example, our electricity grid."
Woolsey, like the commission, specifically mentioned the new dimension
a nuclear Iran would add to the risk of such an attack.
"We do not have the luxury of assuming that Iran, if it develops
fissionable materials, for example, would not share it under some
circumstances with al-Qaida operatives," he said. "We don't have the
luxury of believing that just because North Korea is a communist
state, it would not work under some circumstances to sell its
fissionable material to Hezbollah or al-Qaida."
There is increasing concern within the administration and Congress
over Iran's missile program, which has been determined by a commission
of U.S. scientists to pose a serious threat to U.S. security.
A report first published in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, a weekly,
online, premium, intelligence newsletter affiliated with WND, revealed
last week that Iran has been seriously considering an unconventional
pre-emptive nuclear strike against the U.S.
An Iranian military journal publicly floated the idea of launching an
electromagnetic pulse attack as the key to defeating the U.S.
Congress was warned of Iran's plans last month by Peter Pry, a senior
staffer with the Commission to Assess the Threat to the United States
from Electromagnetic Pulse Attack in a hearing of Sen. John Kyl's
subcommittee on terrorism, technology and homeland security.
In an article titled, "Electronics to Determine Fate of Future Wars,"
the journal explains how an EMP attack on America's electronic
infrastructure, caused by the detonation of a nuclear weapon high
above the U.S., would bring the country to its knees.
"Once you confuse the enemy communication network you can also disrupt
the work of the enemy command- and decision-making center," the
article states. "Even worse today when you disable a country's
military high command through disruption of communications, you will,
in effect, disrupt all the affairs of that country. If the world's
industrial countries fail to devise effective ways to defend
themselves against dangerous electronic assaults then they will
disintegrate within a few years. American soldiers would not be able
to find food to eat nor would they be able to fire a single shot."
WND reported the Iranian threat last Monday, explaining Tehran is not
only covertly developing nuclear weapons, it is already testing
ballistic missiles specifically designed to destroy America's
technical infrastructure.
Pry pointed out the Iranians have been testing mid-air detonations of
their Shahab-3 medium-range missile over the Caspian Sea. The missiles
were fired from ships.
"A nuclear missile concealed in the hold of a freighter would give
Iran or terrorists the capability to perform an EMP attack against the
United States homeland without developing an ICBM and with some
prospect of remaining anonymous," explained Pry. "Iran's Shahab-3
medium range missile mentioned earlier is a mobile missile and small
enough to be transported in the hold of a freighter. We cannot rule
out that Iran, the world's leading sponsor of international terrorism
might provide terrorists with the means to executive an EMP attack
against the United States."
Lowell Wood, acting chairman of the commission, said yesterday that
such an attack - by Iran or some other actor - could cripple the U.S.
by knocking out electrical power, computers, circuit boards
controlling most automobiles and trucks, banking systems,
communications and food and water supplies.
"No one can say just how long systems would be down," he said. "It
could be weeks, months or even years."
EMP attacks are generated when a nuclear weapon is detonated at
altitudes above a few dozen kilometers above the Earth's surface. The
explosion, of even a small nuclear warhead, would produce a set of
electromagnetic pulses that interact with the Earth's atmosphere and
the Earth's magnetic field.
"These electromagnetic pulses propagate from the burst point of the
nuclear weapon to the line of sight on the Earth's horizon,
potentially covering a vast geographic region in doing so
simultaneously, moreover, at the speed of light," said Wood. "For
example, a nuclear weapon detonated at an altitude of 400 kilometers
over the central United States would cover, with its primary
electromagnetic pulse, the entire continent of the United States and
parts of Canada and Mexico."
The commission, in its work over a period of several years, found that
EMP is one of a small number of threats that has the potential to hold
American society seriously at risk and that might also result in the
defeat of U.S. military forces.
"The electromagnetic field pulses produced by weapons designed and
deployed with the intent to produce EMP have a high likelihood of
damaging electrical power systems, electronics and information systems
upon which any reasonably advanced society, most specifically
including our own, depend vitally," Wood said. "Their effects on
systems and infrastructures dependent on electricity and electronics
could be sufficiently ruinous as to qualify as catastrophic to the
American nation."
_________________________________________
InfoSec News v2.0 - Coming Soon!
http://www.infosecnews.org
--
Peace,
owlswan
"Whenever 'A' attempts by law to impose moral standards upon 'B',
'A' is most likely a scoundrel."
-- H. L. Mencken (1880-1956) American Journalist, Editor
*****************************************************************
36 UPI OpEd on Nuclear Terrorism
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 04:03:47 EDT
United Press International
April 28, 2005
Outside view: The future of nuclear terror
By Bennett Ramberg
Outside View Commentator
Los Angeles, CA, Apr. 28 (UPI) -- This month marks Chernobyl's 19th
anniversary. It comes at a time of continuing concern about the motivation and ability
of terrorists to inflict an intentional Chernobyl upon the United States.
Despite Washington's recognition of the risk, 31/2 years after the attack on the
World Trade Center, it is still attempting to sort out what to do. The
dithering ill serves national security.
Testifying before the Senate Senate's Select Committee on Intelligence on
Feb. 16, FBI Director Robert Mueller succinctly laid out problem.
Commenting that 9/11 "al-Qaida planner Khalid Sheik Mohamed had nuclear power
plants as part of his target set," Mueller ominously warned, "... (W)e have
no reason to believe that al-Qaida has reconsidered." Indeed, the director
placed nuclear power plants at the top of the hit list of infrastructure targets
that terrorists would be tempted to attack.
The FBI's conclusion begs the question: Has the United States done all it can
to prevent or reduce the consequences of nuclear sabotage since Sept. 11,
2001?
The answer: Not really. In fairness, the country's nuclear infrastructure is
more secure today. Utilities have bolstered defenses against ground assaults.
Intelligence is more focused. Airport security better protects against
airplane hijacking. Yet, the National Academy of Science's April 6 report on the
vulnerability of nuclear spent fuel pools belies the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's persistent mantra that our nuclear plants are effectively immune.
Prompted by nongovernmental scientists' claims that terrorist ground or air
assaults could drain the pools and ignite the highly radioactive spent fuel
assemblies resulting in consequences exceeding Chernobyl, Congress asked the
academy for an evaluation. The NAS conclusion: "A terrorist attack that partially
or completed drained a spent fuel pool could lead to ... the release large
quantities of radioactive material to the environment." The academy added that
NRC's efforts to belittle the risk are "not prudent."
As an immediate remedy, the NAS called upon utilities to modify the spent
fuel configuration and density to allow better cooling and water-spray systems to
douse any terrorist ignition. It further recommended a plant-by-plant survey
of unique vulnerabilities.
The NRC will require further political prodding to implement recommendations
since the academy is only an advisory group. Unfortunately, the terrorists'
calendar to do us harm may not comply with the commission's labored pace.
The commission must also do a better job in protecting power reactors, a
matter the academy addressed marginally. It remains unclear whether the NCR's
post-9/11 "Orders" requiring beefed up plant security meets the challenge.
Guards repeatedly have complained they neither have the training, armament or
sufficient personnel to foil a sophisticated ground assault. The commission
has not provided the public with ample information to judge the results of mock
attack exercises intended to test defenses. Furthermore, the NRC still clings
to the mistaken belief that intelligence will provide timely warning of an
increasing attack risk environment to bolster security.
However, one fact remains clear: nuclear power plants are naked against a
Sept. 11, 2001-like air attack. Plaintively, the commission argues that the
"defense in depth" engineering built into reactors to prevent serious accidents
should suffice although it continues to "study" the matter. It contends that the
first line of defense ought to be airport security; if that fails, military
aircraft could intercept suspicious airplanes.
Unfortunately, this "action plan" is flawed. Engineers did not design reactor
containments to withstand an intentional, high-speed impact by a large
commercial airliner. Then there is the risk that such an attack could disrupt "soft"
vital lifelines outside the containment that could prompt a meltdown.
Airport security already has failed to prevent general aviation "buzzing" of
reactors.
Other defensive measures could be deployed. However, the commission opposes
antiaircraft guns or missiles at reactor sites fearing that they could shoot
down innocent planes. The fact that other countries pursued this path without
mishap has not made an impression.
There yet remains passive defenses. Utilities could put in place large World
War II-like barrage balloons to entwine light aircraft in their tether.
Another option, heavy steel I-beams can be placed over reactor sites to
fragment incoming aircraft dramatically reducing their ability to penetrate
sensitive structures. The beams also could anchor defensive steel cabling and netting
to further deflect impact. The NRC has before it a formal petition for
rulemaking to accomplish this option.
Unfortunately, the commission is not likely to implement such insurance as
long as it clings to the view that attacks are improbable and plants are well
protected. This year's Chernobyl commemoration should serve as a useful reminder
of what can happen if the presumptions prove wrong.
--
(Bennett Ramberg is the author of three books, and editor of three others on
nuclear security issues. He served in the Department of State's Bureau of
Politico-Military Affairs in the administration of President George H.W. Bush.)
--
(United Press International's "Outside View" commentaries are written by
outside contributors who specialize in a variety of important issues. The views
expressed do not necessarily reflect those of United Press International. In the
interests of creating an open forum, original submissions are invited.)
to use this article? Click here for options!
Copyright 2005 United Press International
All site contents copyright © 2005 News World Communications, Inc.
Privacy Policy
Nation/Politics World Commentary Classifieds
*****************************************************************
37 Hankyoreh: Non-Proliferation Treaty, Weakened By US
[Editorial]
Updated : May.03.2005 08:08 KST [ border=]
The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) Review Conference, held every
five years, opens Monday in New York and continues through to the
middle of the month. The NPT is in a weaker state than it has
been at any time since it took effect in 1970, because it the
goal of reducing existing nuclear weapons and stopping the
production of new ones is being seriously challenged.
