*****************************************************************
05/05/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.103
*****************************************************************
   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 FPIF News | Exception that Makes the Rule--N Korea & the NPT
2 Hankyoreh: [Editorial] North Must Come to 6-Party Talks 
3 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Rejects N. Korean Conditions for Res
4 US: [southnews] US may allow nuke strikes over WMD
5 US: Guardian Unlimited: Cronkite: Media Failing on Nuclear Stories
6 US: Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Rejects Idea of Ban on Nuclear Attack
7 RIA Novosti: AMERICA DEMANDS NUCLEAR EXPERT'S EXTRADITION
8 US: Augusta Free Press: The ins and outs of the energy bill
9 US: NRC: NRC Announces New Director of Enforcement
10 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Nuclear Conference Without Agenda
11 Mos News: Russians Suspect U.S. Wants to Get Nuke Secrets From Arres
12 Xinhua: Russia to continue to optimize Strategic Missile Troops   
13 China Daily: Steps needed for nuclear treaty goals 
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
14 US: May 2005 Brings California Closer to Energy Independence
15 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
16 US: NRC: Indiana Michigan Power Company and Donald C. Cook Nuclear P
17 US: NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc.; Notice of Consideration of Issuan
18 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Duane Arnold
19 US: VOA News: White House Promotes U.S. Nuclear Power
20 US: NRC: NRC to Meet with TVA Officials to Discuss Safety Performanc
21 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance at St. Lucie Nuclear Power 
22 US: Telegraph: Seabrook relinked to grid 
23 asahi.com: Japan ready to give up plan to host ITER project
24 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Oyster Creek
25 CBC New Brunswick: Federal money possible for Lepreau
26 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance at Turkey Point Nuclear Pow
27 US: NRC: NRC Seeks Public Input on Grand Gulf Early Site Permit Envi
28 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Find
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
29 Guardian Unlimited Experts: Much Nuclear Safety Work Remains
30 Guardian Unlimited: Russian ex-nuclear minister held over fraud
31 Guardian Unlimited: Terror fears draw veil over nuclear plants
32 RIA Novosti: RUSSIA'S UPDATED NUCLEAR SUBMARINE TO BE BACK IN SERVIC
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
33 Fw: Horror Of US Depleted Uranium In Iraq Threatens World
34 US: NRC: In the Matter of: ATTN: Mr. David F. Johns, President, Soil
35 US: Deseret news: Firefighters tackle railway hazmat safety
36 SABCnews.com: Pelinda nuclear site poses no health threat - expert
37 Las Vegas City Life: Plumbing the past
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
38 Las Vegas RJ: Nuclear storage issue focuses on use of welded contain
39 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT: Judges hear debate on document
40 Platts: German cabinet changes regulations for nuke waste storage
41 Las Vegas SUN: DOE expects more delays in filing for Yucca license
42 Platts: US DOE revises timeline to submit repository application to 
43 Platts: DOE's repository license submittal date not expected before 
44 RGJ: DOE says Yucca might not accept waste from proposed Goshutes’ s
45 US: Boston.com: Superfund site work stalled 
46 FOX5: Nevada Asking NRC Panel To Order More Yucca Documents Made Pub
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
47 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah
48 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Rejects $14M Cost of Lab Shutdown
49 lamonitor.com: Need more science for radiation compensation 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 FPIF News | Exception that Makes the Rule--N Korea & the NPT
 
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 17:11:15 -0500 (CDT)

 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Whats New at FPIF
Working to make the United States a more responsible global leader and
partner
http://www.fpif.org/

May 5, 2005
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Introducing a new Policy Report
from Foreign Policy In Focus

The Exception that Makes the Rule--
North Korea & the NPT
By Wade L. Huntley 

The problems for international security posed by North Koreas nuclear
ambitions
receive abundant attention and analysis. On the eve of the 2005 Review
Conference
for the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the effect of North Korean
actions on the treaty deserves specific attention, particularly because
mitigating
the impact of those actions and solving the larger nuclear crisis are not
necessarily
convergent goals.

Only through a comprehensive negotiated settlement can the KoreanPeninsula
be kept non-nuclear peacefully. However, if a negotiated settlement provides
unique inducements to North Korea to return to compliance with NPT obligations
as a non-nuclear state, other states might be tempted to resist compliance
in hopes of wresting similar concessions for themselves. Should treating North
Korea as an exceptional case be resisted in the interest of protecting the
overall credibility of the NPT, even if this constrains the scope of a
potential
grand bargain in Korea?

Wade L. Huntley wade.huntley@ubc.ca is the director of the Simons Centre for
Disarmament and Non-Proliferation Research and is a frequent contributor to
Foreign Policy In Focus (http://www.fpif.org). 

See new FPIF Policy Report online at:
http://www.fpif.org/papers/0505npt.html

With printer-friendly pdf version at:
http://www.fpif.org/pdf/papers/0505npt.pdf

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Foreign Policy In Focus (www.fpif.org) is a joint project of the International
Relations Center (formerly Interhemispheric Resource Center) and the Institute
for Policy Studies. The mission of the International Relations Center (IRC)
is Working to make the United States a more responsible member of the global
community by promoting strategic dialogues that lead to new citizen-based
agendas.

The IRC has been promoting people-centered policy alternatives since 1979.
Please consider becoming an IRC member or donor. You can join the IRCand make
a secure donation by visiting https://secure.iexposure.com/irc/donate.cfm.
Thank you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Produced and distributed by FPIF:A Think Tank Without Walls, a joint program
of International Relations Center (IRC) and Institute for Policy Studies
(IPS).

For more information, visit http://www.fpif.org. If you would like to add a
name to the Whats New At FPIF list, please email:
communications@irc-online.org,
giving your area of interest.

Also see our Progressive Response newsletter at:
http://www.fpif.org/progresp/index.html

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
International Relation Center(IRC)
(formerly Interhemispheric Resource Center)
http://www.irc-online.org/
Siri D. Khalsa
Outreach Coordinator
Email: communications@irc-online.org
P.O. Box 2178
Silver City, NM 88062

Siri D. Khalsa
Communications Coordinator
International Relations Center (IRC)
siri@irc-online.org

IRC Projects Online:
IRC (www.irc-online.org)
FPIF (www.fpif.org)
Americas Program (www.americaspolicy.org)
Self-Determination In Focus (www.selfdetermine.org)
Project Against the Present Danger (www.presentdanger.org)
*****************************************************************
 2 Hankyoreh: [Editorial] North Must Come to 6-Party Talks 

Updated : May.06.2005 07:12 KST

Foreign minister Ban Ki Moon says the process of a peaceful and
diplomatic resolution to the North Korean nuclear issue has
reached a "grave stage" and has strongly urged the North to
return to the six-party talks, and his comments are significant
for more than a few reasons. This is the first time a high-level
government official has called the current situation "grave"
(jungdae gungmyeon), and it is very unusual to have Ban aim
direct criticism at North Korea as if with a new kind of
determination when he until now has avoided making blunt
expression. His comments come immediately after top United
States delegate to the six-party talks Christopher Hill
completed his quick tour to Seoul, Beijing, and Tokyo, so it
even makes you wonder if maybe something is transpiring that is
more serious than is felt by the people. 

We have on many occasions criticized the Bush Administration's
North Korea policy for being very unilateral and out of touch.
We think its policy of pressuring the North into unilateral
submission made the situation worse. The current situation,
however, makes it increasingly difficult for that criticism to
be communicated. One worries that if things get dragged on much
longer there could be a situation that fundamentally threatens
peace on the Korean peninsula. It is because we see the
seriousness of the situation that we again call on North Korea
to come to the six-party talks and argue its position in that
format. 

A Chinese source says that the North has stated conditions for
returning to the process and those include bilateral discussion
with the US within the format of the six-party talks and
recognition as a sovereign nation. The US State Department
spokesman, in return, has hinted that the US might be willing to
talk to North Korea one-on-one at the talks. That makes you a
little bit hopeful. In a recent interview with the Hankyoreh,
Assistant Secretary of State for State East Asian and Pacific
Affairs Christopher Hill essentially accepted the North's
demands. The problem, then, is about when the North will arrive
at a decision. Mediation work by Korea and China will not get
far when pressure by US hard-liners and the North's reaction
continue to make it more dangerous. The situation must be seen
for what it is: we are at a crossroads that will determine
whether we proceed down a road towards a resolution of the
question of peace on the Korean peninsula, including the nuclear
issue, or we are on our way to disaster. 

The Hankyoreh, 6 May 2005. 

Copyright 2005 Hankyoreh Plus inc.   
*****************************************************************
 3 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: U.S. Rejects N. Korean Conditions for Restart to Talks 
 
  Home> National/Politics    Updated May.5,2005 20:30 KST   

  The U.S. has rejected reported demands from North Korea to
meet with it one-to-one and to recognize it as a sovereign state
if it is to come back to six-party nuclear disarmament talks.
With that, chances of an early resumption of the talks grow
increasingly remote. 

U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher on Wednesday
reconfirmed Washington¡¯s position that it could hold bilateral
discussions with North Korea within the six-party framework. But
he stressed it would not help to pretend the nuclear dispute was
a bilateral one between the U.S. and North Korea. 

Boucher quoted earlier remarks by U.S. Secretary of State
Condoleezza Rice that the respect and assistance North Korea
desires could be found at the six-party negotiation table, and
the solution to the problems was for North Korea to return to
the table with a sincere attitude. 

Earlier Japan¡¯s Kyodo News quoted diplomatic sources in Beijing
as saying Pyongyang last month demanded separate bilateral talks
with the U.S and recognition as a sovereign state as conditions
for returning to the six-nation table. Sources said another
condition was for Washington the treat Pyongyang as an equal in
the six-party talks. The conditions were conveyed to U.S.
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill when he visited
China, Japan and Korea last month, the sources said. 

The demands appear to represent a climb-down by North Korea,
which had earlier demanded an apology for Rice labeling it an
¡°outpost of tyranny.¡± 

(englishnews@chosun.com ) 

*****************************************************************
 4 [southnews] US may allow nuke strikes over WMD
 
Date: Thu, 5 May 2005 19:35:44 -0500 (CDT)

 
------------------------ 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/OCfFmA/UOnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

The US 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.

U.S. may allow nuke strikes over WMD

Proposal would reverse 10-year policy

The Japan Times: May 2, 2005

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.

(C) All rights reserved
http://www.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/getarticle.pl5?nn20050502a3.htm
__________________________________-

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran

by Michel Chossudovsky

www.globalresearch.ca 1 May 2005

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO505A.html

     At the outset of Bush's second term, Vice President Dick Cheney 
dropped a bombshell. He hinted, in no uncertain terms, that Iran was 
"right at the top of the list" of the rogue enemies of America, and that 
Israel would, so to speak, "be doing the bombing for us", without US 
military involvement and without us putting pressure on them "to do it":

         "One of the concerns people have is that Israel might do it 
without being asked... Given the fact that Iran has a stated policy that 
their objective is the destruction of Israel, the Israelis might well 
decide to act first, and let the rest of the world worry about cleaning 
up the diplomatic mess afterwards,"  (quoted from an MSNBC Interview Jan 
2005)

     Israel is a Rottweiler on a leash: The US wants to "set Israel 
loose" to attack Iran. Commenting the Vice President's assertion, former 
National Security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski in an interview on PBS, 
confirmed with some apprehension, yes: Cheney wants Prime Ariel Sharon 
to act on America's behalf and "do it" for us:

         "Iran I think is more ambiguous. And there the issue is 
certainly not tyranny; it's nuclear weapons. And the vice president 
today in a kind of a strange parallel statement to this declaration of 
freedom hinted that the Israelis may do it and in fact used language 
which sounds like a justification or even an encouragement for the 
Israelis to do it."

     The foregoing statements are misleading. The US is not "encouraging 
Israel". What we are dealing with is a joint US-Israeli military 
operation to bomb Iran, which has been in the active planning stage for 
more than a year. The Neocons in the Defense Department, under Douglas 
Feith, have been working assiduously with their Israeli military and 
intelligence counterparts, carefully identifying targets inside Iran ( 
Seymour Hersh, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/HER501A.html )

     Under this working arrangement, Israel will not act unilaterally, 
without a green light from Washington. In other words, Israel will not 
implement an attack without the participation of the US.

     Covert Intelligence Operations: Stirring Ethnic Tensions in Iran

     Meanwhile, for the last two years, Washington has been involved in 
covert intelligence operations inside Iran. American and British 
intelligence and special forces (working with their Israeli 
counterparts) are involved in this operation.

         "A British intelligence official said that any campaign against 
Iran would not be a ground war like the one in Iraq. The Americans will 
use different tactics, said the intelligence officer. 'It is getting 
quite scary.'" (Evening Standard, 17 June 2003, 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/FOX306A.html )

     The expectation is that a US-Israeli bombing raid of Iran's nuclear 
facilities will stir up ethnic tensions and trigger "regime change" in 
favor of the US. (See Arab Monitor, 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/ARA502A.html ).

     Bush advisers believe that the "Iranian opposition movement" will 
unseat the Mullahs. This assessment constitutes a gross misjudgment of 
social forces inside Iran. What is more likely to occur is that Iranians 
will consistently rally behind a wartime government against foreign 
aggression. In fact, the entire Middle East and beyond would rise up 
against US interventionism.

     Retaliation in the Case of a US-Israeli Aerial Attack

     Tehran has confirmed that it will retaliate if attacked, in the 
form of ballistic missile strikes directed against Israel (CNN, 8 Feb 
2005). These attacks, could also target US military facilities in the 
Persian Gulf, which would immediately lead us into a scenario of 
military escalation and all out war.

     In other words, the air strikes against Iran could contribute to 
unleashing a war in the broader Middle East Central Asian region.

     Moreover, the planned attack on Iran should also be understood in 
relation to the timely withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, which 
has opened up a new space, for the deployment of Israeli forces. The 
participation of Turkey in the US-Israeli military operation is also a 
factor, following an agreement reached between Ankara and Tel Aviv.

     In other words, US and Israeli military planners must carefully 
weigh the far-reaching implications of their actions.

     Israel Builds up its Stockpile of Deadly Military Hardware

     A massive buildup in military hardware has occurred in preparation 
for a possible attack on Iran.

     Israel has recently taken delivery from the US of some 5,000 
"smart air launched weapons" including some 500 BLU 109 'bunker-buster 
bombs.     The (uranium coated) munitions are said to be more than 
"adequate to address the full range of Iranian targets, with the 
possible exception of the buried facility at Natanz, which may require 
the [more powerful] BLU-113 bunker buster ":

          "Given Israel's already substantial holdings of such weapons, 
this increase in its inventory would allow a sustained assault with or 
without further US involvement." (See Richard Bennett, 
http://globalresearch.ca/articles/BEN501A.html )

     Gbu 28 Guided Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28)

     The Israeli Air Force would attack Iran's nuclear facility at 
Bushehr using US as well Israeli produced bunker buster bombs. The 
attack would be carried out in three separate waves "with the radar and 
communications jamming protection being provided by U.S. Air Force AWACS 
and other U.S. aircraft in the area". (See W Madsen, 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/MAD410A.html

     Bear in mind that the bunker buster bombs can also be used to 
deliver tactical nuclear bombs. The B61-11 is the "nuclear version" of 
the "conventional" BLU 113. It can be delivered in much same way as the 
conventional bunker buster bomb. (See Michel Chossudovsky, 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO112C.html , see also 
http://www.thebulletin.org/article_nn.php?art_ofn=jf03norris ) .

     According to the Pentagon, tactical nuclear weapons are "safe for 
civilians". Their use has been authorized by the US Senate. (See Miochel 
Chossudovsky, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO405A.html )

     Moreover, reported in late 2003, Israeli Dolphin-class submarines 
equipped with US Harpoon missiles armed with nuclear warheads are now 
aimed at Iran. (See Gordon Thomas, 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/THO311A.html

     Even if tactical nuclear weapons are not used by Israel, an attack 
on Iran's nuclear facilities not only raises the specter of a broader 
war, but also of nuclear radiation over a wide area:

         "To attack Iran's nuclear facilities will not only provoke war, 
but it could also unleash clouds of radiation far beyond the targets and 
the borders of Iran." (Statement of Prof Elias Tuma, Arab Internet 
Network, Federal News Service, 1 March 2005)

     Moreover, while most reports have centered on the issue of punitive 
air strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities, the strikes would most 
probably extend to other targets.

     While a ground war is contemplated as a possible "scenario" at the 
level of military planning, the US military would not be able to wage a 
an effective ground war, given the situation in Iraq. In the words of 
former National Security Adviser Lawrence Eagelberger:

         "We are not going to get in a ground war in Iran, I hope. If we 
get into that, we are in serious trouble. I don't think anyone in 
Washington is seriously considering that." ( quoted in the National 
Journal, 4 December 2004).

     Iran's Military Capabilities

     Despite its overall weaknesses in relation to Israel and the US, 
Iran has an advanced air defense system, deployed to protect its nuclear 
sites; "they are dispersed and underground making potential air strikes 
difficult and without any guarantees of success." (Jerusalem Post, 20 
April 2005). It has upgraded its Shahab-3 missile, which can reach 
targets in Israel. Iran's armed forces have recently conducted 
high-profile military exercises in anticipation of a US led attack. Iran 
also possesses some 12 X-55 strategic cruise missiles, produced by the 
Ukraine.  Iran's air defense systems is said to feature Russian SA-2, 
SA-5, SA-6 as well as shoulder-launched SA-7 missiles (Jaffa Center for 
Strategic Studies).

     The US "Military Road Map"

     The Bush administration has officially identified Iran and Syria as 
the next stage of the road map to war.

     Targeting Iran is a bipartisan project, which broadly serves the 
interests of the Anglo-American oil conglomerates, the Wall Street 
financial establishment and the military-industrial complex.

     The broader Middle East-Central Asian region encompasses more than 
70% of the World's reserves of oil and natural gas. Iran possesses 10% 
of the world's oil and ranks third after Saudi Arabia (25 %) and Iraq 
(11 %) in the size of its reserves. In comparison, the US possesses less 
than 2.8 % of global oil reserves. (See Eric Waddell, The Battle for 
Oil, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/WAD412A.html )

     The announcement to target Iran should come as no surprise. It is 
part of the battle for oil. Already during the Clinton administration, 
US Central Command (USCENTCOM) had formulated "in war theater plans" to 
invade both Iraq and Iran:

         "The broad national security interests and objectives expressed 
in the President's National Security Strategy (NSS) and the Chairman's 
National Military Strategy (NMS) form the foundation of the United 
States Central Command's theater strategy. The NSS directs 
implementation of a strategy of dual containment of the rogue states of 
Iraq and Iran as long as those states pose a threat to U.S. interests, 
to other states in the region, and to their own citizens. Dual 
containment is designed to maintain the balance of power in the region 
without depending on either Iraq or Iran. USCENTCOM's theater strategy 
is interest-based and threat-focused. The purpose of U.S. engagement, as 
espoused in the NSS, is to protect the United States' vital interest in 
the region - uninterrupted, secure U.S./Allied access to Gulf oil.

         (USCENTCOM, 
http://www.milnet.com/milnet/pentagon/centcom/chap1/stratgic.htm#USPolicy 
, emphasis added)

     Main Military Actors

     While the US, Israel, as well as Turkey (with borders with both 
Iran and Syria) are the main actors in this process, a number of other 
countries, in the region, allies of the US, including several Central 
Asian former Soviet republics have been enlisted. Britain is closely 
involved despite its official denials at the diplomatic level. Turkey 
occupies a central role in the Iran operation. It has an extensive 
military cooperation agreement with Israel. There are indications that 
NATO is also formally involved in the context of an Israel-NATO 
agreement reached in November 2004.

     Planning The Aerial Attack on Iran

     According to former weapons inspector Scott Ritter, George W. Bush 
has already signed off on orders for an aerial attack on Iran, scheduled 
for June.(See  http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/JEN502A.html )

     The June cut-off date should be understood. It does not signify 
that the attack will occur in June. What it suggests is that the US and 
Israel are "in a state of readiness" and are prepared to launch an 
attack by June or at a later date. In other words, the decision to 
launch the attack has not been made.

     Ritter's observation concerning an impending military operation 
should nonetheless be taken seriously. In recent months, there is ample 
evidence that a major military operation is in preparation:

         1) several high profile military exercises have been conducted 
in recent months, involving military deployment and the testing of 
weapons systems.

         2) military planning meetings have been held between the 
various parties involved. There has been a shuttle of military and 
government officials between Washington, Tel Aviv and Ankara.

         3)  A significant change in the military command structure in 
Israel has occurred, with the appointment of a new Chief of Staff.

         4)  Intense diplomatic exchanges have been carried out at the 
international level with a view to securing areas of military 
cooperation and/or support for a US-Israeli led military operation 
directed against Iran.

         5) Ongoing intelligence operations inside Iran have been 
stepped up.

         6) Consensus Building: Media propaganda on the need to 
intervene in Iran has been stepped up, with daily reports on how Iran 
constitutes a threat to peace and global security.

     Timeline of Key Initiatives

     In the last few months, various key initiatives have been taken, 
which are broadly indicative that an aerial bombing of Iran is in the 
military pipeline:

         November 2004 in Brussels: NATO-Israel protocol: Israel's IDF 
delegation to the NATO conference to met with military brass of six 
members of the Mediterranean basin nations, including Egypt, Jordan, 
Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco, Algeria and Mauritania.  "NATO seeks to 
revive the framework, known as the Mediterranean Dialogue program, which 
would include Israel. The Israeli delegation accepted to participate in 
military exercises and "anti-terror maneuvers" together with several 
Arab countries.

         January 2005: the US, Israel and Turkey held military exercises 
in the Eastern Mediterranean , off the coast of Syria. These exercises, 
which have been held in previous years were described as routine.

         February 2005. Following the decision reached in Brussels in 
November 2004, Israel was involved for the first time in military 
exercises with NATO, which also included several Arab countries.

         February 2005: Assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister 
Rafik Hariri. The assassination, which was blamed on Syria, serves 
Israeli and US interests and was used as a pretext to demand the 
withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

         February 2005: Sharon fires his Chief-of-Staff, Moshe Yaalon 
and appoints Air Force General Dan Halutz. This is the first time in 
Israeli history that an Air Force General is appointed Chief of Staff 
(See Uri Avnery, http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/AVN502A.html )

         The appointment of Major General Dan Halutz as IDF Chief of 
Staff is considered in Israeli political circles as  "the appointment of 
the right man at the right time." The central issue is that a major 
aerial operation against Iran is in the planning stage, and Maj General 
Halutz is slated to coordinate the aerial bombing raids on Iran. 
Halutz's appointment was specifically linked to Israel's Iran agenda: 
"As chief of staff, he will in the best position to prepare the military 
for such a scenario."

         March 2005: NATO's Secretary General was in Jerusalem for 
follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon and Israel's military brass, following 
the joint NATO-Israel military exercise in February.  These military 
cooperation ties are viewed by the Israeli military as a means to 
"enhance Israel's deterrence capability regarding potential enemies 
threatening it, mainly Iran and Syria." The premise underlying 
NATO-Israel military cooperation is that Israel is under attack:

             "The more Israel's image is strengthened as a country 
facing enemies who attempt to attack it for no justified reason, the 
greater will be the possibility that aid will be extended to Israel by 
NATO. Furthermore, Iran and Syria will have to take into account the 
possibility that the increasing cooperation between Israel and NATO will 
strengthen Israel's links with Turkey, also a member of NATO. Given 
Turkey's impressive military potential and its geographic proximity to 
both Iran and Syria, Israel's operational options against them, if and 
when it sees the need, could gain considerable strength. " (Jaffa Center 
for Strategic Studies, http://www.tau.ac.il/jcss/sa/v7n4p4Shalom.html )

         The Israel-NATO protocol is all the more important because it 
obligates NATO to align itself with the US-Israeli plan to bomb Iran, as 
an act of self defense on the part of Israel. It also means that NATO is 
also involved in the process of military consultations relating to the 
planned aerial bombing of Iran. It is of course related to the bilateral 
military cooperation agreement between Israel and Turkey and the 
likelihood that part of the military operation will be launched from 
Turkey, which is a member of NATO.

         Late March 2005: News leaks in Israel indicated an "initial 
authorization" by Prime Minster Ariel Sharon of an Israeli attack on 
Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment plant "if diplomacy failed to stop 
Iran's nuclear program". (The Hindu, 28 March 2005)

         March-April 2005: The Holding in Israel of Joint US-Israeli 
military exercises specifically pertaining to the launching of Patriot 
missiles.

         US Patriot missile crews stationed in Germany were sent to 
Israel to participate in the joint Juniper Cobra exercise with the 
Israeli military. The exercise was described as routine and "unconnected 
to events in the Middle East": "As always, we are interested in 
implementing lessons learned from training exercises." (UPI, 9 March 2005).

         April 2005:  Donald Rumsfeld was on an official visits to Iraq, 
Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kyrgyzstan and Azerbaijan. His diplomatic 
endeavors were described by the Russian media as "literally circling 
Iran in an attempt to find the best bridgehead for a possible military 
operation against that country."

         In Baku, Azerbaijan Rumsfeld was busy discussing the date for 
deployment of US troops in Azerbaijan on Iran's North-Western border. US 
military bases described as "mobile groups" in Azerbaijan are slated to 
play a role in a military operation directed against Iran.

         Azerbaijan is a member of GUUAM, a military cooperation 
agreement with the US and NATO, which allows for the stationing of US 
troops in several of the member countries, including Georgia, Uzbekistan 
and Azerbaijan.  The stated short term objective is to "neutralize 
Iran". The longer term objective under the Pentagon's  "Caspian Plan" is 
to exert military and economic control over the entire Caspian sea 
basin, with a view to ensuring US authority over oil reserves and 
pipeline corridors.

         During his visit in April, Rumsfeld was pushing the US 
initiative of establishing "American special task forces and military 
bases to secure US influence in the Caspian region:

             "Called Caspian Watch, the project stipulates a network of 
special task forces and police units in the countries of the regions to 
be used in emergencies including threats to objects of the oil complex 
and pipelines. Project Caspian Watch will be financed by the United 
States ($100 million). It will become an advance guard of the US 
European Command whose zone of responsibility includes the Caspian 
region. Command center of the project with a powerful radar is to be 
located in Baku." ( Defense and Security Russia, April 27, 2005)

         Rumsfeld's visit followed shortly after that of Iranian 
President Mohammad Khatami's to Baku.

         April 2005: Iran signs a military cooperation with Tajikistan, 
which occupies a strategic position bordering Afghanistan's Northern 
frontier. Tajikistan is a member of "The Shanghai Five" military 
cooperation group, which also includes Kazakhstan, China, Kyrgyzstan, 
and Russia. Iran also has economic cooperation agreements with 
Turkmenistan.

         Mid April 2005: Israel Prime Minister Ariel Sharon meets George 
W Bush at his Texas Ranch. Iran is on the agenda of bilateral talks. 
More significantly, the visit of Ariel Sharon was used to carry out high 
level talks between US and Israeli military planners pertaining to Iran.

         Late April 2005. President Vladmir Putin is in Israel on an 
official visit. He announces Russia's decision to sell short-range 
anti-aircraft missiles to Syria and to continue supporting Iran's 
nuclear industry. Beneath the gilded surface of international diplomacy, 
Putin's timely visit to Israel must be interpreted as "a signal to 
Israel" regarding its planned aerial attack on Iran.

         Late April 2005: US pressure in the International Atomic Energy 
Agency (IAEA) has been exerted with a view to blocking the 
re-appointment of Mohammed Al Baradei, who according to US officials "is 
not being tough enough on Iran..."  Following US pressures, the vote on 
the appointment of a new IAEA chief was put off until June. These 
developments suggest that Washington wants to put forth their own 
hand-picked nominee prior to launching US-Israeli aerial attacks on 
Iran's nuclear facilities. (See VOA, 
http://www.voanews.com/english/2005-04-27-voa51.cfm ). (In February 
2003, Al Baradei along with UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix 
challenged the (phony) intelligence on WMD presented by the US to the UN 
Security Council, with a view to justifying the war on Iraq.)

         Late April 2005.  Sale of deadly military hardware to Israel. 
GBU-28 Buster Bunker Bombs: Coinciding with Putin's visit to Israel, the 
US Defence Security Cooperation Agency (Department of Defense) announced 
the sale of an additional 100 bunker-buster bombs produced by Lockheed 
Martin to Israel. This decision was viewed by the US media as  "a 
warning to Iran about its nuclear ambitions."

         The sale pertains to the larger and more sophisticated "Guided 
Bomb Unit-28 (GBU-28) BLU-113 Penetrator" (including the WGU-36A/B 
guidance control unit and support equipment). The GBU-28 is described as 
"a special weapon for penetrating hardened command centers located deep 
underground. The fact of the matter is that the GBU-28 is among the 
World's most deadly "conventional" weapons used in the 2003 invasion of 
Iraq, capable of causing thousands of civilian deaths through massive 
explosions.

         The Israeli Air Force are slated to use the  GBU-28s on their 
F-15 aircraft. (See text of DSCA news release at 
http://www.dsca.osd.mil/PressReleases/36-b/2005/Israel_05-10_corrected.pdf

         Late April 2005- early May: Turkey's Prime Minister Recep 
Tayyip Erdogan in Israel for follow-up talks with Ariel Sharon. He was 
accompanied by his Defense Minister Vecdi Gonul, who met with senior 
Israeli military officials. On the official agenda of these talks: joint 
defense projects, including the joint production of Arrow II Theater 
Missile Defense      and Popeye II missiles. The latter also known as 
the Have Lite, are advanced small missiles, designed for deployment on 
fighter planes.  Tel Aviv and Ankara decide to establish a hotline to 
share intelligence.

         May 2005: Syrian troops scheduled to withdraw from Lebanon, 
leading to a major shift in the Middle East security situation, in favor 
of Israel and the US.

     Iran Surrounded

     The US has troops and military bases in Turkey, Pakistan, 
Azerbaijan, Afghanistan, and of course Iraq.

     In other words, Iran is virtually surrounded by US military bases. 
(see Map below). These countries as well as Turkmenistan, are members of 
NATO`s partnership for Peace Program. and have military cooperation 
agreements with NATO.

     Copyright Eric Waddell, Global Research, 2003  (Click Map to enlarge)

     In other words, we are dealing with a potentially explosive 
scenario in which a number of countries, including several former Soviet 
republics, could be brought into a US led war with Iran. IranAtom.ru, a 
Russian based news and military analysis group has suggested, in this 
regard:

         "since Iranian nuclear objects are scattered all over the 
country, Israel will need a mass strike with different fly-in and 
fly-out approaches - Jordan, Iraq, Turkey, Azerbaijan, and other 
countries...  Azerbaijan seriously fears Tehran's reaction should Baku 
issue a permit to Israeli aircraft to overfly its territory." (Defense 
and Security Russia, 12 April 2005).

     Concluding remarks:

     The World is at an important crossroads.

     The Bush Administration has embarked upon a military adventure 
which threatens the future of humanity.

     Iran is the next military target. The planned military operation, 
which is by no means limited to punitive strikes against Iran's nuclear 
facilities, is part of a project of World domination, a military 
roadmap, launched at the end of the Cold War.

     Military action against Iran would directly involve Israel's 
participation, which in turn is likely to trigger a broader war 
throughout the Middle East, not to mention an implosion in the 
Palestinian occupied territories. Turkey is closely associated with the 
proposed aerial attacks.

     Israel is a nuclear power with a sophisticated nuclear arsenal. 
(See text box below). The use of nuclear weapons by Israel or the US 
cannot be excluded, particularly in view of the fact that tactical 
nuclear weapons have now been reclassified  as a variant of the 
conventional bunker buster bombs and are authorized by the US Senate for 
use in conventional war theaters. ("they are harmless to civilians 
because the explosion is underground")

     In this regard, Israel and the US rather than Iran constitute a 
nuclear threat.

     The planned attack on Iran must be understood in relation to the 
existing active war theaters in the Middle East, namely Afghanistan, 
Iraq and Palestine.

     The conflict could easily spread from the Middle East to the 
Caspian sea basin. It could also involve the participation of Azerbaijan 
and Georgia, where US troops are stationed.

     An attack on Iran would have a direct impact on the resistance 
movement inside Iraq. It would also put pressure on America's 
overstretched military capabilities and resources in both the Iraqi and 
Afghan war theaters. (The 150,000 US troops in Iraq are already fully 
engaged and could not be redeployed in the case of a war with Iran.)

     In other words, the shaky geopolitics of the Central Asia- Middle 
East region, the three existing war theaters in which America is 
currently, involved, the direct participation of Israel and Turkey, the 
structure of US sponsored military alliances, etc. raises the specter of 
a broader conflict.

     Moreover, US military action on Iran not only threatens Russian and 
Chinese interests, which have geopolitical interests in the Caspian sea 
basin and which have bilateral agreements with Iran. It also backlashes 
on European oil interests in Iran and is likely to produce major 
divisions between Western allies, between the US and its European 
partners as well as within the European Union.

     Through its participation in NATO, Europe, despite its reluctance, 
would be brought into the Iran operation. The participation of NATO 
largely hinges on a military cooperation agreement reached between NATO 
and Israel. This agreement would bind NATO to defend Israel against 
Syria and Iran. NATO would therefore support a preemptive attack on 
Iran's nuclear facilities, and could take on a more active role if Iran 
were to retaliate following US-Israeli air strikes.

     Needless to say, the war against Iran is part of a longer term US 
military agenda which seeks to militarize the entire Caspian sea basin, 
eventually leading to the destabilization and conquest of the Russian 
Federation.

     The Antiwar Movement

     The antiwar movement must act, consistently, to prevent the next 
phase of this war from happening.

     This is no easy matter. The holding of large antiwar rallies will 
not in itself reverse the tide of war.

     High ranking officials of the Bush administration, members of the 
military and the US Congress have been granted the authority to uphold 
an illegal war agenda.

     What is required is a grass roots network, a mass movement at 
national and international levels, which challenges the legitimacy of 
the military and political actors, and which is ultimately instrumental 
in unseating those who rule in our name.

     War criminals occupy positions of authority. The citizenry is 
galvanized into supporting the rulers, who are "committed to their 
safety and well-being". Through media disinformation, war is given a 
humanitarian mandate.

     To reverse the tide of war, military bases must be closed down, the 
war machine (namely the production of advanced weapons systems)  must be 
stopped and the burgeoning police state must be dismantled.

     The corporate backers and sponsors of war and war crimes must also 
be targeted including the oil companies, the defense contractors, the 
financial institutions and the corporate media, which has become an 
integral part of the war propaganda machine.

     Antiwar sentiment does not dismantle a war agenda. The war 
criminals in the US, Israel and Britain must be removed from high office.

     What is needed is to reveal the true face of the American Empire 
and the underlying criminalization of US foreign policy, which uses the 
"war on terrorism" and the threat of Al Qaeda to galvanize public 
opinion in support of a global war agenda.
     TEXT BOX: Israel's Nuclear Capabilities

     With between 200 and 500 thermonuclear weapons and a sophisticated 
delivery system, Israel has quietly supplanted Britain as the World's 
5th Largest nuclear power, and may currently rival France and China in 
the size and sophistication of its nuclear arsenal. Although dwarfed by 
the nuclear arsenals of the U.S. and Russia, each possessing over 10,000 
nuclear weapons, Israel nonetheless is a major nuclear power, and should 
be publicly recognized as such.

     Today, estimates of the Israeli nuclear arsenal range from a 
minimum of 200 to a maximum of about 500. Whatever the number, there is 
little doubt that Israeli nukes are among the world's most 
sophisticated, largely designed for "war fighting" in the Middle East. A 
staple of the Israeli nuclear arsenal are "neutron bombs," miniaturized 
thermonuclear bombs designed to maximize deadly gamma radiation while 
minimizing blast effects and long term radiation- in essence designed to 
kill people while leaving property intact.(16) Weapons include ballistic 
missiles and bombers capable of reaching Moscow...

     The bombs themselves range in size from "city busters" larger than 
the Hiroshima Bomb to tactical mini nukes. The Israeli arsenal of 
weapons of mass destruction clearly dwarfs the actual or potential 
arsenals of all other Middle Eastern states combined, and is vastly 
greater than any conceivable need for "deterrence."

     Many Middle East Peace activists have been reluctant to discuss, 
let alone challenge, the Israeli monopoly on nuclear weapons in the 
region, often leading to incomplete and uninformed analyses and flawed 
action strategies. Placing the issue of Israeli weapons of mass 
destruction directly and honestly on the table and action agenda would 
have several salutary effects. First, it would expose a primary 
destabilizing dynamic driving the Middle East arms race and compelling 
the region's states to each seek their own "deterrent."

     Second, it would expose the grotesque double standard which sees 
the U.S. and Europe on the one hand condemning Iraq, Iran and Syria for 
developing weapons of mass destruction, while simultaneously protecting 
and enabling the principal culprit. Third, exposing Israel's nuclear 
strategy would focus international public attention, resulting in 
increased pressure to dismantle its weapons of mass destruction and 
negotiate a just peace in good faith. Finally, a nuclear free Israel 
would make a Nuclear Free Middle East and a comprehensive regional peace 
agreement much more likely. Unless and until the world community 
confronts Israel over its covert nuclear program it is unlikely that 
there will be any meaningful resolution of the Israeli/Arab conflict, a 
fact that Israel may be counting on as the Sharon era dawns.

     From John Steinbach,  Israel's Nuclear Arsenal, 
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/STE203A.html

The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/ 

Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/southnews/

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    southnews-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 5 Guardian Unlimited: Cronkite: Media Failing on Nuclear Stories
 
From the Associated Press        
	 
[UP] 

Thursday May 5, 2005 2:46 AM
 	
UNITED NATIONS (AP) - When it comes to reporting on nuclear
arms, the U.S. news media let readers and viewers down, giving
them only part of the story, former news anchor Walter Cronkite
said Wednesday. 

The celebrated CBS retiree, joining in a panel discussion on the
sidelines of a U.N. conference on the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, said narrow reporting means the U.S. public is ``largely
unaware'' that the 1970 treaty obliges their government to move
toward full nuclear disarmament. 

``There's been a lot in the news about nonproliferation,''
Cronkite said, referring to Iran and North Korea, whose nuclear
programs, under fire from the U.S. government, make daily
headlines. 

``But, unfortunately, the nuclear disarmament obligations of the
nuclear weapons states receive far less attention in news
reporting, at least in our United States,'' he said. 

Another panelist, Marian Hobbs, New Zealand's minister for
disarmament, also criticized media coverage of arms control. 
``We need the media. We want a media that informs us of other
people's opinions, not just American opinion, or your country's
opinion,'' she told the international audience. 

Under the nonproliferation treaty, more than 180 countries
commit to not pursuing nuclear arms, in exchange for a
commitment by five nuclear powers - the United States, Russia,
Britain, France and China - to negotiate toward nuclear
disarmament. 

North Korea has announced its withdrawal from the pact and says
it has built nuclear weapons. Washington contends Iran's nuclear
program, which Tehran says is meant to produce electricity, is a
cover for plans to build weapons. 

Nonweapons states, on the other hand, complain increasingly that
U.S. actions, such as talk of building new nuclear arms, run
counter to treaty obligations. 

Cronkite agreed. 

``It simply seems the United States and other nuclear weapons
states are actually trying to evade their obligations and
responsibilities under the treaty,'' he said, adding that he
visited Hiroshima after the 1945 U.S. atomic bombing of that
Japanese city and since then has been ``a campaigner to get rid
of every nuclear weapon.'' 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 6 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Rejects Idea of Ban on Nuclear Attack
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday May 5, 2005 9:16 PM
 	
By CHARLES J. HANLEY 
AP Special Correspondent 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The plea heard from the conference floor,
from nation after nation, seems simple: Since we don't have
nuclear weapons, please guarantee you won't use yours on us. 
It's the U.S. response - no - that isn't so simple, entangled as
it is in the secret plans and dark visions of nuclear
strategists. 

Demands for a treaty enshrining such guarantees are a major
issue before the U.N. conference that opened this week to review
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, the 1970 pact by which more
than 180 nations renounce atomic bombs forever in exchange for a
pledge by five nuclear powers to eventually get rid of theirs. 
Many disarmament experts believe the treaty negotiators of the
1960s erred by not embedding such ``negative security
assurances'' - against nuclear attacks on non-nuclear states -
in the original treaty, making the guarantees binding under
international law. 