One of the first things you notice is the problem of non-member
states. Israel, India, and Pakistan all have nuclear arms but are
under no treaty constraints. Iran is suspected of trying to
produce nuclear weapons. North Korea withdrew from the NPT in
2003 and for years now the North Korean nuclear issue has been a
major part of the international agenda. There is controversy
because the United States is trying to initiate a plan that would
prohibit member states that violate the treaty from the peaceful
use of nuclear power. The Bush Administration wants to allow only
five countries that do not have nuclear arms to be able to
process uranium, namely Japan, Germany, the Netherlands, Brazil,
and Argentina. Opposition to that from most non-nuclear nations
is only natural.
The most serious problem is that nuclear nations are not abiding
by the treaty in good faith. The US has the most nuclear weapons
but is avoiding making reductions, and is trying to develop a new
nuclear "bunker buster" bomb. Also, the US is determining its
nuclear experiment budget while rejecting the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty (CTBT), which is supported by most nations. At the
review conference 10 years ago the Clinton Administration
declared that nations possessing nuclear arms would not use
nuclear weapons against countries that do not have them, but the
Bush Administration has turned that completely upside down and is
openly pushing for a nuclear pre-emptive strike strategy.
The issue of nuclear arms will ultimately only be resolved
through complete abolition. That will require nuclear nations
take action. The US has the most nuclear arms, so its
responsibility in that process cannot be overemphasized. The NPT
treaty is in a crisis that will determine whether it continues or
not.
The Hankyoreh, 3 May 2005.
Copyright 2005 Hankyoreh Plus inc.
*****************************************************************
38 Guardian Unlimited: Concessions Urged As Nuclear Fears Rise
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday May 3, 2005 12:16 AM
AP Photo NYFF201
By CHARLES J. HANLEY
AP Special Correspondent
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Amid rising nuclear tensions, more than
180 nations convened Monday to review the nonproliferation
treaty, hearing calls from many sides for concessions by Iran
and North Korea, America, Russia and others to move toward a
world free of the nuclear threat.
``Ultimately, the only way to guarantee that they will never be
used is for our world to be free of such weapons,''
Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in opening the monthlong
conference.
The U.N. chief urged nonweapons states like Iran to renounce
potential bomb technology, in return for international
guarantees of nuclear fuel. But he also challenged Washington
and Moscow to slash their nuclear arsenals irreversibly to just
hundreds of warheads.
That call was echoed by a spokeswoman for a coalition of
disarmament-minded nations. ``We are greatly disappointed'' by
``unsatisfactory progress'' toward disarmament by the big
powers, said New Zealand's Marian Hobbs.
The U.S. representative rejected such criticism, pointing to
recent arms-control agreements.
``We are proud to have played a leading role in reducing nuclear
arsenals,'' said Stephen G. Rademaker, an assistant secretary of
state.
Rademaker made clear the United States would seek, instead, to
focus the conference on Iran and its nuclear-fuel program, and
on North Korea.
Because of such differing priorities, treaty members were unable
to agree on a complete agenda before the sessions began.
Organizers hope to have agreement before the nuts-and-bolts work
of committees begins next week.
Under the 35-year-old Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT),
states without nuclear arms pledge not to pursue them, in
exchange for a commitment by five nuclear powers - the United
States, Russia, Britain, France and China - to move toward
nuclear disarmament. Three other nuclear states - Israel, India
and Pakistan - remain outside the treaty.
The NPT is reviewed every five years at conferences whose
consensus political commitments are not legally binding, like a
treaty, but give valuable support to nonproliferation
initiatives. At the 2000 sessions, the nuclear powers committed
to ``13 practical steps'' toward disarmament, but critics
complain the Bush administration - by rejecting the nuclear
test-ban treaty, for example - has come up short.
In his keynote address, Annan said all nations must work toward
``a world of reduced nuclear threat and, ultimately, a world
free of nuclear weapons.''
The nuclear powers must find ways to rely less on nuclear
deterrence, the U.N. chief said, and he called on Washington and
Moscow ``to commit themselves - irreversibly - to further cuts
in their arsenals, so that warheads number in the hundreds, not
the thousands.''
Under the 2002 Moscow Treaty, the United States and Russia are
to cut back their deployed warheads to between 1,700 and 2,200
each, by 2012.
When it's implemented, Rademaker said, ``the United States will
have reduced the number of strategic nuclear warheads it had
deployed in 1990 by about 80%.''
But the agreement has been criticized for not requiring
destruction of excess warheads taken off deployment, or
providing a transparent timetable and open verification of
reductions.
The Iran question hinges on the NPT's Article IV, which
guarantees nonweapons states the right to peaceful nuclear
technology, including uranium enrichment equipment to produce
fuel for nuclear power plants.
That same technology, with further enrichment, can produce
material for nuclear bombs, and the United States alleges that's
what Iran plans. ``We dare not look the other way,'' Rademaker
said.
Tehran denies the charge, but Annan said states such as Iran
``must not insist'' on possessing such sensitive technology, but
instead should have access internationally to nuclear fuel.
Following Annan to the U.N. podium, Mohamed ElBaradei,
director-general of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
renewed his call for a moratorium on new fuel-cycle facilities
while international controls are negotiated.
ElBaradei proposes putting nuclear fuel production under
multilateral control by regional or international bodies.
Rademaker on Monday reaffirmed President Bush's proposal for an
outright ban on nuclear fuel technology, except in the United
States and a dozen other countries that have it. Neither idea
has generated widespread support.
The Tehran government is negotiating on and off with Germany,
France and Britain about shutting down its enrichment operations
in return for economic incentives.
Speaking for the European Union, Luxembourg's foreign minister,
Jean Asselborn, cited its endorsement of international
guarantees of access to nuclear fuel, on one hand, and at the
same time said the EU ``expects further reductions in the
Russian and U.S. arsenals.''
Malaysia's foreign minister, representing the 116-nation
Non-Aligned Movement, said a ``lack of balance'' - the U.S.
emphasis on nonproliferation over disarmament - ``threatens to
unravel the NPT regime.''
``The nuclear weapons states continue to believe in the
relevance of nuclear weapons,'' said Syed Hamid Albar. ``We must
all call for an end to this madness.
North Korea, which pulled out of the NPT in 2003, said in
February it has already built nuclear weapons. The review
conference is not expected to focus heavily on this first NPT
defector, however, in order not to complicate efforts, via
now-suspended six-party talks, to draw Pyongyang back into the
treaty fold.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
39 BBC: Iran issues nuclear warning to US
Last Updated: Sunday, 1 May, 2005
By Frances Harrison BBC News, Tehran
[Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ]
Khamenei says the US cannot decide who has nuclear technology
The spiritual leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has warned
the United States to stay out of his country's nuclear programme.
Speaking on a tour of south-east Iran, Ayatollah Khamenei said
the US was arrogant, rude and deserved a punch in the mouth.
He also said Iran's presidential elections in June would not make
any difference to its nuclear policy.
The US has expressed fears Iran is trying to build nuclear
weapons.
Enrichment warning
Ayatollah Khamenei said it was not up to the US to decide which
countries needed nuclear technology.
He also warned that Iran's forthcoming presidential elections
were nothing to do with the Americans.
No president would dare violate the country's national interests
because the people would not allow it, he said.
His comments came as Iran warned on Saturday it might resume
suspended enrichment-related activities next week in defiance of
an agreement that is underpinning nuclear talks with Europe.
Iran is concerned that negotiations are dragging on too long and
has proposed a phased resumption of its nuclear activities.
*****************************************************************
40 Economist.com: Nuclear arms control
May 1st 2005
The world's avowed nuclear powers are America, Russia, China,
France, Britain and, since 1998, India and Pakistan. Israel too
has the bomb, but does not talk of it. Late in the cold war and
several times since, Russia and America have cut their huge
arsenals in treaties, though both retain enough warheads to wipe
out humanity.
Now in the spotlight are the potential spread of weapons-grade
nuclear materials and know-how to rogue states like North Korea
and Iran; Russias leaky nuclear security; and non-state nuclear
terrorism (perhaps in the form of a low-tech dirty bomb ). The
Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is the cornerstone of
anti-proliferation efforts. But it is faltering and in need of
aid: Israel, India and Pakistan never signed the treaty, Iran
seems to be working on nukes despite having signed it, North
Korea withdrew from it completely and terrorists could not care
less. The five established powers, especially America, stand
accused of weakening the NPT too.
The anti-proliferation effort got a boost in December 2003 when
Libya renounced its efforts to make a bomb. It was soon
discovered that a Pakistani scientist had been selling secrets
to Libya, North Korea and Iran. Since then an American-inspired
programme for interdicting banned materials has been gaining
momentum and the UN set a deadline in October 2004 for
governments everywhere to implement anti-trafficking controls.
Meanwhile, defence scientists have been put to task working on
technologies to detect smuggled weapons-grade materials.
*****************************************************************
41 Korea Times: 'Nuke Strike on Yongbyon Creates 550,000 Victims'
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation
SEOUL (Yonhap) - A British expert claimed Monday that a U.S.
nuclear strike on North Korea's nuclear facilities in Yongbyon
could cause up to 550,000 casualties, including South Koreans
and Japanese, citing the results of a simulation test by a U.S.
non-governmental organization.
John Large, an independent nuclear consultant who has advised
governments around the world, said in an interview with Yonhap
News Agency in Seoul that the U.S. has adopted a "first strike"
policy in its dealings with North Korea, claiming the policy
also endangers the lives of South Koreans and Japanese.
"The fallout would be considerable and spread _ depending on
weather conditions _ over South Korea and parts of Japan,"
Larger said.
The estimated number of casualties would range from 430,000 to
550,000, he said.
He cited a nuclear simulation test by the Natural Resources
Defense Council, a U.S. environmental organization that opposes
the proliferation of nuclear weapons and waste. In its "After
the 2001 Nuclear Posture Review," published early this year, the
organization estimated the possible impact of a U.S. nuclear
strike on North Korea, using recently declassified government
documents, the British expert said.
05-02-2005 17:21
*****************************************************************
42 MCOT: Suspected uranium rods seized
TNA English News :
BANGKOK, May 2 (TNA) – Thai police have seized iron rods which
they believed may be uranium.