The world's vulnerable have been trying to catch up ever since. 
At conference after conference, scores of governments, from
Switzerland to South Korea, have called for a treaty on
``NSAs.'' Before the current conference, its Brazilian
president, Sergio de Queiroz Duarte, made his own appeal for
action on the issue in 2005. 

Such legally binding assurances ``would go a long way to reduce
incentives for proliferation,'' he said. 

As if to underscore that point, the Iranians, accused by
Washington of being ``proliferators'' bent on building nuclear
weapons, took to the conference floor to say security assurances
from the nuclear powers, including their American adversary,
would help keep others from reaching for the bomb. 

Iran's foreign minister called for action now. It ``needs to be
materialized in this conference,'' Kamal Kharrazi told the
delegates. 

In fact, action was supposed to be taken now. The last Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty review, in 2000, decided by consensus
that experts should develop recommendations for ``NSAs'' to be
considered at the 2005 conference. But because of later
opposition by three nuclear powers - the United States, Britain
and France - no recommendations were made. 

Why? 

``Both the Clinton and Bush administrations have taken the
position that that would be a bad idea,'' chief U.S. delegate
Stephen G. Rademaker said of the treaty idea in an interview. 
Over the years, U.S. officials have laid out a key rationale:

The United States wants to retain the right to use nuclear
weapons against a country, even a non-nuclear one, that attacks
it with chemical or biological weapons. Proposals for a U.S.
nuclear ``bunker buster'' bomb, for instance, focus on such a
target, an underground chemical-biological arsenal. 

A growing terrorist threat, including a chemical-biological
threat, makes the American position even more necessary, said
U.S. delegation spokesman Richard Grenell. ``We want to be
creative with the tools we have at our disposal,'' he said. 

Not all nuclear powers agree. The Russians say they're willing
to negotiate on NSAs, and China, which favors total nuclear
disarmament, sees negative security assurances as a valuable
interim measure. In fact, the Chinese submitted a paper to the
conference on Wednesday calling for negotiation of an NSA treaty
``without delay.'' 

In 1995, all five recognized nuclear powers under the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty declared in the U.N. Security Council
that they would not turn their nuclear weapons on nonweapons
states. The statements don't carry treaty-like legal
obligations, however, and U.S. and British statements have since
weakened the 1995 position. 

But now lesser powers are finding another way to build a shield
against a nuclear threat: the ``nuclear weapons-free zones''
coming into force over large swaths of the globe. 

These treaties commit a region's states to keeping nuclear arms
out, and come with legally binding protocols attached, by which
big powers also agree to view these zones as off-limits to their
nuclear weapons. 

Three ``nuke-free'' zones are in force - covering Latin America
and the Caribbean, the South Pacific, and Southeast Asia - and
two are pending, in Africa and Central Asia. If all were in
effect, and all weapons states ratified the protocols, more than
half the world's nations would have ``backdoor'' security
assurances. 

But the United States refuses to ratify the South Pacific and
Southeast Asia protocols, which would keep the Navy and other
U.S. forces from crisscrossing much of the globe with nuclear
weapons aboard. 

An American aversion to such international agreements is growing
stronger, said arms-control scholar Leonard S. Spector, of the
Monterey Institute of International Studies. 

``It's the cautious approach of the Bush administration,'' he
said. ``They don't want to accept any restriction on American
flexibility.'' 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 7 RIA Novosti: AMERICA DEMANDS NUCLEAR EXPERT'S EXTRADITION
 
6/05/2005                              

MOSCOW, May 5. (RIA Novosti) - Yevgeny Adamov, a former nuclear
energy minister of Russia, has been arrested in Switzerland at
the request of the United States. American officials are
insisting that he be extradited to the U.S. to face charges that
he embezzled $9 million from the U.S. Energy Department.

Adamov's lawyer, Timofei Gridnev said the arrest took place in a
Bern court where his client had come to answer some financial
questions. Two dailies, Gazeta and Vedomosti, pick up the theme. 

This is part of a struggle between Russia and the U.S. over
control of nuclear security and an attempt to prove that
dishonest people govern the Russian nuclear sector, said
Konstantin Simonov, the general director of the Center for
Current Politics in Russia.

 It is no coincidence that Adamov was arrested on the eve of
George Bush's visit to Moscow on May 9. The issue of U.S. access
to Russia's nuclear facilities will be most probably raised at
the Bush-Putin meeting, Simonov said. 

The Russian Foreign Ministry has reported, "the claims to Adamov
are connected not with his time in office" but with his
commercial work in the early 1990s, when he headed the Nuclear
Energy Ministry's Research and Development Power Industry
Institute. 

"The institute pledged to fulfill a series of research projects
in nuclear power safety," said Gridnev. "The U.S. side accepted
the projects without any complaints. But now the Americans have
suddenly decided that the money did not reach the institute but
was embezzled by Adamov."

 However, the Americans are not alone in being suspicious about
Adamov: the previous State Duma's corruption commission had
questions for Adamov, too, said Akhmed Bilalov, deputy chairman
of the Duma committee on the CIS. 

Adamov set up several private companies in Russia and the US.
The Duma investigation showed that Adamov was worth more than $3
million in 1999, when he was minister, and his wife $1.5 million.

 2005 "RIAN Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 8 Augusta Free Press: The ins and outs of the energy bill

By Chris Graham/AFP  

A gallon of unleaded gasoline costs on average $2.13 in
Virginia, and $2.22 nationally.
 
This, we're being told, is the reason that the Congress and
President Bush need to get together, and soon, on a new energy
bill that is currently up for review in the United States Senate.
 
To cut costs at the pump now.
 
The question that begs to be asked here is ... will the energy
bill do what its supporters say it will do?
 
"The short answer is no. I don't think this bill will have any
impact on gas prices, in the short term or in the long term,"
said Jerry Taylor, the director of natural-resource studies at
the Washington, D.C.,-based Cato Institute, a conservative think
tank.
 
The energy bill, which passed the House of Representatives by a
249-183 vote last month, would open the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge for oil drilling and provide $12 billion in tax breaks
and subsidies to producers of oil, natural gas, coal and nuclear
energy that would ostensibly go toward promoting research and
development of new energy technologies.
 
Another provision would shield the energy industry from
product-liability lawsuits alleging the contamination of
drinking water supplies by the gasoline additive MTBE.
 
The tax breaks and subsidies - and the protections accorded
those who used MTBE - are actually the primary points of focus
for energy-bill proponents, Taylor told The Augusta Free Press.
 
"The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a centerpiece issue
politically, but in terms of practicality it is a secondary
issue in the discussion of this bill," Taylor said.
 
"What that discussion boils down to is a fight between
environmentalists who have been struggling for years to block
efforts to drill in ANWR and Republicans who basically want to
stick it to the environmentalists," Taylor said. "What's
significant to me with this is that none of the major oil
companies that one would assume would have an interest in this
from a purely economic perspective have taken up this fight.
 
"The people leading this effort include the state of Alaska,
which hopes to reap royalties for allowing drilling to take
place, and labor unions, who hope to add jobs for the
construction of pipelines and other infrastructure. But the oil
companies have remained on the sidelines, and I think their
silence on this speaks volumes," Taylor said.
 
The Washington, D.C.,-based Alliance for Energy and Economic
Growth hasn't been silent on the energy-bill issue. The alliance
has been lobbying senators to support the energy bill as a way
of tapping into the resources that the Alaska wildlife refuge
might bring to bear - and to get the ball rolling toward the
establishment of a defined national energy policy.
 
"We have vast energy resources available in this country, but no
comprehensive energy strategy to address the imbalance between
supply and demand. Congress must act now to reduce the costly
threat to America's economic and national security," alliance
spokesman Bruce Josten said.
 
"We cannot wait any longer. It is time for the House and Senate
to put aside bipartisan differences and pass a broad energy bill
that will benefit all Americans by increasing domestic supply,
and address all forms of energy supply," Josten said.
 
Virginia Sen. John Warner said Thursday that it is "imperative
Congress pass a balanced energy plan that provides clean,
reliable and affordable energy."
 
"America's energy security is essential to our national
security," Warner told the AFP. "As a nation, we have become
dangerously dependent on others for energy. Therefore, as energy
use increases in America, it becomes even more crucial that
Congress pass legislation that encourages, among other things,
alternative and renewable fuels, tax-incentive programs, and
domestic oil and gas exploration.
 
"It is my hope that the Senate will soon address this energy
plan and these concerns in order to pass meaningful energy
legislation that will benefit the environment, the American
consumer and the economy," Warner said. "A comprehensive energy
plan is long overdue, and the Senate must pass a bill to address
these myriad issues."
 
Chris Graham is the co-publisher of The Augusta Free Press.
 
 
(Published 05-05-05/)

  Edited by Crystal Graham & Chris Graham    
[waynesborovadotnetlogo: ]   

The Augusta Free Press is an independent publication serving
Staunton, Waynesboro and Augusta County, Virginia.
 Content Copyright 2002 - 2005 by Augusta Free Press | All
Rights Reserved
Last updated 5/5/2005; 1:47:23 PM
*****************************************************************
 9 NRC: NRC Announces New Director of Enforcement
 
News Release - 2005-07 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-077     May 5, 2005   
  

of Michael R. Johnson as director of the agencys Office of
Enforcement, effective May 30, 2005. In this position, he will
be responsible for managing the development and implementation
of programs that enforce NRC requirements. He will also oversee
the agencys external allegations review process and internal
Differing Professional Opinions Program.
 
Johnson joined the NRC in 1986 as a reactor operations engineer.
Later, he served as regional coordinator in the Office of the
Executive Director. Since 1989, he has served in a number of
increasingly responsible posts within the agencys Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, including leadership positions in
the Inspection Program and Assessment Section, Performance
Assessment Section, Inspection Program Branch and the
Probabilistic Safety Assessment Branch. Most recently, he held
the title of deputy director of the Division of Systems Safety
and Analysis.
 
Johnson is a graduate of the NRCs Senior Executive Service
Candidate Development Program. He received a bachelor of science
degree in Ocean Engineering from the U.S. Naval Academy. He
resides in Silver Spring, Md.
   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, May 05, 2005 	
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: U.N. Nuclear Conference Without Agenda
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday May 5, 2005 6:01 PM
 	
AP Photo NYFF109 
By CHARLES J. HANLEY AP Special Correspondent 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - A monthlong conference to review the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty dragged into its fourth day
Thursday still without a complete agenda, in an impasse over
diplomatic language that mirrors the tense international
showdown over Iran's nuclear program. 

A day earlier, backroom talks on final bits of wording were said
to be close to agreement. But on Thursday morning a neutral
participant, speaking privately, said it was ``looking very
bad.'' 

A prolonged deadlock might keep the twice-a-decade global
gathering from dealing with all but the least contentious issues
surrounding the 1970 treaty, by which more than 180 nations
pledge not to pursue nuclear weapons, in exchange for a pledge
by five nuclear-weapons states - the United States, Russia,
Britain, France and China - to negotiate toward nuclear
disarmament. 

The United States wants the conference to focus on Iran's
program to enrich uranium via centrifuges, a process that
produces fuel for nuclear power plants or, if intensified,
material for nuclear bombs. 

The Iranians say their centrifuges are meant solely for civilian
use, but Washington contends the program is a cover for plans to
build nuclear weapons. 

Iran is in intermittent negotiations with the European Union,
which seeks to have Tehran shut down the centrifuge program in
exchange for economic and other incentives. 

Conference organizers report Iran was balking at an agenda focus
on ``developments'' relevant to treaty implementation -
understood by all as diplomatic code for its current flirtation
with sensitive nuclear technology. 

Last year, the Americans blocked agreement on a 2005 conference
agenda by objecting to a proposed focus on commitments made by
nuclear weapons states at the 2000 treaty review, to take
specific steps toward disarmament, such as activating the
nuclear test-ban treaty. The Bush administration's steps, in
some cases, have been backward - by rejecting that treaty, for
example. 

Compromise language evidently was found in that area, but
Rebecca Johnson, editor of the journal Disarmament Diplomacy,
said the United States ``opened a can of worms'' by stalling the
agenda in 2004 - when it was to have been adopted - and then
proposing the wording that prompted Iranian objections. 

If the impasse persists, the conference may be unable both to
address the nuclear fuel-cycle issue and assess what progress
nuclear states are making toward disarmament. 

Proposals have been made to establish international guarantees
or controls over nuclear fuel production, to keep sensitive
enrichment technology out of the hands of nonweapons states. For
their part, nonweapons states want to promote such steps toward
disarmament as the test-ban treaty, and a treaty that would end
production everywhere of fissile material for nuclear bombs. 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 11 Mos News: Russians Suspect U.S. Wants to Get Nuke Secrets From Arrested Ex-Minister

 - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM

Former Russian atomic energy minister Yevgeny Adamov / Frame
from NTV Channel 
 
Created: 05.05.2005 15:31 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 15:31 MSK 

Russian officials suspect former Russian atomic energy minister
Yevgeny Adamov’s arrest and possible extradiction to the U.S. is
linked to his knowledge of Russia’s nuclear weapons programs. 

Russia must have Adamov back in Russia as soon as possible,
because he knows too many of the state’s top secrets, including
information on nuclear weapons, head of the State Duma committee
for energy, transport and communications Valery Yazev said
Tuesday.

“All the American accusations are artificial,” Yazev was quoted
by RIA Novosti as saying. “The Americans have always disliked
Adamov and the way he defended Russia’s interests in the Iranian
nuclear programs,” he added.

Moreover, Yazev said the case was a political one and he thought
it possible that the U.S. special services could take advantage
of Adamov’s arrest and try to get state secrets from him.

“As an MP and head of the committee on energy, I hope the
Russian government will take all possible measures to bring
Adamov back to Russia,” Yazev added.

An unidentified source in the presidential administration was
quoted by the Vedomosti newspaper Thursday as also expressing
concern at Adamov’s knowledge.

“It is obvious that for the first time not just an ex-minister,
but a bearer of all the state nuclear secrets has been
arrested,” Vedomosti quoted the source as saying.

The source claims Adamov possesses all the information about
Russia’s nuclear weapons industry and secret information about
Russian nuclear activities abroad, such as the construction of
Nuclear Power Plants in China, India and Iran.

“The Americans could try to force Adamov to testify to
non-existent legal violations in the cooperation between Russia
and Iran,” the source was quoted as saying.

However, the commander of the Russian Strategic Rocket Forces,
Colonel-General Nikolai Solovtsov, said Thursday Adamov had no
access to secret information about Russia’s ballistic missiles,
Itar Tass reports.

“Regarding the rocket forces, Adamov is of no special value,”
Solovtsov said. He added though, that as a minister Adamov could
have had access to a lot of secret information, Itar Tass
reports. 

Former Russian atomic energy minister Yevgeny Adamov was
arrested in Switzerland on Monday on suspicion of stealing up to
$9 million from U.S. Department of Energy funds allocated for
improving nuclear safety in Russia. 

  Write us: <b>info@mosnews.com</b>
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 12 Xinhua: Russia to continue to optimize Strategic Missile Troops   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-05 18:27:52   

    MOSCOW, May 5 (Xinhuanet) -- Russia will continue to
optimize its Strategic Missile Troops in the next five years in
order to reduce the number of warheads to 1700-2200, Itar-Tass
quoted Col.-Gen Nikolai Solovtsov as reporting Thursday. 

    "We will continue the optimization of the Missile Troops in
thenext five years in order to reduce the number of warheads to
1700-2200 as it is stipulated under the Strategic Offensive
Reductions Treaty," Solovtsov said. 

    According to the Treaty signed by Russia and the United
Statesin Moscow on May 24, 2002, the two countries decided to
reduce drastically their nuclear arsenal and to act in such a
way that the final ceilings of operationally deployed warheads
would not exceed 1700/2200 at the end of the disarmament
process. 

    At present both sides have about 6,000 warheads," Solovtsov
said. He said that missile systems that expired their service
life will be disposed. Meanwhile, according to the commander,
the Strategic Missile Troops will remain the most combat-ready
part of the strategic nuclear forces. 

    "90 percent of launching sites are in combat state in the
Strategic Missile Troops," he added. Enditem   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 13 China Daily: Steps needed for nuclear treaty goals 

 Updated: 2005-05-05 05:50 

UNITED NATIONS: The three goals of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT) must be promoted in a comprehensive and balanced
manner, Zhang Yan, head of the Chinese Delegation to the 2005
Review Conference of countries party to the treaty, said on
Tuesday. 

"In light of the latest developments, challenges and problems in
international security, it is urgent that the international
community take more pragmatic and concrete steps to preserve and
strengthen the universality, effectiveness and authority of the
NPT," Zhang said during the general debate at the 2005 NPT
Review Conference at the UN headquarters in New York. 

"To achieve this, the three goals of the NPT - nuclear
disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation and peaceful uses of
nuclear energy - must be promoted in a comprehensive and
balanced manner," he stressed, adding that the three goals are
interlinked and inseparable. 

Zhang stressed this conference is expected to make progress in
promoting the three goals of the treaty. "China has always
advocated that all states with nuclear weapons should explicitly
commit themselves to destroying nuclear weapons in a complete
and thorough manner, lowering the role of nuclear weapons in
national security policy," he said. 

Meanwhile, he pointed out that China opposes proliferation of
nuclear weapons in any form, calls upon all those outside the
NPT to join as non-nuclear-weapon states, and is in favour of
continued efforts to enhance and improve the existing nuclear
non-proliferation regime in accordance with new developments. 

Zhang said the aims of nuclear non-proliferation must be
achieved through an integrated approach addressing both the
symptoms and root causes. 

"The relation between non-proliferation and the peaceful uses of
nuclear energy should be put in correct perspective and properly
dealt with," he added. "The rights of non-nuclear-weapon states
to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, under the IAEA
safeguards shall be respected and preserved." 


(China Daily 05/05/2005 page1) 

*****************************************************************
 14 May 2005 Brings California Closer to Energy Independence
 
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 19:34:32 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
lang="en-US">

May 2005 Brings California Closer to Energy Independence

Alliance efforts to steer California from a dangerous nuclear energy path 
gains ground.

Sacramento legislators are beginning to see the "light" and it's not 
nuclear. With each visit to our California representatives it is possible 
to see the fog lift and the realization set in that nuclear plants in our 
state are high-level radioactive waste dumps. They are beginning to 
understand that California could face a huge economic risk if the issue of 
the daily increase of radioactive waste on our fragile and 
earthquake-active coast is not addressed. Alliance staff and board members 
are speaking with state officials a minimum of twice a month, but we need 
your help.

A public meeting on whether or not to replace aging steam generators at San 
Onofre will be held on May 17th (details below). If steam generators are 
not replaced then San Onofre must shut down by 2014. This leaves 10 years 
for California to commit to replacing this lethal high-risk facility with 
state-of-the-art independent power sources. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION CAN MAKE 
THIS HAPPEN! Talking points will be available on at www.a4nr.org and will 
be sent out by May 10th. Comments sent by the Alliance re: steam generator 
replacement at Diablo Canyon are available under "Legal Documents filed by 
ANR" under "navigation" tab.

The Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility invites you to join us at public 
meetings, fundraisers, planning sessions (see upcoming events) and to send 
comments to address a prohibition on license renewals for California's 
nuclear plants. Together we can succeed. Together we can let the 
administration in Washington, DC know that California is not willing to 
place its citizens at risk by continuing to follow a nuclear path.

Please share this information with your friends and family. It may be the 
best investment of time you will ever make for a safer future for your 
children, grandchildren and the future.

f98cf0.jpg

Rochelle Becker Executive Director Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
Please support our mission. Donations can be sent to PO 1328, San Luis 
Obispo, CA 93406-1328. <http://a4nr.org/elements/donate>Join the Alliance 
for Nuclear Responsibility and make our state safer NOW.


Breaking News

Here's the latest news
    * Participation is vital at upcoming CPUC meetings on operation of San 
Onofre
    * The San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station will close and the 
production of high-level radioactive waste will cease by 2014 if steam 
generators are not replaced.
    * <http://a4nr.org/articles/sanonofrecpucmeeting>Read more
    * Yucca contributions should be returned
    * Federal judge wants to give ratepayer money back for Yucca
    * <http://a4nr.org/articles/yuccacontributionshouldbereturned>Read more
    * Push for new nuclear plants dangerously short-sighted
    * The president's call for nuclear plants ignores the daily deadly 
byproduct, high-level radioactive waste.
    * <http://a4nr.org/articles/newnuclearplants>Read more
    * Solar bill moves forward
    * The president announces a backward energy plan while California moves 
towards energy independence
    * <http://a4nr.org/articles/solarbillmovesforward>Read more


What you can do to help?

There are several ways you can help the Alliance...
    * How To Help
    * To help the Alliance, come to a4nr.org and make a donation, join our 
mailing lists, or become a Supporter.
    * <http://a4nr.org/elements/howToHelp/help1>Read more

----------
You subscribed to this newsletter or were added from a list of our friends. 
You may change your preferences at... 
<http://a4nr.org/newsletters/a4nrMonthly/subscribers/subscriber.2005-02-21.0014529373/portal_form/Subscriber_editForm>http://a4nr.org/newsletters/a4nrMonthly/subscribers/subscriber.2005-02-21.0014529373/portal_form/Subscriber_editForm 
You may subscribe to our other newsletters in the panel on the left side of 
most of our pages at <http://a4nr.org>a4nr.org  
</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: f98cf0.jpg: 00000001,43e68c87,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 15 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; 
 
                         FR Doc 05-8946 
[Federal Register: May 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 86)] [Notices] 
[Page 23891-23892] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05my05-82]                         
 
Comment Request AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
 
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information 
collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of 
continued approval of information collections under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be 
submitted: 1. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR 
part 33-Specific Domestic Licenses of Broad Scope for Byproduct 
Material.
 
2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0015. 3. How often the 
collection is required: There is a one-time submittal of 
information to receive a license. Once a specific license has 
been issued, there is a 10-year resubmittal of the information 
for renewal of the license.
 
4. Who is required or asked to report: All applicants requesting 
a license of broad scope for byproduct material and all current 
licensees requesting renewal of a broad scope license.
 
5. The estimated number of annual respondents: 1. 6. The number 
of hours needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 
1.
 
7. Abstract: 10 CFR part 33 contains mandatory requirements for 
the issuance of a broad scope license authorizing the use of 
byproduct material. The subparts cover specific requirements for 
obtaining a license of broad scope. These requirements include 
equipment, facilities, personnel, and procedures adequate to 
protect health and minimize danger to life or property.
 
Submit, by July 5, 2005, comments that address the following 
questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary 
for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the 
information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate 
accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and 
clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden 
of the information collection be minimized, including the use of 
automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be 
viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White 
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 
20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide 
Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days 
after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions about the information collection 
requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda 
Jo. Shelton, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, T-5 F53, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by 
Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV. Dated at 
Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 2005.
 
 
[[Page 23892]] For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 
Services.
 
[FR Doc. 05-8946 Filed 5-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 16 NRC: Indiana Michigan Power Company and Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, 
 
                         FR Doc 05-8947 
[Federal Register: May 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 86)] [Notices] 
[Page 23895] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access 
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05my05-85]                         
 
Units 1 and 2; Notice of Availability of the Final Supplement 20 
to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the License 
Renewal of Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 Notice is 
hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the 
Commission) has published a final plant-specific supplement to 
the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS), 
NUREG-1437,'' regarding the renewal of operating licenses DPR-58 
and DPR-74 for an additional 20 years of operation at Donald C. 
Cook Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2 (CNP). CNP is located in 
Berrien County, Michigan, about 55 miles east of Chicago, 
Illinois. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license 
renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy 
sources.
 
In Section 9.3 of the final Supplement 20 to the GEIS, the staff 
concludes that based on: (1) The analysis and findings in the 
GEIS; (2) the environmental report submitted by Indiana Michigan 
Power Company; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local 
agencies; (4) the staff's own independent review; and (5) the 
staff's consideration of public comments, the recommendation of 
the staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse 
environmental impacts of license renewal for CNP Units 1 and 2 
are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal 
for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable.
 
The final Supplement 20 to the GEIS is available for public 
inspection in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) located at One 
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, or 
from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS 
is accessible from the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (the Public Electronic 
Reading Room). Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who 
encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, 
should contact the PDR reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301- 
415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the Bridgman 
Public Library, 4460 Lake Street, Bridgman, Michigan and the Maud 
Preston Palenske Memorial Library, 500 Market Street, St. Joseph, 
Michigan, have agreed to make the final plant-specific supplement 
to the GEIS available for public inspection.
 
For Further Information, Contact: Mr. William Dam, License 
Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory 
Improvement Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555. Mr. Dam may be contacted at 301-415-4014 or 
via e-mail WLD@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd 
day of April, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director, License Renewal and Environmental 
Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 05-8947 Filed 5-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 17 NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc.; Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 
 
                         FR Doc 05-8948 
[Federal Register: May 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 86)] [Notices] 
[Page 23892-23893] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05my05-83]                         
 
Amendment to Facility Operating License, Proposed No Significant 
Hazards Consideration Determination, and Opportunity for a 
Hearing The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) 
is considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating 
License No. NPF-38, issued to Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy 
or the licensee), for operation of the Waterford Steam Electric 
Station, Unit 3 (Waterford 3) located in Saint Charles Parish, 
Louisiana.
 
The proposed amendment would remove the license condition on 
instrument uncertainty, that was imposed on the Waterford 3 
license with the issuance of License Amendment 199 for the 
extended power uprate (EPU) on April 15, 2005.
 
The amendment request was submitted on an exigent basis because 
the need for a license amendment to remove the license condition 
was not recognized by Entergy or the NRC staff until just prior 
to the issuance of the EPU, and the licensee requests approval of 
the proposed amendment by May 27, 2005, to support power 
ascension from the Spring 2005 refueling outage.
 
Before issuance of the proposed license amendment, the Commission 
will have made findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 
1954, as amended (the Act) and the Commission's regulations.
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.91(a)(6) for amendments to be granted under 
exigent circumstances, the NRC staff must determine that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration. 
Under the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means 
that operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed 
amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the 
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; 
or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of 
accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a 
significant reduction in a margin of safety. As required by 10 
CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has provided its analysis of the issue 
of no significant hazards consideration, which is presented 
below: 1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase 
in the probability or consequences of an accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No.
 
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not 
result in a change to any structure, system, or component (SSC).
 
The accident mitigation features of the plant for previously 
evaluated accidents are not affected by the proposed change. The 
proposed change has no impact on the safety analysis because the 
application of an explicit offset to the Technical Specification 
parameters for instrument uncertainty provides additional 
assurance that the plant will operate within the operating 
envelop[e] previously analyzed. The completion of the license 
condition will allow Waterford 3 to operate at the power level of 
3716 MWt [megawatts-thermal] which has previously been evaluated 
and approved by the NRC staff as documented in Amendment 199 to 
the Waterford 3 Operating License.
 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident 
previously evaluated.
 
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or 
different kind of accident from any accident previously 
evaluated? Response: No.
 
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not 
change the design function or operation of any SSC. The proposed 
change introduces no new mode of operation. The proposed change 
does not affect the functional capability of safety-related 
equipment. The completion of the license condition will allow 
Waterford 3 to operate at the power level of 3716 MWt which has 
previously been evaluated and approved by the NRC staff as 
documented in Amendment 199 to the Waterford 3 Operating License.
 
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility of 
a new or different kind of accident from any previously 
evaluated.
 
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a 
margin of safety? Response: No.
 
The proposed change is administrative in nature and does not 
result in a change to any structure, system, or component (SSC).
 
The accident mitigation features of the plant for previously 
evaluated accidents are not affected by the proposed change. The 
proposed change has no impact on the safety analysis because the 
application of an explicit offset to the Technical Specification 
parameters for instrument uncertainty provides additional 
assurance that the plant will operate within the operating 
envelop[e] previously analyzed. Existing Technical Specification 
operability and surveillance requirements are not reduced by the 
proposed change. The completion of the license condition will 
allow Waterford 3 to operate at the power level of 3716 MWt which 
has previously been evaluated and approved by the NRC staff as 
documented in Amendment 199 to the Waterford 3 Operating License.
 
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant 
reduction in a margin of safety.
 
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on 
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 
50.92(c) are satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to 
determine that the amendment request involves no significant 
hazards consideration.
 
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed 
determination. Any comments received within 14 days after the 
date of publication of this notice will be considered in making 
any final determination.
 
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the 
expiration of the 14-day notice period. However, should 
circumstances change during the notice period, such that failure 
to act in a timely way would result, for example, in derating or 
shutdown of the facility, the Commission may issue the license 
amendment before the expiration of the 14-day notice period, 
provided that its final determination is that the amendment 
involves no significant hazards consideration. The final 
determination will consider all public and State comments 
received. Should the Commission take this action, it will publish 
in the Federal Register a notice of issuance. The Commission 
expects that the need to take this action will occur very 
infrequently.
 
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rules and 
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of 
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, 
DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and page 
number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also 
be delivered to Room 6D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville 
Pike, Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal 
workdays. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
 
The filing of requests for hearing and petitions for leave to 
intervene is discussed below.
 
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the 
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to 
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating 
license and any person whose interest may be
 
[[Page 23893]] affected by this proceeding and who wishes to 
participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written 
request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene. 
Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene 
shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of 
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings and Issuance of 
Orders'' in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult a 
current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which is available at the 
Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File 
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the 
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web 
site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a 
request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene is filed 
by the above date, the Commission or a presiding officer 
designated by the Commission or by the Chief Administrative Judge 
of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, will rule on the 
request and/or petition; and the Secretary or the Chief 
Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
 
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene 
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner 
in the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the 
results of the proceeding. The petition should specifically 
explain the reasons why intervention should be permitted with 
particular reference to the following general requirements: (1) 
The name, address, and telephone number of the requestor or 
petitioner; (2) the nature of the requestor's/petitioner's right 
under the Act to be made a party to the proceeding; (3) the 
nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's property, 
financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the 
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in 
the proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The 
petition must also identify the specific contentions which the 
petitioner/requestor seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
 
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue 
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the 
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the 
bases for the contention and a concise statement of the alleged 
facts or expert opinion which support the contention and on which 
the petitioner intends to rely in proving the contention at the 
hearing. The petitioner/requestor must also provide references to 
those specific sources and documents of which the 
petitioner/requestor is aware and on which the 
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or 
expert opinion. The petitioner/requestor must provide sufficient 
information to show that a genuine dispute exists with the 
applicant on a material issue of law or fact. Contentions shall 
be limited to matters within the scope of the amendment under 
consideration.
 
The contention must be one which, if proven, would entitle the 
petitioner/ requestor to relief. A petitioner/requestor who fails 
to satisfy these requirements with respect to at least one 
contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
 
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding, 
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to 
intervene, and have the opportunity to participate fully in the 
conduct of the hearing.
 
If a hearing is requested, the Commission will make a final 
determination on the issue of no significant hazards 
consideration. The final determination will serve to decide when 
the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the 
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, 
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately 
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing 
held would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the 
final determination is that the amendment request involves a 
significant hazards consideration, any hearing held would take 
place before the issuance of any amendment.
 
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be 
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the 
presiding officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that 
the petition, request and/or the contentions should be granted 
based on a balancing of the factors specified in 10 CFR 
2.309(c)(1)(i)-(viii). A request for a hearing or a petition for 
leave to intervene must be filed by: (1) First class mail 
addressed to the Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, 
Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff; (2) courier, 
express mail, and expedited delivery services: Office of the 
Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking 
and Adjudications Staff; (3) E-mail addressed to the Office of 
the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
HEARINGDOCKET@NRC.GOV; or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to 
the Office of the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC, Attention: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at 
(301) 415-1101, verification number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of 
the request for hearing and petition for leave to intervene 
should also be sent to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and it 
is requested that copies be transmitted either by means of 
facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to

 
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. A copy of the request for hearing and 
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to Nicolas S.
 
Reynolds, Esquire, Winston and Strawn, 1400 L Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 2005- 3502, attorney for the licensee.
 
For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated April 27, 2005, which is 
available for public inspection at the Commission's PDR, located 
at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records will be accessible electronically from the 
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC 
Web site http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not 
have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e- mail 
to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of 
April 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Thomas W. Alexion, Project Manager, Section 1, Project 
Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. 05-8948 Filed 5-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 18 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant
 
News Release - Region III - 2005-02
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 
Office of Public Affairs, Region III
 801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532
  No. III-05-022           May 5, 2005   
  CONTACT:     Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
 Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662     E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov  
  

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with
representatives of Nuclear Management Company on Monday, May 9,
to discuss the agencys assessment of safety performance last
year at the Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is
located near Palo, IA.
 
The meeting, which will be open to public observation, is
scheduled to begin at 2 p.m. at the Palo Community Center, 1006
1st Street, Palo. 

Before the meeting is adjourned, NRC staff will be available to
answer questions from the public on the safety performance of
the Duane Arnold plant, as well as the role of the NRC in
ensuring safe plant operation.
 
The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Duane Arnold
plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities,
NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. This meeting
will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual
assessment of safety performance with the company and with local
officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to
explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information
as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of
these facilities.
 
The NRCs assessment concluded that the Duane Arnold plant
operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded
inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear
plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase
to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety
significance of the issues involved. 

All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for
Duane Arnold during 2004 were determined to be green. As a
result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal,
baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year.
 
Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agencys headquarters
in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be
inspected this year by NRC specialists are modifications, fire
protection, gaseous and liquid effluents and access control.
 
A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/duan_2004q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] .
 
Current performance information for Duane Arnold is available on
the NRCs web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/DUAN/duan_chart.html.
   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, May 05, 2005 	
*****************************************************************
 19 VOA News: White House Promotes U.S. Nuclear Power
 
By Jeffrey Young                                
Washington, DC
05 May 2005
 					 				   				     			 		
  [photo credit www.lanl.gov]   
  
103 U.S. nuclear plants(shown in red) are in operation  

The growing demand for electrical power in the United States has
renewed discussion of the role nuclear energy should play. The
U.S. nuclear power industry has been essentially stalled for
years. The newest power plant began operations in 1996, bringing
the total in service nationwide to 103. No new nuclear plants
have been ordered since 1973. 
  
But in a recent speech on U.S. energy policy, President Bush
called on Congress to make it easier to license new nuclear
power plants. Mr. Bush also proposed federal risk insurance
against unforeseen delays in bringing plants on-line. Industry
spokesman Steve Kerekes, with the Nuclear Energy Institute in
Washington, DC, applauds the President. 
  
  [photo credit unl.edu]   
  20 percent of U.S. power comes from nuclear plants  

“The nuclear energy industry is greatly pleased to see the
President supporting nuclear energy and embracing some new ideas
to help bring new nuclear power plants on-board," he says.
"Nuclear power provides twenty percent of the power supplied in
the United States.� 
  
For years, the nuclear power industry has faced contentious
licensing challenges from environmentalists and others that have
added years to the time it takes to bring a power plant into
operation. For example, the Shoreham plant, built east of New
York City on Long Island, was completed in the mid-1980’s but
never produced electricity because of court challenges. But
Jerry Taylor at the Cato Institute, a policy research
organization in Washington, DC, says there is a bigger reason
why new facilities have not been built. 
  
  [photo credit centralaz.edu]   

  Industry analyst: investors prefer putting money into natural
gas plants that run at peak demand times and sell to the highest
bidder  

“Investors have turned away from nuclear power for the simple
reason that it has become a bad economic bet," he says, adding
"The main demand has been for electricity plants that can run
during peak demand periods a handful of times a month. So most
of the investors have been interested in combined-cycle natural
gas plants.� 
  
Jerry Taylor adds that another factor driving away investors
from nuclear energy is deregulation. Many U.S. states no longer
guarantee utilities a minimum rate of return to offset the
expense of constructing power plants. Steve Mariotte, with the
watchdog group Nuclear Information and Resource Service, says
the nuclear industry should blame itself for losing those
guarantees. 
  
“One of the major reasons," he says "those rates of return
were removed was because of huge cost overruns on nuclear
plants. You had plants that were scheduled to cost in the
billion dollar range and ended up in the five and six billion
dollar range.�  

  [photo credit noaa.gov]   
  The 1986 Chernobyl accident spread radiation widely across
Europe  

Nuclear power opponents were given additional ammunition in 1986
when a reactor at Chernobyl, Ukraine exploded and released
considerable radiation over parts of Europe. Investigators
pinned the blame on operator errors and the design of the
reactor, a type not used in the United States. Industry
spokesman Steve Kerekes says the U.S. government has approved
new reactors engineered to avoid the problems experienced with
other designs around the world. 
  
“The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, over the past five years
or so, has approved three advanced-design reactors. They rely
more on passive safety systems, things like convection and
gravity, so you don’t need as much wiring and fewer pumps and
valves to assure that the safety systems work as they should,�
he says. 
  
Even with newer designs, there is still the problem of dealing
with nuclear waste. Nearly fifty years of U.S. nuclear power
production has created some one million gallons of high level
waste and more than 40-thousand tons of spent fuel. Presently,
this radioactive material is being stored in facilities in 39
states.  

  [photo credit www.nei.org]   

U.S. government faces regional opposition for proposing to store
all nuclear waste in a mountain located northwest of Las Vegas,
Nevada  

In 1978, the U.S. government began studies on using a remote
location in the western state of Nevada as a permanent
repository for all of the nation’s nuclear waste.  Supporters
of the Yucca Mountain site add the threat of nuclear terrorism
as another good reason for one secure location.  
  
But energy consultant Tom Randall in Chicago says the idea has
drawn strong criticism from regional politicians and
environmentalists. “Yucca Mountain would be a safe
repository," he says "but there are a lot of fears with regard
to hauling nuclear fuel across the country and that sort of
thing.� 
  
Nuclear energy supporters say the United States can not afford
to abandon this source of power in the face of volatile oil and
gas supplies and prices. They say more nuclear plants must be
built because many present facilities are getting old. But
critics say U.S. taxpayers should not wind up footing the bill
of the nuclear industry. 
  
But to many observers, the most important aspect of the U.S.
nuclear energy debate is ensuring there is enough electricity to
power economic growth and maintain a level of prosperity that
Americans have come to expect. 
  
*****************************************************************
 20 NRC: NRC to Meet with TVA Officials to Discuss Safety Performance at Browns Ferry Nuclear
Power Plant

News Release - Region II - 2005-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street 
SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 No. II-05-025                         May 
5, 2005 CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah 
(404) 562-4417     E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov  
  

Tennessee Valley Authority officials on Tuesday, May 24, to
discuss the results of NRC's annual assessment of safety
performance for Units 2 and 3 at the Browns Ferry nuclear power
plant near Athens, Ala. 
The meeting will be held at 3:00 p.m. (CDT) in the Browns Ferry
training center, located at the site near Athens, Ala. The
public is invited to observe the meeting, and NRC officials will
be available before the conclusion of the meeting to answer any
questions.
 
The NRC says TVA operated Units 2 and 3 safely during the
previous year. As a result of that assessment, the NRC will
conduct normal inspections for those two units at Browns Ferry
this year.
 
The NRC says it will also conduct additional inspections (not
related to the plants performance) on the plants Independent
Spent Fuel (Dry Cask) Storage Installation project, verification
of power uprate modifications and license renewal activities. 

Additionally, the NRC plans to continue routine oversight
inspections of Unit 1 recovery work and specialized inspections
of significant Unit 1 modification work. In 2004, the NRC staff
determined that transition criteria have been met at Unit 1 in
the areas of Occupational Radiation Safety, Public Radiation
Safety, Emergency Preparedness and Physical Protection and will
monitor those areas during 2005 under the current reactor
oversight process.
 
Dr. William Travers, Administrator of the NRC Region II office
in Atlanta, said Each year the NRC staff rates the regulatory
performance at Browns Ferry and at all of the nations other
commercial nuclear power plants. This gives us a chance to
discuss our assessment with the company, with local officials
and with residents near the plant. Our aim is to make this
information available to the public and answer any questions
people may have about our oversight. 

A letter from the NRC to TVA is available from Region II Public
Affairs and on the NRC web site at
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/bf_2004q4.pdf [PDF
Icon] .
 
Current performance indicators for the two operating units at
the Browns Ferry plant are available at
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BF2/bf2_chart.html and
 www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BF3/bf3_chart.html.
   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, May 05, 2005 	
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance at St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant
 
News Release - Region II - 2005-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street 
SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 No. II-05-026                         May 
5, 2005 CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah 
(404) 562-4417     E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov  
  

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is scheduled to meet
with Florida Power & Light officials May 16 to discuss the NRCs
annual assessment of safety performance for 2004 at the St.
Lucie nuclear power plant, located in Jensen Beach, Fla. 