The police arrested seven people and confiscated four iron rods,
about six centimetres in diameter and 15 centimetres long, in the
north-eastern province of Nakhon Phanom.
One of those arrested told police that he had bought the iron
rods, each costing 1,000 baht, from Rong Kruea Market near
Thai-Cambodian border in Sa Kaeo province.
His friend had told him that the iron rods could fetch high
prices from unknown buyers, he said.
He was arrested when he planned to show the objects to his
customers.
It is still not known whether the iron rods contain radioactive
material, a senior police superintendent, Pol. Lt. Col. Aekkachai
Natueng told TNA.
Advice from the government’s Office of Atoms for Peace is being
sought, before the rods are moved, he said.
All the arrested suspects are still being questioning. Officials
have stepped up the investigation as the case may be related to
national security, Pol. Lt. Col. Aekkachai said. There may also
be further arrests, he added. (TNA)-E004
Last Update : 2005-05-02 / 13:39:18 (GMT+7:00) [Printer-friendly
version of this article] [Email a link to this article]
MCOT Public Company Limited. All Rights Reserved.2003
For comments to: Webmaster. Advertising tel : (662)201-6118-9
*****************************************************************
43 [du-list] Committee approves free screening for exposure to
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:30:57 -0700
http://www.katc.com/Global/story.asp?S=3274668
BATON ROUGE, La. A House committee decided today that members of the
military or veterans who believe they were at risk for exposure to depleted
uranium, a radioactive material that is used in nuclear weapons, should be
able to get a free health screening test.
A bill by Representative Juan LaFonta of New Orleans would establish the
right to the screening test. The House Judiciary Committee unanimously sent
the measure to the full House for debate. LaFonta was accompanied by two
veterans for the committee hearing.
The U-S Department of Veterans Affairs would cover the 170 dollar cost per
test.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/05
[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/
*****************************************************************
44 [du-list] "Troops' families demand public inquiry into war..
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:31:20 -0700
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=634695
Troops' families demand public inquiry into war
By Severin Carrell
01 May 2005
The parents of British troops killed in Iraq are to demand that Tony Blair
orders a public inquiry into the war or face legal action in the courts.
Six families will go to Downing Street on Tuesday to call for an
independent inquiry into the legality of the war, after it emerged last
week that the Attorney General warned the UK could lose in court if it
failed to win the United Nations' approval.
The families will hand in a legal notice to Mr Blair that warns they will
petition the High Court for a full judicial review into the legality of the
invasion if he refuses to set up an inquiry. The parents, who are being
advised by human rights lawyers and supported by the Stop the War
coalition, are led by Reg Keys and Rose Gentle, who are standing in the
election against Mr Blair and Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces minister,
respectively.
Their claim is one in a series of potentially embarrassing legal
developments facing the Government following last week's publication of
Lord Goldsmith's second legal opinion on the lawfulness of the war. The
Independent on Sunday has learnt that a complaint of misconduct against
Lord Goldsmith is expected to be made to the Bar Council, the ruling body
for barristers in England and Wales.
This week, two groups lawyers andexperts are to send the 13-page legal
opinion to the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, claiming it
substantiates their claims that the UK committed war crimes in Iraq. A
third complaint will be made by the families accusing the Government of war
crimes. The Bar Council complaint follows a similar allegation made last
month by Clare Short, the former international development secretary, that
Lord Goldsmith was guilty of "inadequate professional services".
PeaceRights, run by legal academics at Warwick University, was told by the
ICC's chief prosecutor in December that their case was "one of the most
significant" he had seen. They allege that Britain used cluster munitions
in civilian areas, put civilians at risk by targeting power stations, hit
water supplies and hospitals, and used radioactive depleted uranium shells.
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/05
[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/
*****************************************************************
45 News24: Ex-Pelindaba workers ill
Johannesburg - The Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa
(Necsa) has launched an investigation into claims that former
employees of the Pelindaba nuclear facility contracted serious
diseases after being exposed to radiation, The Star newspaper
reported on Monday.
Some of the workers - who worked at the facility outside
Pretoria in the 1980s and 1990s - have lung cancer and other
cancers, serious neurological disorders, and have suffered
miscarriages.
Their plight came to the fore after an occupational health
expert found that out of a sample of 23 former Pelindaba
workers, 10 showed signs of having been exposed to hazardous
substances "which could cause adverse health effects".
More than 200 former Pelindaba employees had asked Earthlife to
help them get their medical files, the report said.
Two of the workers could have had possible exposure to
radiation.
The study, commissioned by the environmental watchdog Earthlife
Africa, also found that there were no follow-up medical
examinations of former Necsa employees.
"More people (ex-Pelindaba employees) have come forward, with
diseases like lung cancer, serious neurological disorders,
miscarriages and other forms of cancer," explained Mashile
Phalane, co-ordinator for Earthlife Africa.
More than 200 former Pelindaba employees had asked Earthlife to
help them get their medical files from Necsa, and compensation
in terms of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and
Diseases Act, Phalane said.
Last week, Earthlife Africa was embroiled in a public spat with
the government for saying that radioactive ores were
"deliberately" buried at a site outside Pelindaba.
The National Nuclear Regulator denied it was a dumping site.
However, Earthlife maintained it had correctly identified the
site as a calibration facility.
Minerals and Energy Minister Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka said in
response that the government intended to pass legislation to
make it a punishable offence to spread allegations which
resulted in unnecessary panic or incitement.
*****************************************************************
46 NRC: Missing Gauge Containing Radioactive Material Found in Pennsylvania
News Release - Region I - 2005-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-025
April 29, 2005 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A.
Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov
A New Jersey company has notified the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission that a gauge that was reported missing in
Pennsylvania earlier this week has been found. The gauge was not
damaged in the incident and consequently there was no immediate
health or safety concern.
The Troxler Model portable moisture density gauge, which
contains radioactive material, was reported missing by Craig
Testing Laboratories of Mays Landing, N.J. on Monday, April 25.
The gauge reportedly fell off a vehicle near State Route 52 and
U.S. Route 1 in Pocopson, Chester County.
A member of the public notified officials that hed found the
missing gauge and it was retrieved by the company this morning.
The NRC issues licenses to use radioactive materials for a
variety of uses, including medical, academic and industrial
applications.
Last revised Monday, May 02, 2005
*****************************************************************
47 Mail & Guardian: Former nuclear workers seriously ill, says report
Tuesday, May 03, 2005 6:49 AM
The Nuclear Energy Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) has
launched an investigation into claims that former employees of
the Pelindaba nuclear facility contracted serious diseases after
being exposed to radiation, The Star newspaper reported on
Monday.
Some of the workers -- who worked at the facility outside
Pretoria in the 1980s and 1990s -- have lung cancer and other
cancers, serious neurological disorders, and have suffered
miscarriages.
Their plight came to the fore after an occupational health
expert found that out of a sample of 23 former Pelindaba
workers, 10 showed signs of having been exposed to hazardous
substances "which could cause adverse health effects".
More than 200 former Pelindaba employees had asked Earthlife to
help them get their medical files, the report said.
Two of the workers could have had possible exposure to radiation.
The study, commissioned by the environmental watchdog Earthlife
Africa, also found that there were no follow-up medical
examinations of former Necsa employees.
"More people (ex-Pelindaba employees) have come forward, with
diseases like lung cancer, serious neurological disorders,
miscarriages and other forms of cancer," explained Mashile
Phalane, co-ordinator for Earthlife Africa.
More than 200 former Pelindaba employees had asked Earthlife to
help them get their medical files from Necsa, and compensation
in terms of the Compensation for Occupational Injuries and
Diseases Act, Phalane said.
Last week, Earthlife Africa was embroiled in a public spat with
the government for saying that radioactive ores were
"deliberately" buried at a site outside Pelindaba.
The National Nuclear Regulator denied it was a dumping site.
However, Earthlife maintained it had correctly identified the
site as a calibration facility.
Minerals and Energy Minister Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka said in
response that the government intended to pass legislation to
make it a punishable offence to spread allegations which
resulted in unnecessary panic or incitement. - Sapa
All material copyright Mail&Guardian.
*****************************************************************
48 Sarasota Herald-Tribune: Final hurdle for Tallevast
Senate must act fast on pollution-notification bill Florida
lawmakers have at least one easy decision awaiting them as they
enter their final week in Tallahassee -- a bill requiring the
state to notify people when pollution is found near their homes.
The measure, sponsored by Rep. Bill Galvano, R-Bradenton, faced
more obstacles than anticipated in the committee process, but
it's expected to win approval from the House early this week.
The Senate needs to follow up quickly, or the measure will die.
We encourage Sen. Mike Bennett, R-Bradenton, and others in the
Southwest Florida delegation to make sure the bill wins passage.
Galvano introduced the measure in response to an ongoing
environmental and public health crisis in the Tallevast
community, near the Manatee-Sarasota line.
In 2000, the Department of Environmental Protection learned of
underground toxic pollution near the former American Beryllium
Co. plant off U.S. 301.
Yet, nearby residents weren't told of the problem until years
later, when they began asking questions about workers conducting
tests near their homes.
The crisis has exposed serious shortcomings in state
environmental law. Currently, the DEP isn't required to tell
residents about pollution until a cleanup plan is completed -- a
process that can take years.
Galvano's bill calls for the DEP to notify residents within 30
days, which should be more than enough time for the agency to
disseminate preliminary information.
There's little left for the Legislature to debate about this
issue. Common sense -- and common decency -- dictate that people
be told about pollution around them.
Last modified: May 02. 2005 12:00AM
heraldtribune.com | Advertise With Us | Jobs With Us | Join
Serving the Herald-Tribune newspaper and SNN Channel 6 ©
*****************************************************************
49 Spectrum: Woman donates downwinder funds to facility
St. George - www.thespectrum.com
Monday, May 2, 2005
By JENNIFER WEAVER jweaver@thespectrum.com
HOW TO HELP
+ To donate to the Cancer Treatment Center, contact Valley View
Health Care Foundation President Harry Brown at (435) 868-5809.
PANGUITCH - Reading The Spectrum is part of Alice Henrie's daily
routine to keep informed and be entertained. She never thought
the pastime would provoke her to take action.
"I read an article about Frank and Celestia Nichols donating to
the cancer center, and it just hit me that was what I needed to
do," Henrie said.
The $2.8 million cancer treatment center, tentatively expected
to open in two years from fund-raising efforts by the Valley
View Health Care Foundation, will provide radiation oncology,
chemotherapy and surgical procedures to cancer patients in Iron
County and the surrounding area. When the foundation has raised
$1.4 million, Intermountain Health Care has committed to match
the remainder.
The Panguitch resident wanted to help with that effort. She
lost her husband, Lowell, to cancer on July 25, 2002. He was a
heavy equipment operator leveling land during the nuclear
testing in the 1950s at the Nevada test site.
Her son, Lowell Jr., has a vivid recollection of those days in
his youth working side by side with his dad on the family farm.
"We had a ranch about seven miles outside of Panguitch and I
remember when I was about 8 to 10 years old, when they were
doing that (testing,) and I can remember getting up and watching
the flash over the mountain and waiting a few minutes for
thunder and the big bang of noise that came with it," said
Lowell Henrie Jr. "I remember as a kid about the last one or two
they did, I was helping my dad milk cows and I can remember
after we milked them that the cream we got was dumped because
the government didn't want it. It was the first time I ever
thought what was happening was causing harm."
Nearly 30 years later, that harm manifested when Lowell Henrie
Sr. had his first bought with Hodgkin's disease. He underwent
radiation treatment and chemotherapy for nine months, being
transported back and forth repeatedly to LDS Hospital by his
wife.
"We thought he'd licked it but 25 years later he got sick
again. A mass was removed from his abdomen that was connected to
his colon and small intestines," Alice Henrie said. "The doctors
thought they got it all because it was a slow-growing cancer.
That surgery was May 5 (2002.) He did well for about three
weeks, then on June 10 (2002) he got sick again and we found out
the cancer had spread to his liver."
Henrie was told by physicians in St. George that her husband
had between two weeks and one month to live after treatment
failed. Just two days after the notification, her husband of 60
years died. The family qualified and applied for financial
remuneration from the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act.
Before his death, Lowell Henrie Sr. wanted his four sons and
wife to have the money to do with it as they pleased.
"He knew he was going to get Downwinder's compensation of
$50,000. He told me, 'When the money comes, $10,000 is for you
and give $10,000 for each of the boys,'" Alice Henrie said. "So
that's what I did. I put my money in a special account and
thought one of these days I'm going to do something with it.
When I read the story, I knew right then."
Henrie said understanding the hardship of traveling for cancer
treatment was partially what motivated her to contribute to the
planned center because it would be closer to Panguitch. But the
greatest influence was thoughts of her husband.
"Lowell was a generous man and I think he would've wanted
this," Henrie said.
Foundation President Harry Brown said Henrie's $10,000
contribution is a reflection of how strangers can touch one
another's lives by simply sharing their experiences.
"When somebody gets involved as a result of hearing about other
people being involved, it's exciting," Brown said. "Apparently,
doing something with the money was something Alice wanted to do
after the passing of her husband but she wasn't sure exactly
what to do until she read about Frank and Celestia and their
donation."
"We were more than pleased that she decided to take the
opportunity to give her late husband that recognition through
her generous donation," Brown said.
Lowell Henrie Jr. said he was proud of his mother. Since his
father would often pick up hitchhikers and buy them lunch and
assist those stranded on the road suffering from car trouble, he
felt his mother was carrying on his charitable legacy.
"I grew up with that kind of dad. He was kind and caring ...
and I'm honored to have the same name as my father who is a
World War II veteran, and I think he'd fully approve of her
giving the money away."
Originally published May 2, 2005
Copyright ©2004 The Spectrum. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
50 NRC: Availability of Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation
FR Doc E5-2071
[Federal Register: May 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 83)] [Notices]
[Page 22729-22730] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02my05-116]
Standards' Reports on Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge and Ash
AGENCIES: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Announce the issuance of two final reports concerning
radioactivity in sewage sludge and ash.
SUMMARY: This Federal Register notice announces the availability
of two final reports, prepared by the Sewage Sludge Subcommittee
of the Interagency Steering Committee on Radiation Standards
(ISCORS), addressing radioactivity in sewage sludge and ash at
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The first report,
``ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Modeling
to Assess Radiation Doses,'' assesses the potential levels of
radiation doses to people from radioactivity in sewage sludge, by
modeling the transport of radioactivity from sludge into the
local environment. The report also provides a complete
description and justification of the dose assessment methodology.
The second report, ``ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage
Sludge: Recommendations on Management of Radioactive Materials in
Sewage Sludge and Ash at Publicly Owned Treatment Works,'' is
written for POTW operators. This report is intended to (1) alert
POTW operators and others to the possibility of radioactive
materials concentrating in sewage sludge and incinerator ash, (2)
inform operators how to determine if there are elevated levels of
radioactivity in their sludge, and (3) assist POTW operators in
identifying further actions that may be taken to reduce potential
radiation exposures from sludge and ash.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The purpose of ISCORS is to
foster early resolution and coordination of regulatory issues
associated with radiation standards. Agencies represented on
ISCORS include the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department
of Energy, the U.S. Department of Defense, the U.S. Department of
Transportation, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration
of the U.S. Department of Labor, the U.S. Department of Health
and Human Services, and the Department of Homeland Security. The
Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Office of Management
and Budget, and State representatives may be observers at
meetings.
The objectives of ISCORS are to: (1) Facilitate a consensus on
allowable levels of radiation risk to the public and workers; (2)
promote consistent and scientifically sound risk assessment and
risk management approaches in setting and implementing standards
for occupational and public protection from ionizing radiation;
(3) promote completeness and coherence of Federal standards for
radiation protection; and (4) identify interagency radiation
protection issues and coordinate their resolution.
Discussion: There have been a number of well-publicized cases of
radionuclides discovered in sewage sludge and ash, and some of
these have led to expensive cleanup projects. These incidents
made clear the need for a comprehensive determination of the
prevalence of radionuclides in sewage sludge and ash at POTWs
around the country, and of the level of potential threat posed to
human health and the environment by various levels of such
materials.
In response to this need, ISCORS formed a Sewage Sludge
Subcommittee to coordinate, evaluate, and resolve issues
regarding radioactive materials in sewage sludge and ash. To
estimate the amounts of radionuclides that actually occur in
sewage sludge and ash, the Subcommittee performed a survey of
radioactivity in sludge and ash across the United States. The
final report of the survey effort, ``ISCORS Assessment of
Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Radiological Survey Results and
Analysis'' (ISCORS Technical Report 2003-02, NUREG- 1775, EPA
832-R-03-002, DOE/EH-0669), was issued in
[[Page 22730]] November 2003 and is available on the ISCORS Web
site at http://www.iscors.org .
The Subcommittee also undertook a dose assessment to help assess
the potential threat that these materials may pose to human
health. The first final report that we are issuing, ``ISCORS
Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge: Modeling to Assess
Radiation Doses'' (ISCORS Technical Report 2004-03, NUREG-1783,
EPA 832-R-03-002A, DOE/ EH-0670), describes the methodology and
results of the dose modeling effort. The radionuclides considered
were based on the results of the ISCORS survey, and include
manmade and naturally-occurring isotopes. The general approach
used in the report is a standard one that consists essentially of
two steps. First, seven scenarios were constructed to represent
typical situations in which members of the public or POTW workers
are likely to be exposed to sludge. Second, assuming a unit
specific activity of a radionuclide in dry sludge, environmental
transport models were employed to obtain doses. A draft of this
report was published for peer review and public comment in
November 2003. Changes were made, as appropriate, to address
comments in developing the final report.
The other major task of the Subcommittee was to develop
recommendations for POTW operators. The second final report being
issued, ``ISCORS Assessment of Radioactivity in Sewage Sludge:
Recommendations on Management of Radioactive Materials in Sewage
Sludge and Ash at Publicly Owned Treatment Works'' (ISCORS
Technical Report 2004-04, DOE/EH-0668, EPA 832-R-03-002B), is for
use by POTW operators in evaluating whether the presence of
radioactive materials in sewage sludge could pose a threat to the
health and safety of POTW workers or the general public. A draft
of this report was published for public comment in November 2003.
Changes were made, as appropriate, to address comments in
developing the final report.
Based on the survey and dose modeling, ISCORS concludes that the
levels of radioactive materials detected in sewage sludge and ash
in the ISCORS survey indicate that, at most POTWs, radiation
exposures to workers or to the general public are not likely to
be a concern.
ADDRESSES: The two ISCORS reports on radioactivity in sewage
sludge and ash being issued are available electronically from the
ISCORS Web page at: http://www.iscors.org. Hard copies may also
be obtained by calling or writing to Duane Schmidt, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, NMSS/ DWMEP/DCD, MS: T-7E18, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, (301) 415-6919, or dws2@nrc.gov; or to Robert
Bastian, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of
Wastewater Management (4204M), Rm. 7220B EPA EAST, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave., NW. Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-0653, or
bastian.robert@epa.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Duane
Schmidt, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NMSS/DWMEP/DCD, MS:
T-7E18, Washington, DC 20555, telephone (301) 415-6919, fax (301)
415-5398, e-mail
dws2@nrc.gov; or Robert Bastian, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wastewater Management (4204M), Rm. 7220B EPA
EAST, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460,
telephone (202) 564-0653, fax (202) 501-2397, e-mail
bastian.robert@epa.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd
day of April, 2005.