The 3:00 p.m. meeting at the St. Lucie Plant Visitors Center is
open to public observation. Before the meeting ends, NRC staff
will be available to answer public questions on the plants
safety performance, as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe
operation of the facility.
 
Each year the NRC staff rates the performance of the St. Lucie
plant and all of the nations other commercial nuclear power
plants, NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. This
meeting gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the
company, local officials and residents near the plant. Our aim
is to make this information available to the public and answer
any questions people may have about our oversight.
 
The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance
indicators to assess performance. The colors start with green
and increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the
safety significance of the issues involved. 

Overall, the St. Lucie plant operated safely during 2004, but
the NRC said the plant did have one white performance indicator
for unplanned shutdowns that carried over into early 2004 from
the previous year. A subsequent NRC inspection found no further
issues in that area. As a result of that performance, the NRC
plans to conduct only routine inspections at the plant with the
exception of activities related to reactor head replacement.
 
A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/stl_2004q4.pdf [PDF
Icon] .
 
Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by specialists from the Region II
Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in Rockville,
Md. 

Current information for the St. Lucie plant is available on the
NRC web site at:
 www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STL1/stl1_chart.html and
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/STL2/stl2_chart.html.
   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, May 05, 2005 	
*****************************************************************
 22 Telegraph: Seabrook relinked to grid 
 
  [NashuaTelegraph.com]       

Published: Thursday, May. 5, 2005 
		 
SEABROOK (AP) – New Hampshire’s Seabrook nuclear plant is back
in business after a monthlong refueling outage and upgrade that
means the plant now will be generating more power.

The plant was reconnected to the regional power grid Tuesday
afternoon, and is gradually moving back to full power, said
plant spokesman Alan Griffith.

The refueling, maintenance and power upgrade, called an uprate
in the industry, took 32 and a half days. During that time, a
small army of about 1,000 workers replaced a third of the
plant’s fuel, replaced a turbine and other major pieces of
equipment and performed routine maintenance.

With the increased power output, Seabrook will be generating
about 80 additional megawatts of power, enough to light 70,000
homes, he said.
 		   
                Contact The Telegraph of Nashua 
              Privacy Policy and User Agreement 		
               © 2005, Telegraph Publishing Company
          PO Box 1008, Nashua, NH 03061 (603) 594-6440
                      All Rights Reserved 
*****************************************************************
 23 asahi.com: Japan ready to give up plan to host ITER project

05/05/2005
 The Asahi Shimbun
  
Japan is prepared to withdraw from the drawn-out battle to host
an international fusion project in exchange for preferential
treatment concerning construction contracts and jobs for
Japanese researchers, government sources said Wednesday. 

Japan and the European Union have been fighting to host the
International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER). 
Japanese officials have sought to bring the ITER project to
Rokkasho in northern Aomori Prefecture. 

But the sources said European proposals to grant Japan some of
the benefits from the project have persuaded Japanese government
officials to back away from the Rokkasho plan. 

The project is designed to create energy by causing a nuclear
fusion reaction by heating deuterium and tritium to temperatures
above 100 million degrees. 

The ITER facility is now likely to be built in France. 
One of the concerns among Japanese officials is the huge cost
that the host government would have to bear. 

Sources said that over a 30-year period, Japan would have to
contribute between 600 billion and 800 billion yen if the ITER
facility is set up in Rokkasho. 

Some government officials feared that such expenditures would
take away funds from other science and technology projects. 

Japan, the EU, the United States, China, Russia and South Korea
are participants in the ITER project, which has a projected
total cost of about 1.3 trillion yen. The six members have been
deadlocked on selecting a host site. The United States and South
Korea have supported the Japanese proposal, while Russia and
China have backed the EU. 

In talks on April 12 between education minister Nariaki Nakayama
and Janez Potocnik, EU commissioner in charge of science and
research, an agreement was reached to make a political decision
on the ITER host by July, when the summit of the Group of Eight
nations is held in Britain. 

Sources said European officials proposed at the April 12 meeting
giving preference to Japan in construction work and staffing if
Europe was made the host. 

The EU is pushing Cadarache in southern France as the site for
the ITER. 

In Paris, French President Jacques Chirac, in a televised news
conference on Tuesday, indicated for the first time publicly
that the ITER project would be coming to France. He signified
that progress had been made in talks with Japan. 

Deputy Education Minister Tetsuhisa Shirakawa is currently in
Europe negotiating for an agreement on the ITER site, which
might be reached by the end of May.(IHT/Asahi: May 5,2005) 
  
[Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. No reproduction
*****************************************************************
 24 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Oyster Creek Nuclear Power Plant
 
News Release - Region I - 2005-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I 475 Allendale Road, 
King of Prussia, Pa. 19406 May 5, 2005 
  
  CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330
 		Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331   		   E-mail:   
  


Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with
representatives of AmerGen Energy Co., LLC, on Thursday, May 12,
to discuss the agencys annual assessment of safety performance
at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant. The period of
performance to be discussed is Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2004.
 
AmerGen operates the plant, located in Lacey Township, N.J.
 
The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation,
is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. at the Ocean County
Administration Building, Room 119, 101 Hooper Ave., Toms River,
N.J. Before the session is adjourned, NRC staff will be
available to answer questions from the public on the plants
safety performance, as well as the agencys role in ensuring safe
operation of the facility.
 
The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Oyster Creek
plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities,
NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said. This meeting
will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual
assessment of safety performance with the company and with local
officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to
explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information
as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of
these facilities.
 
Overall, the Oyster Creek plant operated safely during the
period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and
performance indicators to assess nuclear power plant
performance. The colors start with green and then increase to
white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance
of the issues involved.
 
As of the fourth quarter of 2004, all of Oyster Creeks
performance indicators were green. However, the plant had one
white, or of low to moderate significance, inspection finding.
That finding, issued in the first quarter of 2004, involved a
failure of a 4,160-volt electrical cable as a result of
ineffective corrective actions for prior similar failures. An
NRC supplemental inspection conducted in September of last year
in response to that finding concluded AmerGens corrective
actions for the problem were appropriate. Therefore, the finding
has been closed out.
 
Also, an inspection finding preliminarily classified as white
was identified in January of this year. It involved an
inappropriate change in one of the plants emergency action
levels, that is, the point during a severe accident at which a
General Emergency and/or Site Area Emergency would be declared.
The finding was finalized on March 1, 2005. That issue remains
open pending an NRC supplemental inspection to assess AmerGens
root cause analysis and corrective actions for the problem.
 
In addition, the NRC has identified a substantive cross-cutting
issue in the area of problem identification and resolution at
Oyster Creek. A cross-cutting issue is one that affects several
different areas of performance. The issue is based on five NRC
inspection findings stemming from a failure by plant staff to
fully implement corrective actions developed for identified
problems. The NRC plans to closely monitor AmerGens corrective
actions during routine inspections and inspections targeted at
the area of problem identification and resolution.
 
Routine inspections are performed by two NRC resident inspectors
assigned to the plants and by inspection specialists from the
Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa., and the agencys
headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant
operations to be inspected this year are radiological safety,
fire protection and emergency preparedness.
 
A letter sent from the NRC Region I Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/oc_2004q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] . The notice and agenda for the annual assessment
meeting are available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number
ML050960243. ADAMS is accessible via the agencys web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is
available by contacting the NRCs Public Document Room at
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail at .
 
Current performance information for Oyster Creek is available on
the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/OC/oc_chart.html.
   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, May 05, 2005 	
*****************************************************************
 25 CBC New Brunswick: Federal money possible for Lepreau
 
  Last updated May 5 2005 09:11 AM ADT
   
  FREDERICTON – New Brunswick's finance minister says if reports
are true about a big cheque coming from Ottawa, it could help pay 
for the refurbishment of the Point Lepreau nuclear generator. 
Jeannot Volpe was reacting to news that the federal government 
may hand over $700 million to the New Brunswick government for a 
variety of programs.
 
Jeannot Volpe
  
 Volpe wouldn't confirm a figure, but said the money could be
used for a variety of infrastructure projects, including the
nuclear plant. 

"When I talk about infrastructure, it could be Lepreau, it could
be our road structure we've got in New Brunswick. So we've got
room to spend that money."
 										 Volpe says Ottawa's generosity probably has
something to do with the fact that the federal Liberals are
facing a spring election.
 But whatever the motive, he said he'd be glad to take the money.
 
  + FROM MARCH 21, 2005: No quick decision on Lepreau: Minister
The nuclear station, which started producing power in 1982, is
nearing the end of its operational life.
 										 										 It will have to be closed if it isn't
re-engineered from top to bottom, at an estimated cost of $1.4
billion.
 
  + FROM FEB. 25, 2005: Lepreau refit needs Ottawa If Ottawa
doesn't help fund the project, Premier Bernard Lord has said New
Brunswick may have to put the nuclear generator into mothballs 
and build a new coal-fired plant, which would be less expensive,
though not as clean-running.

 Bruce Power, which operates six CANDU reactors similar to
Lepreau, has expressed an interest in being a partner in the
refurbishment project.

 But the company says if it doesn't get the go-ahead soon, it'll
have to back out.

 Reconditioning the plant would give Lepreau another 20 to 30
years of production.
   
  Copyright © CBC 2005   
*****************************************************************
 26 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance at Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant
 
News Release - Region II - 2005-02 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street 
SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 No. II-05-027                         May 5 
, 2005 CONTACT:     Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah 
(404) 562-4417     E-mail:   
  

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff is scheduled to meet
with Florida Power & Light officials May 18 to discuss the NRCs
annual assessment of safety performance for 2004 at the Turkey
Point nuclear power plant, located near Homestead, Fla. 

The 1:30 p.m. meeting in the City Council Chambers at the
Homestead City Hall is open to public observation. Before the
meeting ends, NRC staff will be available to answer public
questions on the plants safety performance, as well as the
agencys role in ensuring safe operation of the facility.
 
Each year the NRC staff rates the performance of the St. Lucie
plant and all of the nations other commercial nuclear power
plants, NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. This
meeting gives us a chance to discuss our assessment with the
company, local officials and residents near the plant. Our aim
is to make this information available to the public and answer
any questions people may have about our oversight.
 
The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance
indicators to assess performance. The colors start with green
and increase to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the
safety significance of the issues involved. 

Overall, the Turkey Point plant operated safely during 2004, and
all performance indicators and inspections findings were green,
requiring no additional NRC oversight. As a result of that
performance, the NRC plans to conduct only routine inspections
at the plant with the exception of activities related to reactor
head replacement, containment welds and concrete repairs. In
addition, a followup inspection on some unresolved fire
protection issues is expected later this year.
 
A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/tp_2004q4.pdf [PDF
Icon] .
 
Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by specialists from the Region II
Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in Rockville,
Md. 

Current information for the St. Lucie plant is available on the
NRC web site at:
 www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/TP3/tp3_chart.html and
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/TP4/tp4_chart.html.
   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, May 05, 2005 	
*****************************************************************
 27 NRC: NRC Seeks Public Input on Grand Gulf Early Site Permit Environmental Impacts; Meeting to Be Held
June 28

News Release - 2005-07 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office 
of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 
20555-0001     E-mail: No. 05-076     May 5, 2005   
  

  
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on
its preliminary conclusion that environmental impacts would not
prevent issuing an Early Site Permit (ESP) for the Grand Gulf
site, about 25 miles south of Vicksburg, Miss.
 
The preliminary conclusion is contained in NUREG-1817, Draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit at
the Grand Gulf ESP Site. The draft EIS is open for public
comment until July 14, and will also be the subject of a public
meeting June 28 in Port Gibson, Miss.
 
The ESP process allows an applicant to address site-related
issues, such as environmental impacts, for possible future
construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the site.
The Grand Gulf ESP application was filed Oct. 21, 2003, by
System Energy Resources Inc. (SERI), a subsidiary of Entergy
Nuclear. If approved, the permit would give SERI up to 20 years
to decide whether to build a new nuclear unit on the site and to
file an application with the NRC for approval to begin
construction.
 
The NRC staffs preliminary recommendation is that a permit
should be issued. The staffs conclusion is based on its
independent review of a report submitted by SERI, taking into
account consultations with federal, state, tribal and local
agencies and consideration of comments received during the
public scoping process. The staffs preliminary conclusions
include a finding that there are no environmentally preferable
or obviously superior sites.
 
On Tuesday, June 28, the NRC staff will hold a meeting to obtain
comments on the draft EIS in the Port Gibson City Hall, at 1005
College Street in Port Gibson. The meeting, which will be
transcribed, begins at 7:00 p.m. and will conclude by 10:00 p.m.
In addition, the NRC staff will host an informal discussion one
hour prior to the meeting. NRC staff members will answer
questions and explain the ESP process during this informal
session, but official comments on the EIS must be made during
the meeting.
 
For planning purposes, anyone interested in attending or
presenting oral comments at the June 28 meeting is encouraged to
pre-register no later than June 21, by contacting Cristina
Guerrero of the NRC by telephone at (800) 368-5642, extension
3835, or by e-mail at . Interested persons may also register to
speak within 15 minutes of the start of the meeting. Time for
individual comments at the meetings may be limited to
accommodate all speakers. People requesting special
accommodations to attend or present information at the meeting
should contact the NRC by June 21 so the requests can be
properly reviewed. A separate press release with more details
will be issued closer to the meeting date.
 
Written comments on the draft EIS will also be considered by NRC
staff. Comments should be submitted either by mail (postmarked
by July 14, 2005) to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch,
Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration,
Mailstop T-6D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001, or by e-mail (sent no later than July 14, 2005)
at . 

The draft EIS and related documents are available electronically
for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. They are also available on the
NRCs Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1817
/index.html. In addition, the Harriette Person Memorial Library,
located at 606 Main St., Port Gibson, Miss., has agreed to make
the draft EIS available for public inspection.
 
At the conclusion of the public comment period on July 14, 2005,
the NRC staff will consider and address all comments received.
The NRC expects to issue a final EIS on the environmental
acceptability of an ESP at Grand Gulf by the end of 2005. The
NRC issued a draft Safety Evaluation Report (SER) on the Grand
Gulf site on April 7, as described in a press release on the
agencys Web site at this address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/news/2005/05-063.pd
f [PDF Icon] .
 
Before the Commission can reach a final decision on issuing the
permit, the NRC staff must still complete the EIS and SER, the
Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards must issue a report on
the ESP application, and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel must conduct its mandatory hearing on the matter. The NRC
expects to finish this process late in 2006.
   



  


 	Last revised Thursday, May 05, 2005 	
*****************************************************************
 28 NRC: Notice of Availability of Environmental Assessment and Finding
 
                         FR Doc 05-8944 
[Federal Register: May 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 86)] [Notices] 
[Page 23895-23896] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05my05-86]                         
 
of No Significant Impact for License Amendment for Pharmacia and 
Upjohn Company, Kalamzoo, MI AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of availability.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Peter J. Lee, 
Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety, 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Region III, 2443 Warrenville 
Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532- 4352. Telephone: 630-829-9870; fax 
number: 630-515-1259; e-mail: pjl2@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuing a license 
amendment of Material License No. 21-00182-03 issued to Pharmacia 
& Upjohn Company (the licensee), to authorize release of its 
Henrietta Street and Jasper Street facilities for unrestricted 
use.
 
The NRC staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in 
support of this amendment in accordance with the requirements of 
10 CFR Part 51. Based on the EA, the NRC has concluded that a 
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate. The 
amendment will be issued following the publication of this 
Notice.
 
II. EA Summary The purpose of the proposed action is to amend the 
licensee's byproduct
 
[[Page 23896]] material license and release its Henrietta Street 
and Jasper Street facilities for unrestricted use. On April 24, 
1958, the Atomic Energy Commission authorized the licensee to 
conduct the radiological operations. The primary radioactive 
materials used at Henrietta Street and Jasper Street facilities 
were H-3, C-14, P-32, P-33, S-35, and I- 125. On January 26, 
2005, the licensee submitted a license amendment request to amend 
its license to release its Henrietta Street and Jasper Street 
facilities for unrestricted use. The licensee has conducted 
surveys of the facility and provided information to the NRC to 
demonstrate that the site meets the license termination criteria 
in 10 CFR 20.1402, ``'Radiological Criteria for Unrestricted 
Use.'' The staff has examined the licensee's request and the 
information provided in support of its request, including the 
surveys performed to demonstrate compliance with the release 
criteria. Based on its review, the staff has determined that 
there are no additional remediation activities necessary to 
complete the proposed action and a Finding of No Significant 
Impact is appropriate.
 
III. Finding of No Significant Impact The staff has prepared an 
EA in support of the proposed action. The staff has found that 
the environmental impacts from the proposed action are bounded by 
the impacts evaluated in the ``Generic Environmental Impact 
Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological Criteria for 
License Termination of NRC-Licensed Facilities'' (NUREG-1496).
 
On the basis of the EA, the NRC concluded that there are no 
significant environmental impacts from the proposed amendment and 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement.
 
IV. Further Information Documents related to this action, 
including the application for amendment and supporting 
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's 
electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can 
access the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System 
(ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public 
documents. The ADAMS accession numbers for the documents related 
to this notice are: ML050310283 and ML042640549 for the January 
26, 2005, amendment request, and ML051090105 for the EA 
summarized above. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there 
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 
1-800-397-4209, 301-415- 4737, or by email to pdr@nrc.gov. These 
documents may also be viewed electronically on the public 
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
 
Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 19th day of April 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief, Decommissioning Branch, Division of 
Nuclear Materials Safety Region III.
 
[FR Doc. 05-8944 Filed 5-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 29 Guardian Unlimited Experts: Much Nuclear Safety Work Remains
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
Thursday May 5, 2005 10:46 PM
 	
By KATHERINE SHRADER 
Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - Even as the U.S. government warns of
al-Qaida's determination to obtain nuclear weapons, programs
funded by the United States secured less Russian nuclear
material in 2004 than the year before, according to a report
Thursday by private nuclear analysts. 

The study on global nuclear threat reduction programs came the
day after U.S. and Pakistani officials announced the arrest of
al-Qaida's No. 3 operative, Abu Farraj al-Libbi. The Pakistani
government believes al-Libbi may have allies in its military's
senior rungs, and U.S. experts say those officers may play a
role in guarding Pakistani nuclear sites. 

``The danger of nuclear theft is a global problem. It is not
just a Russia problem,'' said Matthew Bunn, a co-author of the
report from Harvard's John F. Kennedy School of Government and
the Nuclear Threat Initiative. 

``We need to forge a common nuclear standard for the world
because terrorists are going to get nuclear material wherever it
is easiest,'' Bunn added. ``Nuclear security is only as strong
as its weakest link.'' 

U.S. intelligence officials have warned for some time about
al-Qaida's interest in launching a nuclear attack, although the
group is not believed to now have a device. Obtaining the weapon
is believed to be harder than getting radiological material,
which could be used in a dirty bomb. 

Nevertheless, in 2003, Osama bin Laden sought - and received - a
religious edict from a radical Saudi cleric that permitted using
a nuclear bomb against U.S. civilians. 

The new study looks at the terrorist threat and provides a
detailed assessment of Russia, where most of the world's
vulnerable stockpiles lie. 

Since 1991, the United States has been funding programs to
secure nuclear material developed by the former Soviet
government. The report finds that such work in Russia is half
done. 

It said comprehensive security upgrades were completed in 2004
on 4 percent of Russia's nuclear material - its highly enriched
uranium or plutonium - down from 6 percent in 2003. At the end
of last year, 26 percent had been secured. 

Safeguards include ensuring nuclear sites have undergone full
vulnerability assessments, received a full suite of intrusion
detectors, and other modern security equipment. 

Yet the report found some room for optimism: The reports'
authors say the U.S. Energy Department, one of the agencies
spearheading the work, has predicted a substantial increase in
progress this year, perhaps a tripling of the 2004 pace. 

``The good news is that we are making progress,'' said former
Sen. Sam Nunn, D-Ga., a chief architect of the legislation that
created the U.S. programs supporting Russian nuclear security.

``The bad news is that we are doing too little and moving too
slowly.'' 

The U.S.-backed programs in Russia have been riddled with
issues, including disputes over who is liable if someone gets
hurt while securing the material. The Russians also want access
to sensitive U.S. nuclear sites, comparable to what the U.S.
government is asking of them. 