For The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Scott Flanders,
Deputy Director, Division of Waste Management and Environmental
Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. E5-2071 Filed 4-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
51 NRC: Draft Report for Comment: ``Documentation and Applications of
FR Doc E5-2072
[Federal Register: May 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 83)] [Notices]
[Page 22730-22731] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02my05-117]
the Reactive Geochemical Transport Model RATEQ,'' NUREG/CR-6871
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of availability and request for comments.
Background: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) uses
environmental models to evaluate the potential release of
radionuclides from NRC-licensed sites. In doing so, the NRC
recognizes that, at many sites, groundwater-related pathways
could contribute significantly to the potential dose received by
members of the public.
Consequently, consistent with its mission to protect the health
and safety of the public and the environment, the NRC uses
contaminant transport models to predict the locations and
concentrations of radionuclides in soil as a function of time.
Through this notice, the NRC is seeking comment on documentation
of a subsurface transport model developed for the NRC by the U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) for realistic transport modeling at
sites with complex chemical environments.
Because many radionuclides temporarily attach, or adsorb, to the
surfaces of soil particles, their mobility is reduced compared to
that of compounds that move with the groundwater without
interacting with solid surfaces. As a result, most
subsurface-transport models used by the NRC and its licensees
estimate the effects of the anticipated interactions between
radionuclides and solids in the ground.
Toward that end, these subsurface-transport models use a
``distribution coefficient,'' which is assumed to be constant and
reflects the proportion of radionuclide in the groundwater
compared to the radionuclide associated with the solids in the
ground. These distribution coefficients are widely used, and
consequently, the relevant literature documents ranges of their
values for various soil types and radionuclides. However, the
documented ranges can be very large because the chemical
reactions that cause radionuclides to attach to solids are very
sensitive to water chemistry and soil mineralogy. As a result,
uncertainties in the parameters used to characterize the
adsorption of radionuclides in soils have been identified as a
major source of uncertainty in decommissioning, uranium recovery,
and radioactive waste disposal cases evaluated by the NRC.
Surface-complexation and ion-exchange models offer a more
realistic approach to considering soil-radionuclide interactions
in performance- assessment models. These models can also account
for variable chemical environments that might affect such
interactions. The subject report, prepared for the NRC by the
USGS, describes the theory, implementation, and examples of use
of the RATEQ computer code, which simulates radionuclide
transport in soil and allows the use of surface- complexation and
ion-exchange models to calculate distribution coefficients based
on actual site chemistry.
The RATEQ code will help the NRC staff define realistic site-
specific ranges of the distribution coefficient values used to
evaluate NRC-licensed sites. In site-remediation cases, such as
restoration of the groundwater aquifer in and around uranium
in-situ leach mining facilities, the RATEQ code can aid in the
estimation of restoration costs by estimating the volume of
treatment water needed to restore sites to acceptable
environmental conditions.
[[Page 22731]] Solicitation of Comments: The NRC seeks comments
on the report and is especially interested in comments on the
value of the report to users who run the RATEQ code and are
familiar with the types of complex chemical environments that
complicate many remediation projects.
Comment Period: The NRC will consider all written comments
received before August 12, 2005. Comments received after August
12, 2005, will be considered if time permits. Comments should be
addressed to the contact listed below.
Availability: An electronic version of the report is available in
Adobe Portable Document Format at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6
871/cr6871.pdf and can be read with Adobe Acrobat Reader
software, available at no cost from http://www.adobe.com. The
report and the computer files for the test cases discussed
therein are available at http://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/rtm. Hard
and electronic copies of the report are available from the
contact listed below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. John D. Randall, Mail Stop
T9C34, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, MD 20852, telephone (301) 415-6192, e-mail
jdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of April
2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Cheryl A. Trottier, Chief, Radiation Protection, Environmental
Risk & Waste Management Branch, Division of Systems Analysis and
Regulatory Effectiveness, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. E5-2072 Filed 4-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
52 [du-list] BNF U enrichment in New Mexico
Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 15:32:15 -0700
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634934
Item includes..
The Independent can also reveal that Britain is involved in a plan to build
a uranium enrichment facility in the New Mexico desert, with British
Nuclear Fuels involved in a consortium to develop a $1.2bn (£630m) plant.
The UN's nuclear watchdog wants a five-year moratorium on such facilities.
Item is...
Revealed: Blair to upgrade Britain's nuclear weapons
PM secretly signs up to new deterrent as UN tries to cut global threat
By Colin Brown, Deputy Political Editor
02 May 2005
Tony Blair has secretly decided that Britain will build a new generation of
nuclear deterrent to replace the ageing Trident submarine fleet at a cost
of more than £10bn - a move certain to dismay thousands of Labour Party
loyalists in the approach to polling day.
The disclosure that the decision has already been taken will expose Mr
Blair - who has struggled throughout the election campaign to fend off
accusations that he lied over the Iraq war - to fresh allegations of
deception. He said last week that the decision would be taken after 5 May.
But The Independent has learnt that he has already decided to give the go
ahead for a replacement for Trident to stop Britain surrendering its status
as a nuclear power when the Trident fleet is decommissioned. The choice
over the type of nuclear missile system that Britain will deploy is yet to
be made. One Labour candidate described the new deterrent as "Blair's
weapons of mass destruction".
The revelation comes as the United Nations hosts a five-yearly review of
the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, to which Britain is a signatory. The
five nuclear powers in the treaty promise to work towards global nuclear
disarmament. Mr Blair will therefore face accusations of hypocrisy, for
pressing other states, such as Iran and North Korea, to renounce their
suspect nuclear weapons programmes while planning a new British deterrent.
The Independent can also reveal that Britain is involved in a plan to build
a uranium enrichment facility in the New Mexico desert, with British
Nuclear Fuels involved in a consortium to develop a $1.2bn (£630m) plant.
The UN's nuclear watchdog wants a five-year moratorium on such facilities.
Critics argue that the twin developments make it more difficult for Britain
to take a principled stance against states accused of building nuclear
weapons in breach of the treaty. Fuelling those concerns, the White House
said yesterday that it believed North Korea had test-fired a short-range
missile into the Sea of Japan.
A senior defence source said: "The decision [to replace Trident] has been
taken in principle very recently. US law does not allow the US to build
bombs for us. We have to build our own."
Although Trident is not due to be decommissioned until 2024, "there is a
very long lead time," the source said. "That is why the decision in
principle had to be taken now."
Aldermaston, Britain's nuclear bomb-making facility, has been hiring
physicists and mathematicians for the past year to retain the capability to
build a new nuclear weapon when a new system is agreed. The source
explained: "If you looked at the scientific press over the past year you
would have seen an increase in advertisements for everything. It's mostly
physicists and mathematicians, but it's a sign we are gearing up."
A small group of ministers including Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for
Defence, is understood to be involved. Mr Hoon recently began studying
papers on the options for a replacement.
Defence experts said the replacement for Trident would still be based on
submarines, which are less vulnerable to counter measures. New submarines
could be built in British yards, saving thousands of jobs. Britain could
buy the missiles "off the shelf" from the US. The front-runner is a new
generation of cruise missiles, based on the RAF's air-launched weapon,
Storm Shadow, with its range increased.
But nuclear non-proliferation agreements forbid Britain from exchanging
nuclear technology with the US, and so they would have to be equipped with
British-made nuclear warheads. Britain supplies its own weapons-grade
plutonium from the nuclear power plant at Sellafield.
Mr Blair hinted at the decision when he said on BBC Newsnight last week:
"We have got to retain our nuclear deterrent. That decision is for another
time. But I believe that is the right thing."
Both the Liberal Democrats and the Tories support the retention of a
nuclear deterrent, but Mr Blair will face a battle with his own party. Rows
over the British nuclear deterrent split the Labour Party in the 1980s and
made it unelectable, until Mr Blair took over as leader and finally ditched
any lingering support for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament.
But since the end of the Cold War in 1989 and the 11 September 2001
terrorist attacks in the US, the nature of the threat has dramatically
changed. Many Labour members believe Britain faces a greater threat from
terrorists with a "dirty" nuclear bomb than a rogue state firing
sophisticated nuclear weapons.
Trident is virtually useless against such a terrorist threat, because the
enemy does not present a target. The US is converting some of its Trident
missile submarines to fire conventional cruise missiles, armed with
tactical warheads, instead of the unwieldy ballistic nuclear missiles.
The US is also developing a new range of nuclear bombs, including smaller
devices that could be used on the battlefield. This is controversial
because it could lower the threshold for using nuclear weapons.
Clare Short, the former cabinet minister, said before the general election
campaign began that she was "astonished" by the "quietness" of the party on
the issue. "This will wake up the party," she said.
"It's just a symbol saying that Britain is in the big league, but if you
need nuclear weapons to be in the big league, it's no wonder India and
others want them. But when is Britain ever going to use a nuclear weapon
when the US isn't? I would favour Britain becoming a leader in getting the
non-proliferation treaty updated and back on course rather than going along
with American breaches of it."
Tam Dalyell, the former father of the Commons, who is not standing at the
election, said: "If Blair was wrong about Iraq, why should we trust him
with updating Trident?"
Alan Simpson, a leading member of the left-wing Campaign Group, said:
"These are Tony's weapons of mass destruction. Hans Blix, the UN weapons
inspector could have looked no further than Downing Street before
identifying the threat to international stability.
"There will be widespread resentment about this decision, taken in secret.
This amounts to a £10bn first strike against better state pensions, school
building and hospitals. If we build a new bomb, how can we tell Iran or
North Korea they are wrong to do the same?"
Labour left-wingers are also gearing up to oppose the basing of America's
national defence system in Britain, and any plans to site US missiles on
British soil, which some claim would breach non-proliferation treaties.
Replacing Trident is one of several issues the Government has been keen to
keep out of the political spotlight during the election campaign. Others
are pensions, council tax and nuclear power, all of which have been kicked
into the political long grass after reviews were ordered.
How successive governments have kept up in the global arms race
Does Britain need nuclear bombs of its own? There is a chasm between those
who say "yes" and those who say "no". For much of the past 50 years, the
UK's independent nuclear deterrent has been controversial. But every
government since the last war has deemed it necessary.
Under the 1945 Labour administration of Clement Attlee, crucial decisions
were taken about Britain's first atom bomb, which was eventually exploded
in the desolate Monte Bello islands off Australia on 3 October 1952.
Britain thus became the third member of the nuclear club, following the
United States (1945) and the Soviet Union (1949).
A new generation of bombers to carry the threat was developed, the
V-bombers - the Valiant, the Victor and the Vulcan - and when Britain
stepped up a level in the club and developed the much more powerful
hydrogen bomb, it was a Valiant that dropped the first British H-bomb on
Christmas Island in the Pacific, in May 1957.
The attack technique switched to using "stand-off" bombs - early cruise
missiles which could be launched 100 miles from the target. One short-lived
version of that was the Blue Steel missile.
Britain had counted on buying a US missile to do it, Skybolt. In 1962 the
US cancelled Skybolt, thereby hoping, many thought, to deprive the UK of
its independent capability. British strategic defence policy was suddenly
in tatters. The Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, appealed to John F
Kennedy to think again. After a walk with Kennedy he succeeded -
astonishingly - in persuading the Americans to make available to Britain
the submarine-based missile Polaris, on which they were basing their
offensive capability.
The first British Polaris submarine went on patrol in 1968, an event
signalling two changes that are still in effect to this day - the UK
"independent" deterrent began to be operated by the Royal Navy, instead of
the RAF, and became directly dependent on the Americans.
In the mid-1970s, under Labour governments, Polaris was secretly updated
with a British multiple warhead, codenamed Chevaline. When it became
obsolete, in the 1980s, the Thatcher government persuaded the Americans to
share their submarine missile technology and sell the UK a replacement
system, Trident.
The first of four giant British Trident missile submarines, HMS Vanguard,
went on patrol in 1994. These four boats are each equipped with 16 American
Trident missiles, with multiple warheads capable of vaporising targets more
than 4,000 miles away. At least one is always on patrol.
But at some time in the coming 20 years, Trident will go the way of Polaris
- ministers are thinking about its replacement.
Michael McCarthy
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.0 - Release Date: 4/29/05
[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/
*****************************************************************
53 Cincinnati Enquirer: Waste no one else wants is welcome
Cincinnati.Com
Monday, May 2, 2005
Radioactive material from Fernald going to Texas
By Betsy Blaney The Associated Press
These empty containers wait at the Fernald cleanup site. They
are to be filled with uranium byproduct waste and transported to
a site near Andrews, Texas. The state has approved the owner's
request to expand its storage capacity to 1.5 million cubic feet
- nearly five times its current size - making it eligible to
accept the Ohio waste.
Associated Press/Fluor Fernald
Zoom
ANDREWS, Texas - This small West Texas town grew its economy on
oil but may hang its hopes on what some folks believe is their
next boom: storage and disposal of radioactive waste.
Dallas-based Waste Control Specialists owns 14,400 acres 30
miles outside town near the New Mexico border. About 1,340 acres
are set aside for hazardous waste storage and disposal, and the
company will manage tons of federal uranium byproduct waste by
year's end.
Residents hope the waste site will turn around Andrews'
fortunes. On Thursday, they learned the site will become the
storage destination for tons of Department of Energy uranium
byproduct waste now at the abandoned Fernald federal plant,
northwest of Cincinnati.
Shipments from Fernald could begin this month and probably will
be completed by year's end.
Some residents believe the site will bring dozens of jobs from
spin-off industries, and city leaders anticipate it will pump
millions of dollars into the economy. It's a reverse NIMBY - not
in my back yard - with Andrews welcoming the radioactive waste
rather than fighting to keep it out.
"If we thought we could get an NFL franchise or a Riverwalk, we
wouldn't have looked at this industry," said Russell Shannon,
vice president of the Andrews Industrial Foundation, a privately
funded group formed decades ago to help attract companies to the
city. "We just believe it will bring us some jobs, bring people
to our community to get involved in an industry, like they did
with oil."
The town was incorporated in 1937, about eight years after oil
was struck in Andrews County. By 1956, the county led the nation
in oil production, pumping more than 60 million barrels annually.
The oil boom lasted through the 1960s, fell off and then picked
up again in the early 1980s. But gradually the oil business
dwindled, along with the town's population. In the late 1990s,
Andrews hit another national high, this time with double-digit
unemployment, as oil prices sank to $8 a barrel.
Waste Control Specialists, which agreed to a $7.5 million
contract to store the Fernald waste, has an application pending
with the Texas Department of State Health Services to dispose of
the uranium byproduct waste. A decision could come early next
year. If the company gets its disposal license, the government
will pay an additional $8.5 million to make Andrews the final
resting place for the Fernald waste.
Waste Control has stored, treated and disposed of hazardous
waste at the Andrews site since 1997.
Andrews appeared to have little competition for the Fernald
waste. Nevada officials threatened a lawsuit if the DOE sent the
waste to a government-run site north of Las Vegas. Residents
near a private waste site in Clive, Utah - west of Salt Lake
City - also rejected it.
Environmentalists worry about how the waste will affect the air,
soil and water.
Enquirer reporter Dan Klepal contributed to this report.
Copyright1995-2005. The Cincinnati Enquirer, a Gannett Co.
Inc.newspaper.
*****************************************************************
54 Independent: Siberia could become the world's atomic waste dump, warn greens
By Andrew Osborn in Moscow
03 May 2005
Furious environmentalists have accused Russia of plotting to
turn vast swaths of Siberia into a repository for the world's
unwanted nuclear waste in a multi-billion-dollar plan that puts
profit before safety.
Russian authorities have conceded that the idea is being
actively examined and the head of the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA), Mohammed El Baradei, has already stated
that he wants Russia to be the site of the world's first global
atomic waste dump.
The idea, first floated last year, initially got a favourable
response from the Russian government which said it was keen to
import spent nuclear fuel for reprocessing and possible storage.
Rosatom, Russia's federal nuclear power agency, makes no secret
of its desire to earn foreign currency through the plan. Last
week Alexander Rumyantsev, Rosatom's head, suggested Russia take
on the task of dismantling the world's nuclear submarines
despite the fact that it still has more than 80rusting
Soviet-era vessels to take apart and can only do so with large
amounts of foreign aid.
Greenpeace Russia said it had information showing that the IAEA
still had Russia in mind for a global waste dump and said the
matter was likely to be discussed at a conference in New York
this month and one in Moscow in June.
"In Russia there are already tens of thousands of tons of
radioactive waste from domestic nuclear power plants, military
reactors and naval bases," said Vladimir Chouprov of Greenpeace
Russia.
Siberia has been mentioned as the likely location of any
facility and specific mention has been made of the Krasnoyarsk
region where one of the country's two main waste processing
sites is located. According to Greenpeace the other, Mayak, in
Chelyabinsk, western Siberia, should persuade the world that
Russia cannot be trusted to look after radioactive waste.
Earlier this year Russian prosecutors started a criminal case
against the Mayak plant's managers alleging that liquid nuclear
waste had been pumped into the nearby Techa river since 1948,
causing alarming rates of leukaemia among locals.
Greenpeace used last week's 19th anniversary of the Chernobyl
disaster in Ukraine to protest against the nuclear waste plan.
Activists picketed Rosatom's headquarters in Moscow holding a
banner which read: "Chernobyl is number one nuclear burial
ground. Is Russia number two?"
The incentive for the Russian government to capitalise on its
nuclear knowledge may, however, prove too tempting. Russia
employs 337,000 people in its nuclear industry and the potential
financial rewards are great.
One estimate is that Russia could earn $20bn over 10 years.
While Rosatom officials are anxious to stress that there is so
far no definitive agreement for the processing centre, they have
confirmed that the idea is being examined and that they see no
drawbacks. They reject what they call emotive talk of Russia
becoming "a dumping ground" and say the plan primarily envisages
recycling nuclear waste so that it can be reused rather than
simply buried.
Greenpeace Russia argues that promises to return recycled
nuclear fuel have been consistently broken. "Spent nuclear fuel
that nobody wants will be left in Russia," said Mr Chouprov.
"This is already happening with fuel sent from nuclear plants in
Hungary, Bulgaria and the Ukraine. All this waste had been
imported for treatment and then forgotten."
©2005 Independent News &Media (UK) Ltd.
*****************************************************************
55 [NYTr] Anti-War, anti-Nuke Protests in New York City on May Day
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 11:28:58 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Newday - May 1, 2005
http://www.newsday.com/news/yahoo/nyc-prot0502,0,4087159.story?coll=ny-newsaol-headlines
Anti-nuclear, anti-war activists rally at U.N., Central Park
BY RUSSELL BERMAN
STAFF WRITER
Several thousand protesters calling for global nuclear disarmament
marched peacefully past the United Nations yesterday, on the eve of a
conference at the world body to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
The demonstrators from countries around the world carried large,
rainbow-colored flags and banners and chanted "No Nukes, No War" as they
snaked south by the UN headquarters building before turning west. When
protesters entered Central Park from the south shortly after 2 p.m.,
rally organizers coordinated the formation of what they hoped would be
the "world's largest human peace symbol" on the Heckscher Ballfields.
While organizers from United for Peace and Justice estimated the turnout
at 40,000 people, unofficial police estimates put the figure between
8,000 and 10,000. A police spokesman said no arrests were made.
The rally in Central Park had the feel of a spring festival as much as
an anti-war protest, with demonstrators laying out on blankets in the
sun while they listened to speeches and music through the afternoon.
The UN's monthlong review of the nonproliferation pact is to begin
today. Debate on the 1968 treaty, which is revisited periodically, comes
at a time when the specter of global terrorism and concerns over
so-called rogue nations have given the issue renewed prominence. Member
nations known to have nuclear weapons pledge to reduce them; nations
without the arms agree not to obtain them.
Among the activists were dozens of so-called Mayors for Peace from
cities around the world, as well as hundreds of people from Japan,
particularly Hiroshima and Nagasaki, two cities devastated by American
atomic bombs near the end of World War II.