Nunn and the reports' authors urged the White House to maintain
pressure on U.S. and Russian bureaucracies to get the work done.
They also want more support from U.S. allies, noting that a
nuclear 9/11 would be a world-changing event, shaking the global
economy. 

On the Net: 
White House: http://www.whitehouse.gov 
Nuclear Threat Initiative: http://www.nti.org 
		 	 	   

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 30 Guardian Unlimited: Russian ex-nuclear minister held over fraud
 
Tom Parfitt in Moscow
Thursday May 5, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
Swiss police have arrested a former Russian nuclear
energy minister who is accused of embezzling up to £5m of US aid
which was meant to increase security at Russia's nuclear power
plants. 

Yevgeny Adamov was taken into custody on Monday in Bern at the
behest of US federal authorities, who want him extradited to the
US. 

The Swiss justice ministry said yesterday that Mr Adamov was
wanted by US prosecutors on multiple counts of money laundering
and fraud. 
			 		 			 			 			Article continues 			
Mr Adamov told a Swiss court yesterday that he intended to fight 
the extradition request. 

"He refused to be extradited," a justice ministry spokesman
said. 

Washington has 60 days to present a formal extradition request,
after which a Swiss court will decide what to do with him. The
process could take several months, the spokesman said. 

It is alleged that in 1994 Mr Adamov, then the head of Dollezhal
state nuclear research institute, diverted funds from the US
department of energy to companies in the US which he controlled. 

Russian officials said Mr Adamov, who was minister for nuclear
energy from 1998 to 2001, had been arrested as he visited his
daughter who lives in Switzerland. 

Mr Adamov, who was removed from his post after Vladimir Putin
became president, was a senior member of the "family" which
surrounded the former president Boris Yeltsin. 

He avoided prosecution shortly before he was ousted when a
parliamentary anti-corruption commission found he had used his
official post for personal gain. 

The findings caused a scandal when they were leaked to
Greenpeace, which welcomed his arrest yesterday. 

Mr Adamov's lawyer, Timofei Gridnev, told Interfax news agency
his client had been aware a case was being prepared against him
and had gathered documents to prove the accusations were false. 

US officials said the justice department had sought the arrest
on the basis of a warrant issued by a court in Pennsylvania,
where one of the companies linked to Mr Adamov is based. 

The federal atomic energy agency in Moscow said the accusations
were "in connection with a number of commercial contracts
concluded between the Dollezhal institute and various US
organisations in the early 1990s". 

As head of the institute, Mr Adamov was involved in the
post-cold war programmes organised by the US to help Russia
recover nuclear material from warheads and improve the safety of
reactors. 

According to the Russian investigation, in 1993 he set up a
company called Energo Pool in Pennsylvania. The next year
payments from the US department of energy for the improvement of
Russian nuclear safety were made into the company's accounts,
allegedly at Mr Adamov's instruction. 

Russian MPs found that Mr Adamov and other officials had
received cash transfers of up to £50,000 from Energo Pool
accounts. 

Alexei Mukhin, a political analyst in Moscow, said the former
minister's waning power was probably the reason that he was
being pursued now and not earlier. 

"After Putin came to power he lost his protection and that made
him more vulnerable to attack from abroad," he said. 
	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 31 Guardian Unlimited: Terror fears draw veil over nuclear plants

Details of new power stations may be kept secret               
 		
Richard Norton-Taylor
Friday May 6, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
Information about nuclear power stations, including safety issues 
and potential hazards, will be concealed from the public under 
guidelines drawn up by the government because of terrorism fears. 

The guidance will apply to the power stations expected to be
commissioned whatever party wins the election. 

Objectors would be prevented from seeing detailed plans of the
nuclear plants at planning inquiries. Instead, the attorney
general would select an "appointed representative" to argue the
case on their behalf, for which the objectors would have to pay. 
			 		 			 			 			Article continues 			
The guidelines, which have gone largely unnoticed, were drawn up 
this year by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security, an agency of 
the Department of Trade and Industry. 

The public may have a legitimate interest in information about
nuclear facilities and operations, they admit. But they also
point to the dangers of nuclear material being stolen or
sabotaged by terrorists. 

The guidelines refer to the 2001 Anti-Terrorism, Crime and
Security Act, which makes it an offence to disclose information
with the intention of prejudicing or being reckless with
"nuclear security". 

Information which should be kept secret includes details of
potential hazards, where nuclear waste is stored, annual threat
assessments, the results of security investigations, and the
function of certain buildings. "Effectively the DTI is saying
that a planning officer faced with a planning application for,
let's say, a new nuclear waste store will not be able to seek
adequate information about the application unless this is to be
handled in secrecy," said George Regan, chairman of the steering
committee of Nuclear Free Local Authorities. 

"The provision of such information will be accompanied by the
threat of prosecution if the information is disclosed," he told
the Town and Country Planning Association. 

Seventy categories of information listed in the guidelines, more
than two-thirds of the total, are "not releaseable", according
to the Environmental Data Services report, a respected
independent bulletin. "Tomorrow's researchers will have to make
do with 'general maps showing the position and limits of a
nuclear facility but without details of what is contained
therein,'" it said. 

James Woolley, legal adviser to Nuclear Free Local Authorities,
said there could be no faith in a system where the attorney
general appoints vetted representatives for objectors. 
The DTI said the moves were the result of setting up the Civil
Nuclear Constabulary and Nuclear Decommissioning Authority and
there was "no change in policy". 
	
 	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 32 RIA Novosti: RUSSIA'S UPDATED NUCLEAR SUBMARINE TO BE BACK IN SERVICE SOON
 
MOSCOW, May 5 (RIA Novosti) - An updated nuclear submarine, the
Dmitri Donskoi, will very soon enter the Russian fleet
inventories, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said to journalists
in Moscow. 

To quote: "Very soon a new nuclear submarine, the Dmitri
Donskoi, will come into service. Choice of the name is
symbolical", Sergei Ivanov said. 

The heavy nuclear missile cruiser of Project 941 Taifun is being
updated in Severodvinsk for the new missile systems. Since last
year it has been testing the new intercontinental missile
systems Bulava. 

Dmitri Donskoi (1350-1389) was the first of the Moscow princes
to lead the popular armed struggle against Mongol-Tatars. In
1380 Dmitri Donskoi, leading the united Russian forces, defeated
the invading forces of Khan Mamai in the Battle of Kulikovo. He
passed for the first time the throne to his senior son Vasili
without the Golden Horde consent.

 
© 2005 "RIAN Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 33 Fw: Horror Of US Depleted Uranium In Iraq Threatens World
 
Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 15:14:12 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
  ----- Original Message -----
From: <mailto:coffee@euro-comm.co.uk>Karim A G
To: <mailto:coffee@euro-comm.co.uk>Karim A G
Sent: Thursday, May 05, 2005 11:39 AM
Subject: Horror Of US Depleted Uranium In Iraq Threatens World

  <http://www.rense.com/general64/du.htm>http://www.rense.com/general64/du.htm



Horror Of US Depleted
Uranium In Iraq Threatens World



American Use Of DU is "A crime against humanity which may, in
the eyes of historians, rank with the worst atrocities of all time."
US Iraq Military Vets "are on DU death row, waiting to die."
By James Denver
4-29-5



"I'm horrified. The people out there - the Iraqis, the media and the troops 
- risk the most appalling ill health. And the radiation from depleted 
uranium can travel literally anywhere. It's going to destroy the lives of 
thousands of children, all over the world. We all know how far radiation 
can travel. Radiation from Chernobyl reached Wales and in Britain you 
sometimes get red dust from the Sahara on your car."



The speaker is not some alarmist doom-sayer. He is Dr. Chris Busby, the 
British radiation expert, Fellow of the University of Liverpool in the 
Faculty of Medicine and UK representative on the European Committee on 
Radiation Risk, talking about the best-kept secret of this war: the fact 
that, by illegally using hundreds of tons of depleted uranium (DU) against 
Iraq, Britain and America have gravely endangered not only the Iraqis but 
the whole world.



For these weapons have released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic, 
radioactive particles in such abundance that-whipped up by sandstorms and 
carried on trade winds - there is no corner of the globe they cannot 
penetrate-including Britain. For the wind has no boundaries and time is on 
their side: the radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years and can 
cause cancer, leukemia, brain damage, kidney failure, and extreme birth 
defects - killing millions of every age for centuries to come. A crime 
against humanity which may, in the eyes of historians, rank with the worst 
atrocities of all time.



These weapons have released deadly, carcinogenic and mutagenic, radioactive 
particles in such abundance that there is no corner of the globe they 
cannot penetrate - including Britain. Yet, officially, no crime has been 
committed. For this story is a dirty story in which the facts have been 
concealed from those who needed them most. It is also a story we need to 
know if the people of Iraq are to get the medical care they desperately 
need, and if our troops, returning from Iraq, are not to suffer as terribly 
as the veterans of other conflicts in which depleted uranium was used.



A Dirty Tyson



'Depleted' uranium is in many ways a misnomer. For 'depleted' sounds weak. 
The only weak thing about depleted uranium is its price. It is dirt cheap, 
toxic, waste from nuclear power plants and bomb production. However, 
uranium is one of earth's heaviest elements and DU packs a Tyson's punch, 
smashing through tanks, buildings and bunkers with equal ease, 
spontaneously catching fire as it does so, and burning people alive. 
'Crispy critters' is what US servicemen call those unfortunate enough to be 
close. And, when John Pilger encountered children killed at a greater 
distance he wrote: "The children's skin had folded back, like parchment, 
revealing veins and burnt flesh that seeped blood, while the eyes, intact, 
stared straight ahead. I vomited." (Daily Mirror)



The millions of radioactive uranium oxide particles released when it burns 
can kill just as surely, but far more terribly. They can even be so tiny 
they pass through a gas mask, making protection against them impossible. 
Yet, small is not beautiful. For these invisible killers indiscriminately 
attack men, women, children and even babies in the womb-and do the gravest 
harm of all to children and unborn babies.



A Terrible Legacy



Doctors in Iraq have estimated that birth defects have increased by 2-6 
times, and 3-12 times as many children have developed cancer and leukaemia 
since 1991. Moreover, a report published in The Lancet in 1998 said that as 
many as 500 children a day are dying from these sequels to war and 
sanctions and that the death rate for Iraqi children under 5 years of age 
increased from 23 per 1000 in 1989 to 166 per thousand in 1993. Overall, 
cases of lymphoblastic leukemia more than quadrupled with other cancers 
also increasing 'at an alarming rate'. In men, lung, bladder, bronchus, 
skin, and stomach cancers showed the highest increase. In women, the 
highest increases were in breast and bladder cancer, and non-Hodgkin 
lymphoma.1



On hearing that DU had been used in the Gulf in 1991, the UK Atomic Energy 
Authority sent the Ministry of Defense a special report on the potential 
damage to health and the environment. It said that it could cause half a 
million additional cancer deaths in Iraq over 10 years. In that war the 
authorities only admitted to using 320 tons of DU-although the Dutch 
charity LAKA estimates the true figure is closer to 800 tons. Many times 
that may have been spread across Iraq by this year's war. The devastating 
damage all this DU will do to the health and fertility of the people of 
Iraq now, and for generations to come, is beyond imagining.



The radioactivity persists for over 4,500,000,000 years killing millions of 
every age for centuries to come. This is a crime against humanity which may 
rank with the worst atrocities of all time.



We must also count the numberless thousands of miscarried babies. Nobody 
knows how many Iraqis have died in the womb since DU contaminated their 
world. But it is suggested that troops who were only exposed to DU for the 
brief period of the war were still excreting uranium in their semen 8 years 
later and some had 100 times the so-called 'safe limit' of uranium in their 
urine. The lack of government interest in the plight of veterans of the 
1991 war is reflected in a lack of academic research on the impact of DU 
but informal research has found a high incidence of birth defects in their 
children and that the wives of men who served in Iraq have three times more 
miscarriages than the wives of servicemen who did not go there.



Since DU darkened the land Iraq has seen birth defects which would break a 
heart of stone: babies with terribly foreshortened limbs, with their 
intestines outside their bodies, with huge bulging tumors where their eyes 
should be, or with a single eye-like Cyclops, or without eyes, or without 
limbs, and even without heads. Significantly, some of the defects are 
almost unknown outside textbooks showing the babies born near A-bomb test 
sites in the Pacific.



Doctors report that many women no longer say 'Is it a girl or a boy?' but 
simply, 'Is it normal, doctor?' Moreover this terrible legacy will not end. 
The genes of their parents may have been damaged for ever, and the damaging 
DU dust is ever-present.



Blue on Blue



What the governments of America and Britain have done to the people of Iraq 
they have also done to their own soldiers, in both wars. And they have done 
it knowingly. For the battlefields have been thick with DU and soldiers 
have had to enter areas heavily contaminated by bombing. Moreover, their 
bodies have not only been assaulted by DU but also by a vaccination regime 
which violated normal protocols, experimental vaccines, nerve agent pills, 
and organophosphate pesticides in their tents. Yet, though the hazards of 
DU were known, British and American troops were not warned of its dangers. 
Nor were they given thorough medical checks on their return-even though 
identifying it quickly might have made it possible to remove some of it 
from their body. Then, when a growing number became seriously ill, and 
should have been sent to top experts in radiation damage and neurotoxins, 
many were sent to a psychiatrist.



Over 200,000 US troops who returned from the 1991 war are now invalided out 
with ailments officially attributed to service in Iraq-that's 1 in 3. In 
contrast, the British government's failure to fully assess the health of 
returning troops, or to monitor their health, means no one even knows how 
many have died or become gravely ill since their return. However, Gulf 
veterans' associations say that, of 40,000 or so fighting fit men and women 
who saw active service, at least 572 have died prematurely since coming 
home and 5000 may be ill. An alarming number are thought to have taken 
their own lives, unable to bear the torment of the innumerable ailments 
which have combined to take away their career, their sexuality, their 
ability to have normal children, and even their ability to breathe or walk 
normally. As one veteran puts it, they are 'on DU death row, waiting to die'.



Whatever other factors there may be, some of their illnesses are strikingly 
similar to those of Iraqis exposed to DU dust. For example, soldiers have 
also fathered children without eyes. And, in a group of eight servicemen 
whose babies lack eyes seven are known to have been directly exposed to DU 
dust.



They too have fathered children with stunted arms, and rare abnormalities 
classically associated with radiation damage. They too seem prone to cancer 
and leukemia. Tellingly, so are EU soldiers who served as peacekeepers in 
the Balkans, where DU was also used. Indeed their leukemia rate has been so 
high that several EU governments have protested at the use of DU.



The Vital Evidence



Despite all that evidence of the harm done by DU, governments on both sides 
of the Atlantic have repeatedly claimed that as it emits only 'low level' 
radiation DU is harmless. Award-winning scientist, Dr. Rosalie Bertell who 
has led UN medical commissions, has studied 'low-level' radiation for 30 
years. 2 She has found that uranium oxide particles have more than enough 
power to harm cells, and describes their pulses of radiation as hitting 
surrounding cells 'like flashes of lightning' again and again in a single 
second.2 Like many scientists worldwide who have studied this type of 
radiation, she has found that such 'lightning strikes' can damage DNA and 
cause cell mutations which lead to cancer.



Moreover, these particles can be taken up by body fluids and travel through 
the body, damaging more than one organ. To compound all that, Dr. Bertell 
has found that this particular type of radiation can cause the body's 
communication systems to break down, leading to malfunctions in many vital 
organs of the body and to many medical problems. A striking fact, since 
many veterans of the first Gulf war suffer from innumerable, seemingly 
unrelated, ailments.



In addition, recent research by Eric Wright, Professor of Experimental 
Haematology at Dundee University, and others, have shown two ways in which 
such radiation can do far more damage than has been thought. The first is 
that a cell which seems unharmed by radiation can produce cells with 
diverse mutations several cell generations later. (And mutations are at the 
root of cancer and birth defects.) This 'radiation-induced genomic 
instability' is compounded by 'the bystander effect' by which cells mutate 
in unison with others which have been damaged by radiation-rather as birds 
swoop and turn in unison. Put together, these two mechanisms can greatly 
increase the damage done by a single source of radiation, such as a DU 
particle. Moreover, it is now clear that there are marked genetic 
differences in the way individuals respond to radiation-with some being far 
more likely to develop cancer than others. So the fact that some veterans 
of the first Gulf war seem relatively unharmed by their exposure to DU in 
no way proves that DU did not damage others.



The Price of Truth



That the evidence from Iraq and from our troops, and the research findings 
of such experts, have been ignored may be no accident. A US report, leaked 
in late 1995, allegedly says, 'The potential for health effects from DU 
exposure is real; however it must be viewed in perspective... the financial 
implications of long-term disability payments and healthcare costs would be 
excessive.'3



Clearly, with hundreds of thousands gravely ill in Iraq and at least a 
quarter of a million UK and US troops seriously ill, huge disability claims 
might be made not only against the governments of Britain and America if 
the harm done by DU were acknowledged. There might also be huge claims 
against companies making DU weapons and some of their directors are said to 
be extremely close to the White House. How close they are to Downing Street 
is a matter for speculation, but arms sales makes a considerable 
contribution to British trade. So the massive whitewashing of DU over the 
past 12 years, and the way that governments have failed to test returning 
troops, seemed to disbelieve them, and washed their hands of them, may be 
purely to save money.



The possibility that financial considerations have led the governments of 
Britain and America to cynically avoid taking responsibility for the harm 
they have done not only to the people of Iraq but to their own troops may 
seem outlandish. Yet DU weapons weren't used by the other side and no other 
explanation fits the evidence. For, in the days before Britain and America 
first used DU in war its hazards were no secret.4 One American study in 
1990 said DU was 'linked to cancer when exposures are internal, [and to] 
chemical toxicity-causing kidney damage'. While another openly warned that 
exposure to these particles under battlefield conditions could lead to 
cancers of the lung and bone, kidney damage, non-malignant lung disease, 
neuro-cognitive disorders, chromosomal damage and birth defects.5



A Culture of Denial



In 1996 and 1997 UN Human Rights Tribunals condemned DU weapons for 
illegally breaking the Geneva Convention and classed them as 'weapons of 
mass destruction' 'incompatible with international humanitarian and human 
rights law'. Since then, following leukemia in European peacekeeping troops 
in the Balkans and Afghanistan (where DU was also used), the EU has twice 
called for DU weapons to be banned.



Yet, far from banning DU, America and Britain stepped up their denials of 
the harm from this radioactive dust as more and more troops from the first 
Gulf war and from action and peacekeeping in the Balkans and Afghanistan 
have become seriously ill. This is no coincidence. In 1997, while citing 
experiments, by others, in which 84 percent of dogs exposed to inhaled 
uranium died of cancer of the lungs, Dr. Asaf Durakovic, then Professor of 
Radiology and Nuclear Medicine at Georgetown University in Washington was 
quoted as saying, 'The [US government's] Veterans Administration asked me 
to lie about the risks of incorporating depleted uranium in the human 
body.' He concluded, 'uranium does cause cancer, uranium does cause 
mutation, and uranium does kill. If we continue with the irresponsible 
contamination of the biosphere, and denial of the fact that human life is 
endangered by the deadly isotope uranium, then we are doing disservice to 
ourselves, disservice to the truth, disservice to God and to all 
generations who follow.' Not what the authorities wanted to hear and his 
research was suddenly blocked.



During 12 years of ever-growing British whitewash the authorities have 
abolished military hospitals, where there could have been specialized 
research on the effects of DU and where expertise in treating DU victims 
could have built up. And, not content with the insult of suggesting the 
gravely disabling symptoms of Gulf veterans are imaginary they have refused 
full pensions to many. For, despite all the evidence to the contrary, the 
current House of Commons briefing paper on DU hazards says 'it is judged 
that any radiation effects from possible exposures are extremely unlikely 
to be a contributory factor to the illnesses currently being experienced by 
some Gulf war veterans.' Note how over a quarter of a million sick and 
dying US and UK vets are called 'some'.