For Masahito Hirose, a retired teacher, the horror of nuclear war is a
personal memory. Hirose, 75, was a 15-year-old student working a desk
job at the Nagasaki shipyards when a thunderous blast sent him flying to
the floor on Aug. 9, 1945. While Hirose escaped with mere cuts to his
arms, his aunt and his cousin were killed, and his brother, now 73, has
battled cancer for much of his life.
"I just hope that Nagasaki should continue to be the last city attacked
by the atomic bomb," Hirose said.
Hirose was part of a delegation from the city that included its mayor,
Iccho Ito, who appeared along with Hiroshima Mayor Tadatoshi Akiba at
the Central Park rally.
Nuclear weapons "are a deadly cancer on this planet that needs to be
surgically removed," Akiba told the crowd.
Copyright 2005 Newsday Inc.
*
================================================================
.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
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
56 Hiroshima Mayor Calls on All Countries "Including U.S." to Abolish Nuclear Weapons
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 22:20:43 -0400
TODAY'S DEMOCRACY NOW!:
* Hiroshima Mayor Calls on All Countries
"Including U.S." to Abolish Nuclear
Weapons *
A large anti-nuclear rally in New York calls for
global nuclear disarmament
ahead of a United Nations meeting to review the
Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty. We speak with the mayor of Hiroshima -
where 60 years ago the U.S.
dropped one of two atomic bombs.
Listen/Watch/Read
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=05/05/02/1348206
*****************************************************************
57 Nuclear Conference Opens, Hears UN Watchdog Call For Balance Between Security And Development
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 17:00:57 -0400
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.3 (2005-04-27) on pascal.ctyme.com
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ORG,
SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham
version=3.0.3
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Status: O
NUCLEAR CONFERENCE OPENS, HEARS UN WATCHDOG CALL FOR BALANCE BETWEEN
SECURITY AND DEVELOPMENT
New York, May 2 2005 5:00PM
The world’s nations gathered today in New York to begin their <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/Statements/2005/NPTRevCon.pdf">review
of
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (<"http://www.un.org/Depts/dda/WMD/treaty/">NPT),
and heard the head of the United Nations
atomic watchdog agency renew his call for a moratorium on new
fuel-cycle facilities while international controls are negotiated.
The “choke point” to preventing nuclear weapons development is ensuring
effective control over activities involving uranium enrichment
and plutonium separation, Mohamed ElBaradei, Director-General
of the International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org">IAEA),
told the opening session of the 2005 Review Conference
of the States parties to the NPT.
“Without question, improving control of facilities capable of producing
weapons-usable material will go a long way towards establishing
a better margin of security.”
Stressing the importance of balancing both development and security
interests, Mr. ElBaradei said: “We should be clear: there is no
incompatibility between tightening controls over the nuclear fuel
cycle and expanding the use of peaceful nuclear technology. In
fact, by reducing the risks of proliferation, we could pave the
way for more widespread use of peaceful nuclear applications.”
The month-long Review Conference brings delegations together every
five years to consider the workings of the landmark agreement,
which seeks to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons technology,
foster the peaceful use of nuclear energy and further the goal of
general and complete disarmament.
Mr. ElBaradei said the core of the accord can be summed up in two
words: security and development. And while the custodians of the
NPT may hold differing priorities and views, “I trust that all share
these two goals: development for all through advanced technology;
and security for all by reducing – and ultimately eliminating
– the nuclear threat,” he said. “If we cannot work together, each
acknowledging the development priorities and security concerns
of the other, then the result of this Conference will be inaction.”
While acknowledging that the NPT had served the global community
well for 35 years, Mr. ElBaradei said that it must be regarded as
a “living, dynamic regime,” capable of evolving and changing to
match realities. If not, it risked fading into irrelevance, leaving
all nations vulnerable and unprotected.
“While our twin goals – security and development – remain the same,
our mechanisms for achieving those goals must evolve,” he said,
urging to Conference to remain committed to ridding the world of
nuclear weapons, have zero tolerance for new States developing
nuclear weapons, and, among other things, ensure that all countries
have the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
He also urged the meeting to strengthen the IAEA’s verification authority,
noting that in recent years, the additional protocol to
comprehensive safeguards agreements has proven its worth. “With
better access to information and locations, we get better results,”
he said.
“The whole purpose of verification is to build confidence. In cases
where proliferation concerns exist, I will continue to urge States
to be open and transparent. Even if such measures go beyond
a State’s legal obligations, they pay valuable dividends in restoring
the confidence of the international community,” he said.
2005-05-02 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
58 Abolition Of Article IV Of NPT Crucial To N-Weapons Abolition
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 23:43:19 -0400
NPT Treaty [& Other Treaties]:
http://www.cornnet.nl/~akmalten/docs.html
By Karl Grossman:
The key problem
concerning the effort to abolish nuclear weapons
is that it does not go far enough. The only true
way to end the threat of nuclear weapons spreading
throughout this world is to also put a stop to
nuclear power.
Radical? Yes, but consider the even more
radical alternative: a world in which scores of
nations can construct nuclear weaponry because
they possess nuclear power technology.
There are major parts of the earth -
Africa, South America, the South Pacific, and
others - that have now been designated
nuclear-free zones.
I submit that if we are really to have a world
free of the horrific threat of nuclear weapons and
their use, our long-term goal need be the
designation of this entire planet as a
nuclear-free zone - no nuclear weapons, no nuclear
power (the other side of the same coin).
Radical? Yes, but consider the
alternative - trying to keep using carrots and
sticks, juggling on the road to inevitable nuclear
disaster.
That may or may not occur this decade or
next but sooner or later, as nuclear power
continues to spread, it will.
A nuclear-free world is the only way, I
believe, that humanity will be free of the dark
specter of nuclear warfare.
Some will say putting the atomic genie
back into the bottle is impossible. I say anything
people have done, other people can undo.
Especially if the reason is good. And the prospect
of massive loss of life from nuclear destruction
is the best of reasons.
"All nuclear fission technologies both
use and produce fissionable materials that are or
can be concentrated," Amory and Hunter Lovins
wrote in their seminal book, Energy/War: Breaking
the Nuclear Link. "Unavoidably latent in those
technologies, therefore, is a potential for
nuclear violence and coercion which may be
exploited by governments, factions"and this they
wrote in 1980 decades before 9/11or "terrorist
groups."
"Little strategic material is needed to
make a weapon of mass destruction," they went on.
"A Nagasaki-yield bomb can be made from a few
kilograms of plutonium, a piece the size of a
tennis ball."
"A large power reactor," they noted,
"annually produces, and an experimental critical
assembly may contain, hundreds of kilograms of
plutonium; a large fast breeder reactor would
contain thousands of kilograms; a large
reprocessing plant may separate tens of
thousands."
Civilian nuclear power technology, they
stated, provides the way to make nuclear weapons -
furnishing the materiel and trained personnel.
Indeed, that's how India got The Bomb in
1974. Canada supplied a reactor for "peaceful
purposes" and the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
trained Indian engineers.
And lo and behold, India had nuclear
weapons.
"Separation of plutonium from spent fuel
preceded and facilitated the British, French and
Indian decisions to build bombs," write Amory and
Hunter Lovins.
"Nuclear power," they noted, "provided the
essential expeditor, and in many cases the
necessary cover."
The myth of the "Peaceful Atom" is just
that.
Important to any dream of creating a
nuclear-free world is the elimination of the
International Atomic Energy Agency - the global
nuclear-pusher.
The IAEA was formed as a result of U.S.
President Dwight Eisenhower's 1953 "Atoms for
Peace" speech before the UN General Assembly.
Eisenhower proposed the creation of an
international agency to promote civilian
applications of atomic energy and, somehow at the
same time, control the use of fissionable
material - a dual role paralleling that of the
then U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
In 1974, the AEC was abolished after the
U.S. Congress concluded that, in theory and
practice, it was in conflict of interest.
Its mission was so involved with promoting nuclear
energy that it was no monitor, Congress decided.
But the IAEA - in the AEC's image -
remains with us.
The IAEA's mandate: "To accelerate and
enlarge the contribution of atomic energy to
peace, health and prosperity throughout the world"
and, somehow at the same time, "establish and
administer safeguards against the diversion of
military purposes of nuclear materials intended
for use in civil nuclear programs; and to
establish or adopt health and safety standards."
From its outset, the IAEA has been run by
atomic zealots.
Its first director general was Sterling
Cole who as a U.S. congressman was an original
member and then chairman of the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy, as extreme in its promotion of
nuclear technology as the AECand also ultimately
eliminated by Congress.
Later, Hans Blix became IAEA director
general - after, his official IAEA biography
stresses, he led the move against the effort to
close nuclear power plants in his native Sweden.
Blix was outspoken in insisting nuclear
technology be spread throughout the world -
calling for "resolute response by government,
acting individually or together as in the [IAE]
Agency."
Blix's long-time second-in command: Morris
Rosen - formerly of the AEC and before that the
nuclear division of General Electric.
After the Chernobyl nuclear plant
disaster, Rosen rendered this sage advice: "There
is very little doubt that nuclear power is a
rather benign industrial enterprise and we may
have to expect catastrophic accidents from time to
time."
Rosen is currently the IAEA's coordinator
for environmental matters.
As for the current IAEA director general,
Mohamed ElBaradei, he too, is a great nuclear
booster. "There is clearly a sense of rising
expectations for nuclear power," he told a
gathering in Paris last month organized by the
IAEA and entitled "International Conference on
Nuclear Power for the 2lst Century."
And the IAEA has been doing everything it
can to fuel those expectations - scandalously
downplaying the public health consequences of
nuclear accidents including the Chernobyl tragedy,
promoting all sorts of technology atomic and, with
its nearly $300 million budget, encouraging the
spread of nuclear power machinery around the
globe.
Selma Brackman's War & Peace Foundation
has wisely proposed that the IAEA be replaced with
a World Sustainable Energy Agency.