The Way Ahead



Britain and America not only used DU in this year's Iraq war, they 
dramatically increased its use-from a minimum of 320 tons in the previous 
war to at minimum of 1500 tons in this one. And this time the use of DU 
wasn't limited to anti-tank weapons-as it had largely been in the previous 
Gulf war-but was extended to the guided missiles, large bunker busters and 
big 2000-pound bombs used in Iraq's cities. This means that Iraq's cities 
have been blanketed in lethal particles-any one of which can cause cancer 
or deform a child. In addition, the use of DU in huge bombs which throw the 
deadly particles higher and wider in huge plumes of smoke means that 
billions of deadly particles have been carried high into the air-again and 
again and again as the bombs rained down-ready to be swept worldwide by the 
winds.



The Royal Society has suggested the solution is massive decontamination in 
Iraq. That could only scratch the surface. For decontamination is hugely 
expensive and, though it may reduce the risks in some of the worst areas, 
it cannot fully remove them. For DU is too widespread on land and water. 
How do you clean up every nook and cranny of a city the size of Baghdad? 
How can they decontaminate a whole country in which microscopic particles, 
which cannot be detected with a normal geiger counter, are spread from 
border to border? And how can they clean up all the countries downwind of 
Iraq-and, indeed, the world?



So there are only two things we can do to mitigate this crime against 
humanity. The first is to provide the best possible medical care for the 
people of Iraq, for our returning troops and for those who served in the 
last Gulf war and, through that, minimize their suffering. The second is to 
relegate war, and the production and sale of weapons, to the scrap heap of 
history-along with slavery and genocide. Then, and only then, will this 
crime against humanity be expunged, and the tragic deaths from this war 
truly bring freedom to the people of Iraq, and of the world.



References



1. The Lancet volume 351, issue 9103, 28 February 1998.



2. Rosalie Bertell's book Planet Earth the Latest Weapon of War was 
reviewed in Caduceus issue 51, page 28.



3. 
<http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabl1.htm>http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_ii/du_ii_tabl1.htm 




4. www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.01/020117moret.htm

The secret official memorandum to Brigadier General L.R.Groves from Drs 
Conant, Compton and Urey of War Department Manhattan district dated October 
1943 is available at the website 
www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/Leuren-Moret-Gen-Grove s21feb03.htm



5. 
<http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_iitab11.htm>http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/du_iitab11.htm 




Further information



The Low Level Radiation Campaign hopes to be able to arrange a limited 
number of private urine tests for those returning from the latest Gulf war. 
It can be contacted at: The Knoll, Montpelier Park, Llandrindod Wells, LD1 
5LW. 01597 824771. Web: <http://www.llrc.org/>www.llrc.org



James Denver writes and broadcasts internationally on science and technology.

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 34 NRC: In the Matter of: ATTN: Mr. David F. Johns, President, Soil 
 
                         FR Doc 05-8945 
[Federal Register: May 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 86)] [Notices] 
[Page 23894-23895] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05my05-84] [[Page 23894]]
 
Consultants, Inc., 9393 Center Street, Manassas, VA 20110-5547; 
Confirmatory Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) I 
Soil Consultants, Inc. (SCI or Licensee) is the holder of 
Materials License No. 45-15200-04 issued by the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) on October 6, 2004, 
Amendment No. 03. The license authorizes the Licensee to use 
sealed source(s) contained in portable gauging devices 
(registered pursuant to 10 CFR 32.320 or equivalent Agreement 
State regulation) for measuring properties of materials in 
accordance with the conditions specified therein.
 
II An investigation of the Licensee's activities was completed on 
February 11, 2004. The results of this investigation and the 
NRC's further consideration of this matter, including a 
predecisional enforcement conference held with you on August 12, 
2004, indicated that the Licensee had not conducted its 
activities in full compliance with NRC requirements. A written 
Notice of Violation and Proposed Imposition of Civil Penalty 
(Notice) was served upon the Licensee by letter dated October 6, 
2004. The Notice states the nature of violation, the provision of 
the NRC's requirements that the Licensee had violated, and the 
amount of the civil penalty proposed for the violation. The 
licensee responded in letters dated November 5, 2004, and 
December 5, 2004, and denied a violation occurred. An Order 
Imposing a civil penalty was served upon the Licensee by letter 
dated February 1, 2005. The February 1st letter offered SCI the 
opportunity either to pay the civil penalty, request a hearing, 
or request alternative dispute resolution (ADR) in which a 
neutral mediator with no decision-making authority would 
facilitate discussions between the NRC and SCI and, if possible, 
assist the NRC and SCI in reaching an agreement on resolving the 
concern. SCI chose to participate in ADR. On March 16, 2005, the 
NRC and SCI met at NRC Headquarters in Rockville, Maryland in an 
ADR session mediated by a professional mediator, arranged through 
Cornell University's Institute on Conflict Resolution.
 
III By letter dated April 8, 2005, the Licensee has agreed that 
in addition to the corrective actions outlined in their letters 
to the NRC dated November 5, 2004, and December 2, 2004, SCI 
would take certain additional measures to emphasize the 
importance of a Safety Conscious Work Environment at their 
facility. The Licensee agreed to: 1. Hire an outside consultant 
to: a. Provide insight and develop an initial training module 
addressing a safety conscious work environment (SCWE) and 10 CFR 
30.7, Employee protection,'' by no later than five months from 
the date of issuance of the Confirmatory Order, b. Conduct 
initial training for managers and employees of SCI using the 
module by no later than six months from the date of issuance of 
the Confirmatory Order, and c. Develop a refresher training 
module addressing SCWE and 10 CFR 30.7 for the managers and 
employees of SCI by no later than six months from the date of 
issuance of the Confirmatory Order.
 
2. By no later than six months from the date of issuance of the 
Confirmatory Order, SCI shall revise its training program 
requirements to conduct refresher training of SCWE and 10 CFR 
30.7 at a frequency consistent with SCI's general employee 
training.
 
3. By no later than six months from the date of issuance of the 
Confirmatory Order, SCI shall revise its training program 
requirements to conduct SCWE and 10 CFR 30.7 training for new 
managers and employees of SCI, within sixty days of their 
assumption of duties.
 
4. Pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1,200 for a violation of 
10 CFR 30.7, ``Employee protection,'' requirements within thirty 
days of the date of issuance of the Confirmatory Order.
 
On April 18, 2005, SCI consented to the NRC issuing this 
Confirmatory Order, as described in Section IV below. SCI further 
agreed in its April 18, 2005, letter that this Confirmatory Order 
is to be effective upon issuance and that it has waived its right 
to a hearing. The NRC has concluded that its concerns can be 
resolved through effective implementation of SCI's commitments.
 
I find that the Licensee's commitments as set forth in Section IV 
are acceptable and necessary and conclude that with these 
commitments the public health and safety are reasonably assured. 
In view of the foregoing, I have determined that the public 
health and safety require that SCI's commitments be confirmed by 
this Order. Based on the above and SCI's consent, this Order is 
immediately effective upon issuance. SCI is required to provide 
the NRC with a letter summarizing its actions when all of the 
Section IV requirements have been completed.
 
IV Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 81, 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 and 10 CFR part 30, it 
is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that License No. 
45-15200-04 is modified as follows: 1. The Licensee shall hire an 
outside consultant to: a. Provide insight and develop an initial 
training module addressing a safety conscious work environment 
(SCWE) and 10 CFR 30.7, Employee protection,'' by no later than 
five months from the date of issuance of the Confirmatory Order, 
b. Conduct initial training for managers and employees of SCI 
using the module by no later than six months from the date of 
issuance of the Confirmatory Order, and c. Develop a refresher 
training module addressing SCWE and 10 CFR 30.7 for the managers 
and employees of SCI by no later than six months from the date of 
issuance of the Confirmatory Order.
 
2. The Licensee shall revise its training program requirements to 
conduct refresher training of SCWE and 10 CFR 30.7 at a frequency 
consistent with SCI's general employee training, by no later than 
six months from the date of issuance of the Confirmatory Order.
 
3. By no later than six months from the date of issuance of the 
Confirmatory Order, the Licensee shall revise its training 
program requirements to conduct SCWE and 10 CFR 30.7 training for 
new managers and employees of SCI, within sixty days of their 
assumption of duties.
 
4. Pay a civil penalty in the amount of $1,200 for a violation of 
10 CFR 30.7, ``Employee protection,'' requirements within thirty 
days of the date of issuance of the Confirmatory Order.
 
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may relax or rescind, in 
writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by SCI of 
good cause.
 
V Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other 
than the Licensee, may request a hearing within 20 days of its 
issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given 
to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for 
extension of time
 
[[Page 23895]] 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. 
Any 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 I, 475 
Allendale Road, King of Prussia, PA 19406-1415, and to the 
Licensee. 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 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 licensee 
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 2.309(d) and (f). If a hearing is requested by 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 Confirmatory 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 final 20 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. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the 
immediate effectiveness of this Order.
 
Dated this 27th day of April, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Frank J. Congel, Director, Office of Enforcement.
 
[FR Doc. 05-8945 Filed 5-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 35 Deseret news: Firefighters tackle railway hazmat safety
 	 
[deseretnews.com] 

Thursday, May 5, 2005
 	   	 
By Pat Reavy Deseret Morning News 

In an effort to open better communication between firefighters 
and the rail industry, a hazardous-materials training session was 
held at a Midvale rail yard Wednesday.


Valley firefighters stand on top of a sulfuric acid tank car and
listen as railroad personnel explain the car's safety features
at Utah Railway's yard in Midvale Wednesday.
Jason Olson, Deseret Morning News  

       One of the goals was to familiarize firefighters with the
different types of rail cars and locomotives and what to do in
the event of a leak or wreck.
       The training was scheduled to wrap up today.
       John Stolarczyk, vice president of safety and environment
for Genesee &Wyoming Inc., said the idea for a training session
started when the fire marshall for Midvale stopped by the rail
yard near 7300 South and 600 West to see what chemicals were
stored there.
       Stolarczyk said it turned out the fire marshall was not
aware of the chemicals that were there, and they both decided a
refresher course for firefighters on rail-car safety would be
beneficial.
       On Wednesday, about 50 firefighters from six agencies
throughout Salt Lake County spent more than two hours in the
classroom — followed by another two hours of hands-on training —
to learn everything from the construction of rail cars to the
contents they carry.
       "We want them to understand the technical aspect of a
rail car and what they're dealing with," Stolarczyk said.
       Even if the stenciling on a rail car is unclear or a
train has wrecked and its not possible to read the signs posted
on it, Stolarczyk said firefighters should be able to get an
idea of its contents simply by the car's design.
       "We're learning how the cars are put together, how the
valves are put together . . . " said Midvale Fire Chief Stephen
Higgs. "We're learning what we can do to keep ourselves out of
trouble."
       In March, a 13,500 gallon rail tanker containing a
cocktail of various acids leaked from its tanker while sitting
in a rail yard near 2200 South and 600 West. The leak forced the
evacuation of thousands, and parts of I-15 and I-80 had to be
closed several hours.

      Although that car was in the Midvale yard for 12 hours
before being sent to South Salt Lake, Higgs said the training
was not in response to that incident.
       In addition to the tanker cars, Higgs said the session
included training on diesel locomotives, which also need to be
handled carefully because of the amount of fuel they carry and
electricity they generate.
       Higgs said it was easy for railway workers to recognize
certain problems because they deal with the trains everyday. He
said dealing with hazardous-materials leaks from rail cars was
very rare for firefighters, especially when the amount of
hazardous materials shipped on trains every day was taken into
account.
       There were many more accidents on the freeways involving
hazardous materials than the railways, he said.
       Another 50 firefighters were expected to attend today's
training.
 
E-mail: preavy@desnews.com
	 
	   	 
 © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 36 SABCnews.com: Pelinda nuclear site poses no health threat - expert

South African Broadcasting Corporation Copyright ©
 	   
May 05, 2005, 17:45
 				
Kelvin Kemm, a nuclear expect, has refuted allegations by
non-governmental organisations that dangerous levels of
radio-activity at the Pelindaba nuclear site outside Pretoria
are endangering the lives of nearby residents.
 
Kemm says suggestions by Earthlife Africa that radiation is 200
times higher than acceptable levels are misleading. He says the
radiation is actually 10 times lower than levels required
internationally. Trade unions will meet with the Nuclear Energy
Corporation of South Africa (Necsa) to discuss safety conditions
at Pretoria's Pelindaba nuclear facility tomorrow.
 
Govt denies any danger

 Jaco Kleynhans, a Solidarity spokesperson, says the trade union
is concerned about the possible impact of radio-active matter on
surrounding communities and the environment. The union is
obtaining information about the levels of radiation at the site,
alleged by Earthlife Africa to be 200 times higher than normal.
Government has denied that Pelindaba poses any danger to
residents. 

Meanwhile, Necsa says they have no obligation to provide medical
support to former employees. This comes after a number of
ex-employers have complained of illnesses after years of working
at the Pelindaba plant. Necsa today gave the media a site tour
of their facilities at Pelindaba. Necsa says they have no
obligation to provide medical support for former employees. The
company also said their operations and waste management systems
are completely safe and pose no risks to communities living
around the plant. 

The company also denied using a nearby calibration facility as a
waste dump as alleged by environmental action group, Earthlife
Africa , saying that it was safe to spend an entire year on the
site and see no adverse effects. They say vandals removed
warning signs and locks from the site and that these have now
been replaced. 
				
*****************************************************************
 37 Las Vegas City Life: Plumbing the past
 
Thursday, May 05, 2005        

Descendants of survivors and victims of the Hiroshima and
Nagasaki bombings visit the Atomic Testing Museum

BY MATT O'BRIEN
  
The Atomic Testing Museum, located at 755 E. Flamingo Road.  

While protesting the opening of the Atomic Testing Museum in
late February, Zachary Moon and his Nevada Desert Experience
cohorts were greeted by an unexpected guest. Bill Johnson,
director of the fledgling museum, introduced himself and
welcomed the 50 or so peaceful protesters.

"He said he was glad we were there," recalled Moon, who felt the
negative effects of nuclear weapons weren't fully represented at
the museum. "He felt like this [protesting] was part of the
history and that we had a place here. When he greeted us, it
seemed like a really interesting opportunity. We wanted to see
what we could do about what was and wasn't being presented at
the museum."

About a week after the unlikely encounter, Moon received an
e-mail from a group of anti-nuke activists in Japan. The group
-- which included descendants of survivors and victims of the
1945 Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings -- was traveling to the
United States for a conference, and also wanted to visit the
Nevada Test Site. It was important for them to see the test
site, the e-mail explained, to know its history.

"I immediately thought of the museum," said Moon, program and
development director of the Nevada Desert Experience. The
experience's goal is to stop nuclear weapons testing through
prayer, education, dialogue and nonviolent action. "I thought,
'We can get these folks to go out to the test site and look at a
bunch of desert or we could have them come here [to the museum]
and participate in something interactive, that was about
dialogue, that was about these stories coming together."

Remembering their conversation, Moon called Johnson. After some
concern -- mainly that the museum's vivid portrayal of the
Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings may offend the activists -- the
forum received approval.

Johnson said the potentially sensitive forum was a direct result
of his conversation with Moon. "Because Zach [Moon] and I left
the grand opening with the idea that we wanted to continue our
dialogue. This was a way to continue that dialogue. Our whole
philosophy is that any group that approaches us, we welcome
them. Certainly, this particular group sounded like a very good
welcoming opportunity."

So at 5:30 p.m. on April 27, about 70 Japanese activists -- from
young adults in polka-dot socks and high heels to senior
citizens in dress jackets and high pants -- entered the Desert
Research Institute's Frank H. Rogers Science and Technology
Building, in which the 8,000-square-foot museum is housed.
Following a 45-minute reception, the activists were escorted
through the museum in small groups.

Inside, the activists stared meditatively at black-and-white
photos of mushroom clouds rising above the test site (which
conducted more than 900 nuclear weapons tests between 1951 and
1992). Silently, they watched a film of the Enola Gay cruising
above Hiroshima and releasing the bomb; footage of the
unbelievable destruction rolled, followed by more silence. They
sat nervously in the Ground Zero Theater, which simulates being
in a bunker during an atomic blast.

"The exhibit that described the mechanism of nuclear weapons,
how the weapon works, was interesting," noted Chizumi Watabe.
His father survived the annihilation of Hiroshima, but was
scarred mentally and physically. "It showed how nuclear testing
is carried out, mechanically speaking. But I do believe that
nuclear weapons cannot coexist with people, with human beings. I
do hope that many people will visit this museum and realize they
should work hard to eliminate these weapons so they can survive
and live a safe life."

Though polite, the activists seemed disappointed that the museum
didn't fully explore the negative impacts of nuclear weapons. It
was apparent in their shrugs, blank stares and shared whispers.

Explained Watabe, a resident of Hiroshima, through a translator:
"Nagasaki and Hiroshima, in both cities there are many people
who are still suffering because of the radiation effect. I felt
that the emphasis of the effects of radiation on the human body
is missing. There is no detailed information on the effect of
testing on Nevada's neighboring population."

Indeed, the museum -- which was largely funded by companies that
profited from the test site, including Bechtel and Wackenhut --
is unabashedly pro-nuke and pro-America. The negative effects of
nuclear weapons on the environment and the human population are
largely ignored. And the stunning death toll isn't presented in
clear terms.

Nonetheless, the forum proved productive. The activists
presented Johnson and his staff with posters highlighting the
aftermath of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings, including
shots of rubble and charred bodies. Johnson said the posters
will be stored in the museum's permanent collection (i.e., attic
space) and considered for future exhibits.

The forum finally ended at 8:30 p.m., with a traditional bow
from the activists and ensuing applause. Moon, breathing
heavily, seemed pleased.

"I guess I'm at a stage in my work where I feel that just being
oppositional isn't enough," he explained. "It's not enough to
just hold up a sign and say, 'No more nuclear weapons!' That
doesn't get us to the place where we're actually coming together
as a community and talking to one another. The unique thing
about tonight was this was a global community meeting. We
spanned the Pacific Ocean to come together and have this
conversation. It was a very, very special occasion."

Matt O'Brien is CityLife's news editor. He can be reached at
871-6780 ext. 350 or . 

  Copyright © 2005 Las Vegas City Life   
*****************************************************************
 38 Las Vegas RJ: Nuclear storage issue focuses on use of welded containers
 
Thursday, May 05, 2005
 
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS 

SALT LAKE CITY-- A U.S. Department of Energy official said the
nuclear waste repository proposed for Yucca Mountain would not
accept waste from the temporary storage facility proposed in
western Utah if the waste was in welded containers. 

David Zabransky of the Energy Department's Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, speaking to representatives of the
Western Interstate Energy Board, said federal contract
requirements forbid acceptance of spent nuclear fuel welded into
any type of canister. 

That would include the 44,000 tons of waste that Private Fuel
Storage proposes to transport to Utah and store on the Goshutes'
Skull Valley reservation until it can be moved to Yucca
Mountain, 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

Zabransky said it might be possible to set up a facility at
Yucca Mountain where the Private Fuel Storage canisters, or
canisters from any nuclear utility that stores spent fuel rods
in casks, could be cut open and repackaged. 

But that would be a "burden to the system," he said. 

It also would be possible to renegotiate the contract, he said. 

Dianne Nielson, executive director of the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, said after Zabransky's presentation that
the Energy Department and the NRC, by not dealing with the
contract issue, have abdicated responsibility for Private Fuel
Storage and whether it would indeed be a temporary facility.
 
 

Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 39 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN PROJECT: Judges hear debate on document access
 
Thursday, May 05, 2005
 
Lawyers argue about proper parameters of confidentiality
 By STEVE TETREAULT 
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU 

WASHINGTON -- A trio of administrative law judges took a
skeptical view Wednesday of a request to shield Yucca Mountain
worker complaints during license hearings for the nuclear waste
repository. 

Judges indicated they did not want to go as far as attorneys for
the Department of Energy, who argued that 5,000 documents
generated in the Yucca Mountain employee concerns program
merited broad protections against disclosure. 

The threat of publicity could have a "chilling effect" on
workers who come forward to report problems and would threaten
operations of a program that plays a key role in promoting
safety, said Kelly Faglioni, a lawyer working for the
government. 

Faglioni proposed that the documents be handed over on a "need
to know" basis, with recipients signing protective orders to
forbid public distribution. The protective orders also would
limit how the documents could be discussed publicly during
licensing hearings. 

"These are a special set of files that are above and beyond in
terms of level of confidentiality," said Faglioni, an attorney
with Hunton &Williams firm handling Yucca license issues for
DOE. 

But during a daylong hearing, judges appointed by the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission to resolve early conflicts in repository
licensing said they were hesitant to erect such a high wall. 

Yucca workers are encouraged to report to employee concerns when
they spot technical shortcomings, are having personnel
conflicts, feel they've been wronged or are unsatisfied with how
managers have resolved a problem. 

"It's pretty obvious this is a relevant and important set of
documents, unvarnished concerns about safety and what is going
on out there," Judge Alex Karlin said. 

"In the corporate world and in government, many documents are
labeled and treated as confidential but when you get into the
courtroom they are not confidential, and that's where we are
now," Karlin said. 

Judges Thomas S. Moore and Alan S. Rosenthal echoed similar
concerns. 

"I'm totally off the reservation on this (DOE) proposal," said
Rosenthal, who suggested that he favored releasing documents,
some under protective orders, after redacting names and other
privacy material. 

"Absent a handful of frivolous concerns, the employee concerns
litany would read like a road map to serious health and safety
concerns at Yucca Mountain," said Charles Fitzpatrick, an
attorney for Nevada at the hearing. 

The judges did not issue a ruling, indicating they were open to
hearing further debate on the matter and other points of
disagreement that came up during the day. 

The employee concerns program has been tied to controversy in
recent years. A quality assurance manager, Jim Mattimoe, charged
in 2002 that he was fired after reporting corruption in how
managers handled complaints about project shortcomings. 

DOE officials have said they have worked to rebuild confidence
in the program. 

The three-judge panel is working to set ground rules for how the
Energy Department, the NRC, the state of Nevada and others with
a stake in Yucca Mountain will streamline disputes involving 3.5
million documents during repository licensing. 

Although most of the technical reports, studies and e-mails
collected over more than 20 years are being posted to an
Internet database without dispute, about 140,000 documents are
proposed for limited disclosure because they deal with security
issues, privacy concerns, attorney-client discussions or other
legal privileges. 

Attorneys said access to only a small number of those, perhaps
several thousand, might wind up being challenged and fought out
before the judges. 

Though the privileged documents are a tiny fraction, in some
cases they figure to be coveted for the information they might
shield. 

For instance, attorneys on Wednesday also debated whether a DOE
5,000-page draft license application for Yucca Mountain should
be made available for Nevada's examination. 

Nevada attorneys say the document could provide repository
critics with advance information on repository design changes or
clues as to whether DOE could meet radiation safety standards
being rewritten by the Environmental Protection Agency. 

Lawyers for DOE said the license draft qualifies to be withheld
under a work product privilege.
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 40 Platts: German cabinet changes regulations for nuke waste storage
 
+ The German cabinet on Wednesday changed the regulations on the
salt formation Gorleben in northern Germany so that the location
can be considered as a final nuclear waste storage facility, the
environment ministry said. 

Under Germany's nuclear decommissioning agreement of Jun 14, 
2000, the government obliged itself to keep the salt rock 
protected and unharmed for at least three to a maximum of ten 
years. 

The regulation, which yet needs the agreement of Germany's upper 
house of parliament, forbids the recovery of salt at Gorleben. A 
mining company has been trying to recover salt there for years. 

Germany is to hold a national selection process of where it will 
keep the waste of its nuclear reactors, 18 of which are currently 
in operation.

For now, the majority of German nuclear plants have intermediate 
storage locations for waste on local sites, avoiding transports 
of the waste. 

This story was originally published in Platts European Power 
Alert http://www.europeanpoweralert.platts.com 

Freiburg (Platts)--5May2005
 
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 41 Las Vegas SUN: DOE expects more delays in filing for Yucca license

By Suzanne Struglinski 
<suzanne@lasvegassun.com> 

SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU 

ROCKVILLE, Md. -- The Energy Department may wait longer than six 
months after it finalizes its Yucca Mountain project documents 
to file the license application, a lawyer told a three-judge 
panel Wednesday. 

A longer wait combined with additional delays in finalizing the 
documents could push the opening of the proposed nuclear waste 
repository at Yucca further off schedule. 

The department initially had been aiming to file the license 
application by the end of 2004, but a combination of financial, 
regulatory and other problems kept it from achieving its goal. 

Attorney Michael Shebelskie of law firm Hunton &Williams, which 
represents the Energy Department, told a panel of the Atomic 
Safety Licensing Board that the department plans to finalize its 
documents "this summer" and has "high confidence" it will finish 
before August. 

The three judges who make up the board oversee issues related 
to the database of documents known as the Licensing Support 
Network. 

At a hearing Wednesday, the board examined details regarding 
submission of documents to the network by the Energy Department, 
Nevada and other parties interested in the Yucca Mountain 
project's licensing process. 

Under Nuclear Regulatory Commission rules, the department needs 
to finalize a collection of documents it would put into the 
database at least six months before the commission could begin 
the review of the application. 

Attorney Donald Irwin, also of Hunton &Williams, said it would 
be a minimum of six months, but possibly longer. 

"It's not going to be years, but I can't promise six months," 
Irwin said. "Whether it will be a material amount, I don't know."

Irwin told the board the department is still waiting on matters 
that are out of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's control. The 
Environmental Protection Agency needs set the project's 
radiation standard because in July 2004 a federal court threw 
out one set at 10,000 years. 

Shebelskie said the board's decision as to how the department 
needs to treat certain documents, which was subject of the 
hearing, could also affect when it finalizes the documents. 

If the department would finalize documents later than June 30, 
the commission could not accept the license at the end of this 
year. 

At issue is the treatment of privileged documents, a legal 
label put on certain types of information. 

Nevada and the department disagree on how the department should 
share "employee concern" documents, which outline when employees 
file complaints about certain parts of the project and what can 
be protected under attorney-client privilege, the normal way 
discussions between a lawyer and his or her client can be kept 
secret, among other details. 

The outstanding issues only pertain to about 140,000 documents 
out of the estimated 3.6 million that will go into the database. 

Washington attorney Joe Egan, who represents the state on Yucca 
issues, noted though that the percentage is not as important as 
what those documents contain. Nevada's lawyers expect to find 
useful information in the draft license application and 
documents outlining what concerns employees had over work on the 
Yucca Mountain project to use in the state's fight to stop the 
project. 

But attorney Kelly Faglioni of Hunton &Williams said 
employee-concern documents are privileged because they contain 
personal information and those filing complaints are entitled to 
their privacy. She said releasing them even under a "protective 
order" that would limit who could see the documents, should be 
handled on a case-by-case basis and some information should be 
redacted. 

The department is also trying to protect its draft license 
application under attorney-client privilege, saying that it was 
prepared in advance of upcoming litigation so it does not have 
to share it. 

But Judge Thomas Moore said the draft is not just prepared for 
a hearing, but to get a license from the NRC. He said the 
technical staff may object to the application being compared to 
a complaint filed in a civil case. 

Attorney Charles Fitzpatrick, who also represents Nevada, said 
the draft should be made available because it has been widely 
circulated already throughout the department and the most recent 
draft, finished last year, is not just a preliminary document. 
He said contractor Bechtel SAIC got a bonus for finishing a 
draft license application so it should be considered the closest 
thing to final version right now. 

"That sucker made it all the way to the top," Fitzpatrick said. 

Nevada has also filed Freedom of Information Act requests for 
the draft but has been denied access. 

The judges asked for additional briefs by May 12 on suggestions 
for how to handle the documents. Another hearing will take place 
on May 18. 

All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. 
*****************************************************************
 42 Platts: US DOE revises timeline to submit repository application to NRC
 
+ The US Dept of Energy Wednesday said it could be early 2006 
before it will be able to submit a high-level nuclear waste 
repository license application to the US Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission. 

Attorneys for the DOE waste program told a special NRC licensing 
board that the agency expects to certify in late July or August 
that all repository-related documents are publicly available 
through a web-based databank. 

An application will be submitted a minimum of six months after 
certification, said DOE Attorney Donald Irwin. 

This story was originally published in Platts Electricity Alert 
http://www.electricityalert.platts.com 


Washington (Platts)--4May2005
 
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       

*****************************************************************
 43 Platts: DOE's repository license submittal date not expected before 2006
 
+ It could be early 2006 before DOE sends a repository license
application to NRC, according to projections by attorneys for
the DOE nuclear waste program. During a session today before a
special NRC licensing board, attorney Donald Irwin didn't
dispute the board's projection today that DOE would certify in
late July or August that all repository-relevant documents were
publicly available through a Web-based databank. 

DOE will submit an application to NRC at least six months later, 
Irwin said. But he added that some of the factors that would 
influence the submittal date, such as when a new Environmental 
Protection Agency standard would be available for the nuclear 
waste disposal facility planned for Yucca Mountain, Nev., were 
out of DOE's control. 

DOE announced late last year it could not meet its self-imposed 
December 2004 deadline for sending an application to NRC, but it 
has not yet officially announced a new target date. 

Washington (Platts)--4May2005
 
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]       
*****************************************************************
 44 RGJ: DOE says Yucca might not accept waste from proposed Goshutes’ site
 
[Reno Gazette-Journal]  

May 05, 2005 Reno, Nevada, USA  775-788-6200   

SALT LAKE CITY (AP) — A U.S. Department of Energy official said
the federal waste repository proposed for Yucca Mountain, Nev.,
would not accept waste from the temporary storage facility
proposed in western Utah — not as long as the waste was in
welded containers. 

David Zabransky of the Energy Department’s Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, speaking in Salt Lake City to
representatives of the Western Interstate Energy Board, said
federal contract requirements forbid acceptance of spent nuclear
fuel welded into any type of canister. 

That would include the 44,000 tons of waste that Private Fuel
Storage proposes to transport to Utah and store on the Goshutes’
Skull Valley reservation until it can be moved to Yucca. 

Zabransky said it might be possible to set up a facility at
Yucca where the PFS canisters — or canisters from any nuclear
utility that stores spent fuel rods in casks — could be cut open
and repackaged. 

But that would be a “burden to the system,” he said. 

It also would be possible to renegotiate the contract, he said. 

Dianne Nielson, executive director of the Utah Department of
Environmental Quality, said after Zabransky’s presentation that
the Energy Department and the NRC, by not dealing with the
contract issue, have abdicated responsibility for PFS and
whether it would indeed be a temporary facility. 

“This is not just a PFS issue,” said company spokeswoman Sue
Martin. She said there is “an awful lot of fuel” stored in
containers nationwide because the DOE defaulted on the contract
by not building the depository. 

“The utilities had no choice” but to store the waste, she said.
“The DOE has a legal obligation to take spent fuel.” 


 Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett Co.
Inc.Newspaper.
 Use of this site signifies agreement to our terms of service
*****************************************************************
 45 Boston.com: Superfund site work stalled 

Boston Globe 

The awarding of a state contract to remove more than 3,700 
barrels of depleted uranium at the Starmet Corp. Superfund site 
in West Concord has been delayed until later this month or early 
next month, according to the Department of Environmental 
Protection. 

Contract awaits Army funding
 
By Davis Bushnell, Globe Correspondent  |  May 5, 2005
 
The awarding of a state contract to remove more than 3,700 
barrels of depleted uranium at the Starmet Corp. Superfund site 
in West Concord has been delayed until later this month or early 
next month, according to the Department of Environmental 
Protection.

The delay in selecting one of two contractors that submitted
bids in early March is due to pending negotiations with the US
Army, said Ed Coletta, a department spokesman. ''We need more
money from the Army to fund the contract, and we hope to get
closure on these negotiations" in the next month or so.
 
Coletta said he couldn't reveal how much additional money is
needed or the bids of the two contractors, both of which are
out-of-state firms.
 
As one of five parties cited by the US Environmental Protection
Agency in 2003 for contaminating the 46-acre property off Route
62, the Army has agreed to pick up the tab for getting rid of
the barrels containing low-level radioactive material. Starmet's
predecessor firm, Nuclear Metals Inc., made uranium-tipped
bullets for the Army from 1970 to 1999.
 
Stored in Starmet buildings, the barrels are guarded around the
clock and do not constitute a present danger, environmental
officials say. However, their removal is essential to
determining the extent and cost of the overall cleanup work,
officials acknowledge.
 
''We recognize that we have to get this work done as soon as
possible," Coletta said, adding that it will be a yearlong
project.
 
That's also the sentiment of some Concord residents, who say
they're frustrated by the delay in picking a contractor.
 
While it's encouraging news that the state and the Army are
trying to resolve the funding issue, ''it's still pretty late
for getting [this] work going," said James West, technical
assistance coordinator for the Citizens Research and
Environmental Watch group of Concord. The group has a $50,000
technical-assistance grant from the EPA.
 
''Until the [Starmet] buildings are emptied [of the hazardous
materials], no one will be able to delve into what's in and
underneath those buildings," West said.
 
That job will be tackled by De Maximis Inc., of Weatogue, Conn.,
which is conducting a remedial investigation of the property for
the Army and the other culpable parties, the US Department of
Energy, Whittaker Corp. of Simi Valley, Calif., Textron Inc. of
Providence, and MONY Life Insurance Co. of New York City.
 
Bruce Thompson, project director for De Maximis, said, ''We need
the state to clean out those buildings so that we can inventory
what's left."
 
Meanwhile, his firm, he said, continues to be on schedule in
evaluating air and ground-water data. The first ground-water
investigation, in which 99 monitoring wells were sampled, was
completed last month, Thompson said. Lab analyses of the samples
are expected to be completed by midsummer, he added. ''Then
depending on what's found, there could be a second round of
sampling, most likely in the fall."
 
A final cleanup plan for the site is probably three or four
years away, he said. The property went on the EPA's Superfund
list of the most contaminated land nationwide in June 2001.

*****************************************************************
 46 FOX5: Nevada Asking NRC Panel To Order More Yucca Documents Made Public

Las Vegas - 

  May 4, 2005

LAS VEGAS (AP) -- Nevada wants the federal Energy Department to
release more documents about the Yucca Mountain project. 

The state's arguing before the Atomic Safety Licensing Board
today in Washington that the Energy Department hasn't posted
everything about the project on a document database called the
Licensing Support Network. 

The board's part of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- which
wants records about the repository posted six months before it
begins considering an Energy Department license to open and
operate the repository. 

A ruling for the state might further delay plans for the project
-- 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

Investigations are underway after the revelation in March that
e-mails posted on the database suggest technical data was
falsified on the key question of water seeping through the
mountain. 

(Copyright 2005 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)   

Copyright 2001 - 2005 WorldNow and KVVU. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 47 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Savannah 
 
                         FR Doc 05-8974 
[Federal Register: May 5, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 86)] [Notices] 
[Page 23854] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access 
[wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr05my05-47]                         
 
River AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Savannah River. 
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: Monday, May 23, 2005, 1 p.m.-6 p.m. Tuesday, May 24, 2005, 
8:30 a.m.-4 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: Hyatt Regency Hotel, 2 West Bay Street, Savannah, 
Georgia 31401.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gerri Flemming, Closure Project 
Office, Department of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, 
P.O. Box A, Aiken, SC 29802; Phone: (803) 952-7886.
 
 
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: Monday, May 23, 2005 1 p.m. Combined Committee 
Session 5:30 p.m. Adjourn 5:30 p.m. Executive Committee Meeting 6 
p.m. Adjourn Tuesday, May 24, 2005 8:30 a.m. Approval of Minutes, 
Agency Updates 9 a.m. Public Comment Session 9:10 a.m. Chair and 
Facilitator Update 9:40 a.m. Waste Management Committee 10:50 
a.m. Nuclear Materials Committee Report 11:40 a.m. Public 
Comments 12 p.m. Lunch Break 1 p.m. Facilities Disposition & Site 
Remediation Committee Report 2:30 p.m. Strategic and Legacy 
Management Committee Report 3:50 p.m. Public Comments 4 p.m. 
Adjourn If needed, time will be allotted after public comments 
for items added to the agenda, and administrative details. A 
final agenda will be available at the meeting Monday, May 23, 
2005.
 
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 Gerri Flemming's office 
at the address or telephone listed above. 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 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 through Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes 
will also be available by writing to Gerri Flemming, Department 
of Energy Savannah River Operations Office, PO Box A, Aiken, SC 
29802, or by calling her at (803) 952-7886.
 
Issued at Washington, DC on April 29, 2005.
 
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 05-8974 Filed 5-4-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 48 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Rejects $14M Cost of Lab Shutdown
 
[UP] 

Thursday May 5, 2005 8:31 PM
 	
By ERICA WERNER 
Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - The government is refusing to pay $14 million
of the costs associated with last year's security-related
shutdown at the Los Alamos nuclear weapons laboratory, although
a top official said most of the expenses were reasonable and
praised the lab's efficiency. 

The total cost of the seven-month suspension of work at the New
Mexico lab - which followed reports that two classified computer
disks had disappeared - remains unclear. The lab puts the figure
at $119 million, while the Energy Department's National Nuclear
Security Administration estimates up to $367 million. 

The ``stand-down'' at Los Alamos National Laboratory lasted from
July 2004 into February 2005, though many workers resumed normal
duties after the first month. An investigation concluded that
the disks reported missing had never existed. 

The length of the stand-down was reasonable and ``the vast
majority'' of the costs should be reimbursed, Jerry Paul, NNSA's
principal deputy administrator, said Thursday in written
testimony to the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on
investigations. 

``In fact, I believe that the duration was not only reasonable,
but likely noteworthy for its efficiency,'' Paul said. 

Nonetheless, he said, NNSA has decided to refuse payment to the
lab's manager, the University of California, of $6.3 million in
subcontractor claims and other incremental costs, as well as $8
million in salary costs for lab employees during the first two
days of the stand-down. 

The agency says subcontractor costs weren't adequately explained
and the salary costs weren't allowable. 

University of California spokesman Chris Harrington said the
university is providing additional documentation to bolster its
argument for reimbursement. 

---- 
On the Net: 
Los Alamos: http://www.lanl.gov 	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 49 lamonitor.com: Need more science for radiation compensation 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

A report by the National Academy of Science calls for more
science to help determine who should be eligible for
compensation for illnesses related to exposure from radioactive
fallout from United States nuclear weapons tests. 
The report from the National Research Council came out April 28,
in response to a congressional mandate on how to improve the
Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA), a federal program
passed by Congress in October 1990 and administered by the
Health Resources and Services Administration.

Currently, claimants may be eligible if they were on-site
participants during above-ground weapons tests at various
locations; downwinders, who lived in currently designated areas,
including New Mexico and 11 other western states; and
underground miners within a given geographic and exposure
criteria. 

Certain uranium millers and ore transporters were added to the
list of eligible claimants by amendments passed in July 2000, at
the same time that the "downwind" areas were expanded.

Compensation under the law varies from $100,000 for uranium
miners to $50,000 for eligible downwinders. 
The report recommends new criteria that will potentially expand
eligibility to people outside the designated area and may well
limit claims by some people within those areas.

"To be equitable, any compensation program needs to be based on
scientific criteria and similar cases must be treated alike,"
said the research committee's chair R. Julian Preston in a
prepared statement. 
Preston is also director of Environmental Carcinogenesis
Division of the Environmental Protection Agency.

The committee recommends a new process, based on "probability of
causation," or "assigned share," a method that the researchers
say is now more widely used at law and in other similar federal
programs.

The method uses a probability formula to evaluate whether
radiation exposure is the likely cause of a claimant's cancer.
The intent is to be able to put into practice the principle that
"like cases are treated alike," according to the report's
Executive Summary.

Exposures, the report said, are a factor of radiation exposures
related to other variables, including where people live, the
hours they spent out of doors and the amount of contaminated
milk they consumed.

The report found, in fact, that breathing or swallowing
radioactive iodine originating in contaminated milk was the most
significant pathway of radioactive exposure.

For the miners, millers and transporters, inhalation of
naturally occurring radon while on the job turned out to be the
primary factor of concern.

The most reliable set of data for cancer risk estimates is
derived from information and long-term followup obtained from
studying survivors of the atomic bomb detonations at Hiroshima
and Nagasaki.

From those studies, the researchers found that radiation
generally increases the risks of all cancers.

However, radiation by itself is a relatively weak cause of
cancer, the study found.

The report admitted "substantial gaps in existing data and other
factors," but left to Congress the problem of deciding how best
not to reward low-probability claims but still take into account
the large uncertainties that will remain.

Before that, the researchers recommend that the National Cancer
Institute conduct an assessment to test the likelihood of a
reasonable correlation between any new set of eligibility
criteria and fair compensation to individuals who have similar
risk factors.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************