Individual governments and the UN can -
and must - implement the wide use of non-lethal,
renewable, safe energy technologies available now
as an alternative to deadly, unnecessary nuclear
power.
Meanwhile, real nuclear non-proliferation,
as Amory and Hunter Lovins stated, requires "civil
denuclearization"as daunting as that may be.
Even Admiral Hyman Rickover, the "father"
of the U.S. nuclear navy and manager of the
construction of the first commercial nuclear plant
in the world, in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, in
the end came to the conclusion that the world
must - in his words - "outlaw nuclear reactors."
Rickover in a farewell address told a
committee of Congress in 1982: "I'll be
philosophical. Until about two billion years ago,
it was impossible to have any life on earth: that
is, there was so much radiation on earth you
couldn't have any life - fish or anything.
Gradually, about two billion years ago, the amount
of radiation on this planet and probably in the
entire system reduced and made it possible for
some for some form of life to begin."
"Now," Rickover went on, "when we go back
to using nuclear power, we are creating something
which nature tried to destroy to make life
possible.Every time you produce radiation, you
produce something that has life, in some cases for
billions of years, and I think there the human
race is going to wreck itself, and it's far more
important that we get control of this horrible
force and try to eliminate it."
As for nuclear weaponry, the "lesson of
history," said the retiring admiral, is that in
war nations "will use" whatever weaponry they
have.
Nuclear power can give any nation nuclear
weaponry.
By moving forward with a commitment and
goal of eliminating nuclear weapons and nuclear
power, humanity can be spared the threat of
nuclear war. Anything else would be,
unfortunately, incomplete and inadequate in the
long run. The U.S., which uncorked this lethal
technology, should serve as a model and lead in
eliminating the twin scourges.
An impossible dream? No, considering the
probable nightmare otherwise as the continued
spread of nuclear power causes the proliferation
of nuclear weaponry - and its use inevitably by
"governments, factions, terrorist groups."
***
Karl Grossman is professor of journalism
at the State University of New York/College at Old
Westbury and coordinator of the college's Media &
Communications Program. A special concentration
for decades has been nuclear technology. Among the
six books Grossman has authored are: Cover Up:
What You Are Not Supposed To Know About Nuclear
Power; The Wrong Stuff: The Space Program's
Nuclear Threat To Our Planet; Power Crazy; and
Weapons in Space. He has given presentations
around the world.
Grossman also has long been active in
television. He narrated and wrote the
award-winning documentaries The Push To Revive
Nuclear Power; Nukes In Space: The Nuclearization
and Weaponization of the Heavens; and Three Mile
Island Revisited, all produced by EnviroVideo. For
the past 14 years, he has hosted Enviro Close-Up,
an interview program aired through North America
on the DISH satellite network (Channel 9415), on
cable and commercial TV and now video-streamed on
the Internet, too.
His magazine and newspaper articles
have appeared in numerous publications.
Grossman is a charter member of the
Commission on Disarmament Education, Conflict
Resolution and Peace of the International
Association of University Presidents and the
United Nations. He is a member of the boards of
the Nuclear Information and Resource Service-World
Information Service on Energy and the media watch
group Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting.
He can be reached by e-mail at
kgrossman@hamptons.com. His home address is: Box
1680, Sag Harbor, New York, 11963. His telephone
number is (631) 725-2858.
*****************************************************************
59 Tri-City Herald: HAB urges extending site contracts
This story was published Monday, May 2nd, 2005
By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer
YAKIMA -- The Department of Energy should consider extending
major contracts at Hanford to reduce disruption of cleanup at
the nuclear reservation, the Hanford Advisory Board agreed
Friday during a meeting in Yakima.
Two major Hanford contracts will expire in September 2006. Fluor
Hanford, which employs 3,900 workers, holds the contract to
manage the Hanford site and do some cleanup work, including in
central Hanford.
CH2M Hill Hanford Group, with 1,400 employees, holds the
contract to operate the tank farms, where massive underground
tanks hold 53 million gallons of radioactive waste.
"Over the lifetime of the Hanford Advisory Board, we have
observed and expressed concerns over safety issues, work force
disruption and delayed cleanup schedules resulting from major
contractor changes," the board said in advice to be submitted to
DOE.
The board acknowledged that there are benefits to competition,
but now seems to be a difficult time to make changes, it said.
The board discussed several factors complicating work at the
site, which is massively contaminated from more than 40 years of
producing plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program.
Two other contract awards are already uncertain because of
protests by losing bidders. The $1.9 billion award to Washington
Closure in March to clean up Hanford along the Columbia River is
in limbo until the Government Accountability Office makes a
decision on a protest.
In addition, after a successful protest of a $235 million
contract to tear down the Fast Flux Test Facility research
reactor, DOE plans to ask three bidders to submit revised
proposals.
The board also pointed out that the contract for Pacific
Northwest National Laboratory is due to be bid next year.
While DOE is reducing environmental management staff based in
Richland, proposed budget reductions for fiscal year 2006 will
require major oversight efforts, the board said. Hanford
officials also will be occupied with the Hanford Atomic Metal
Trades Council labor contract, which is due for renegotiation.
In addition, the $5.8 billion vitrification plant being built at
Hanford to turn radioactive waste into a stable glass form for
disposal is facing challenges in managing costs and technical
issues, the board said.
New information about the damage that could be caused by a
worst-case scenario earthquake is causing design standards to be
increased while the plant is under construction.
DOE has taken the initial steps to determine how to divide up
the contracts now held by Fluor Hanford and CH2M Hill Hanford
Group. No decisions have been made, but DOE is discussing three
work packages to cleanup the central plateau, operate the tank
farms and management of Hanford.
However, tasks among those work packages could be combined or
split up. DOE officials have said they have no preconceived idea
of how many separate contracts might be issued for the work, but
that it wants a manageable number.
© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
60 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Fernald
FR Doc 05-8678
[Federal Register: May 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 83)] [Notices]
[Page 22654] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02my05-55]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Fernald. The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770)
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Federal Register.
DATES: Saturday, May 14, 2005; 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m.
ADDRESSES: Ross Township Firehouse, 2565 Cincinnati-Brookville
Road, Ross Township, Ohio 45061.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doug Sarno, The Perspectives
Group, Inc., 1055 North Fairfax Street, Suite 204, Alexandria, VA
22314, at (703) 837-1197, or e-mail; .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management, and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda 8:30 a.m. Call to Order 8:35 a.m. Updates and
Announcements --Projects Updates --Ex-Officio Updates --Silos
Projects Status --Site Transition Update 9:15 a.m. Review Legacy
Management and Institutional Controls Plan 10 a.m. Break 10:15
a.m. Public Participation during Site Transition 11 a.m.
Educators' Roundtable Debrief 11:20 a.m. Site-Specific Advisory
Board Chairs' Meeting Debrief 11:40 a.m. Review Fernald Citizens'
Advisory Board Meeting Schedule 11:50 a.m. Public Comment 12 p.m.
Adjourn Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
Written statements may be filed with the Board chair either
before or after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral
statements pertaining to agenda items should contact the Board
chair at the address or telephone number listed below. Requests
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable
provisions will be made to include the presentation in the
agenda. The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to
conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly
conduct of business. Individuals wishing to make public comment
will be provided a maximum of five minutes to present their
comments. This Federal Register notice is being published less
than 15 days prior to the meeting date due to programmatic issues
that had to be resolved prior to the meeting date.
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and copying at the Department of Energy's Freedom of
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, 20585 between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday- Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will
also be available by writing to the Fernald Citizens' Advisory
Board, Phoenix Environmental Corporation, MS-76, Post Office Box
538704, Cincinnati, OH 43253-8704, or by calling the Advisory
Board at (513) 648-6478.
Issued at Washington, DC, on April 27, 2005.
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-8678 Filed 4-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
61 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Paducah
FR Doc 05-8679
[Federal Register: May 2, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 83)] [Notices]
[Page 22654-22655] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr02my05-56]
AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Paducah. The
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770)
requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Federal Register.
DATES: Thursday, May 19, 2005, 5:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: 111 Memorial Drive, Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky
42001.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William E. Murphie, Deputy
Designated Federal Officer, Department of Energy
Portsmouth/Paducah Project Office, 1017 Majestic Drive, Suite
200, Lexington, Kentucky 40513, (859) 219-4001.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of
environmental restoration, waste management and related
activities.
Tentative Agenda 5:30 p.m. Informal Discussion 6 p.m. Call to
Order, Introductions, Review of Agenda, Approval of April Minutes
6:05 p.m. Deputy Designated Federal Officer's Comments 6:25 p.m.
Federal Coordinator's Comments 6:30 p.m. Ex-officios' Comments
6:40 p.m. Public Comments and Questions 6:50 p.m. Task
Forces/Presentations Waste Disposition Taskforce --Scrap Metal
Project Overview --DOE Materials Storage Area Project Overview
Water Quality Task Force Long Range Strategy/Stewardship Task
Force Community Outreach Task Force --Website Update 7:50 p.m.
Public Comments and Questions 8 p.m. Break 8:10 p.m.
Administrative Issues Review of Workplan Review of Next Agenda
8:20 p.m. Review of Action Items 8:25 p.m. Subcommittee Reports
Executive Committee 8:40 p.m. Final Comments 9:30 p.m. Adjourn
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements
pertaining to agenda items should contact David Dollins at the
address listed below or by telephone at (270) 441-6819. Requests
must be received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable
provision will be made to include the presentation in the agenda.
The Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public
review and
[[Page 22655]] copying at the Department of Energy's Freedom of
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and
4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will also
be available at the Department of Energy's Environmental
Information Center and Reading Room at 115 Memorial Drive,
Barkley Centre, Paducah, Kentucky between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., on
Monday thru Friday by writing to David Dollins, Department of
Energy, Paducah Site Office, Post Office Box 1410, MS- 103,
Paducah, Kentucky 42001 or by calling him at (270) 441-6819.
Issued at Washington, DC, on April 27, 2005.
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-8679 Filed 4-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************