*****************************************************************
05/06/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.104
*****************************************************************
   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 Xinhua: Iran blames external factors for prolonged nuclear talks   
2 Aljazeera: Iran now ready to accelerate nuclear activities - 
3 IRNA: Japan backs Iran-EU3 talks - 
4 IRNA: Iran says external factors preventing conclusion of nuclear ta
5 [NYTr] US Claims N. Korea May be Preparing Nuke Test
6 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Seoul cautious on report North prepares for
7 BBC: N Korea activity puzzles analysts
8 AU ABC: Vague intelligence ups N Korea nuclear test speculation.
9 US: [southnews] McNamara - Apocalypse Soon
10 US: the Times: Bilirakis: You judge free trips to Vegas
11 US: Arms Control Association: U.S. Weighing Nuclear Stockpile Change
12 [NYTr] Selective Adherence to NPT Condemned at UN
13 Mail & Guardian: Don't panic!  
14 Zenit News Agency: The World Seen From Rome (Nuclear Disarmament)
15 IRNA: Kharrazi, Annan hold talks on Iran-EU trio nuclear talks
16 Las Vegas SUN: Egypt Bogs Down U.N. Nuclear Conference
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
17 US: TOP 25 REASONS TO KEEP SAN ONOFRE OPEN -- ANSWERED (May 6th,
18 IPS-English UKRAINE: Another SOS From Chernobyl Victims, 19
19 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Comanche Pea
20 The State: SCANA warms to nuclear energy
21 ArabicNews.Com: Nuclear energy becoming a must to Morocco
22 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Grand Gulf N
23 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Fort Calhoun
24 US: NRC: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impa
25 US: NRC: Notice of Availability of Model Application Concerning Tech
26 IPS: ENERGY: Japan's Nuclear Dream Could Be World's Nightmare
27 US: KTUU: Alaska News: In need of power, Galena may go nuclear | 
28 US: Newsday.com: Indian Point 3 shuts down automatically
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
29 FOCUS: "Nuclear Earth Penetrators"
30 Guardian UnlimitedU.N. Nuclear Chief Foresees Curbs on Fuel
31 Guardian Unlimited: Spy photos spot signs of N Korea nuclear test si
32 Mos News: U.S. Charges Former Russian Nuclear Boss Adamov With Diver
33 US: Arms Control Association: Replacement Nuclear Warheads? Buyer Be
34 US: Mos News: U.S. Report Says Russian Nuclear Weapons Not Secure Fr
35 Yemen Observer: Environment - Yemen to study improvement of radioact
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
36 US: [FOODIRRADIATIONCA] Model School Wellness Policy
37 US: Bradenton Herald: Beryllium tests yield conflicting results
38 US: Vermont Guardian Following the fallout: Vermont health impacts o
39 AU ABC: Guam residents may be compensated for US nuclear testing
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
40 US: Rocky Mountain News: - Not-so-natural gas? Texas firm seeks OK t
41 US: Brattleboro Reformer: State, VY near deal on dry cask storage
42 Nevada Appeal:  Money committees hold first meeting to resolve budge
43 US: Bradenton Herald: Pollution fouls road expansion project
44 Las Vegas RJ: NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE: Trade group says Yucca still
45 US: BBC: Australia miner pleads guilty
46 Las Vegas SUN: Lawmakers slash Yucca fight funds
47 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Cruel with a capital 'C'
48 Las Vegas SUN: Nuke industry says falsified data should not kill Yuc
49 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Nuclear dump proponents use politics, deceit
50 US: Herald-Tribune: 'Tallevast' bill just the beginning, Galvano say
51 US: heraldtribune.com: Tallevast Road work delayed over pollution
52 US: AU ABC: ERA pleads guilty over Ranger contamination. 
53 US: AU ABC: ERA apologises for uranium leak. 
54 Business Day: Nuclear waste falls between cracks in absence of polic
 
                           PEACE
 
55 US: Salt Lake Tribune: U.S. should acknowledge treaty cuts both ways
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
56 Guardian Unlimited: Idaho Nuclear Lab Can't Explain Lost Items
57 Guardian Unlimited: Los Alamos National Lab Director to Quit
58 ABQjournal: Rep.: Why Not Close LANL? 
59 ABQJOURNAL: Reaction mixed to Los Alamos lab director's resignation
60 lamonitor.com: Kuckuck named director 
61 lamonitor.com: Domenici blasts LANL remarks 
62 lamonitor.com: LANL's Emergency Operations Office has new website 
63 PRN: NuStart Signs DOE Agreement in Support of Advanced Nuclear
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 Xinhua: Iran blames external factors for prolonged nuclear talks   

  www.xinhuanet.com
    
  www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-06 20:02:53   

    TEHRAN, May 6 (Xinhuanet) -- A top Iranian nuclear
negotiator has blamed "external factors" for its prolonged
nuclear talks with Europe, the official IRNA news agency
reported Friday.

    "The negotiations have become prolonged because of external
factors which can not be controlled," Sirous Nasseri, head of
Iran's nuclear negotiating team, was quoted as saying on
Thursday.

    "Even though the final solution is close to us, it is not
clear whether it will be available to Iran and the European trio
(of Britain, France and Germany) six months later," Nasseri said.

    Iran and the European Union (EU) have been engaged in
nuclear talks since last December after Iran suspended uranium
enrichment.

    The EU demands Tehran completely and permanently halt
enrichment in return for economic and technical incentives,
which was rejected by Tehran.

    Iran, claiming its enrichment for peaceful use, insists it
own the right for nuclear technology.

    Dismissing the EU's proposal of delaying the talks until
Iran's presidential elections in June, Nasseri said the EU's
waiting for results of the presidential polls "had no
justification for Iran."

    "We have clearly and resolutely told them that the issue of
Iran's nuclear energy program is not something which will
concern only the current or the next administration of the
country and will rather concern all of the Iranian nation,"
Nasseri said.

    However, the negotiator hailed Europe's role in the nuclear
issue, saying the Europeans were currently acting as "a barrier
that prevents a serious tension between Iran and the United
States over Iran's nuclear program."

    "The Europeans try to clam the situation so that they can
arrive at an acceptable compromise with Iran over the issue.
From our point of view, that agreement is now on the table,"
said Nasseri.

    The United States accuses Iran of developing nuclear weapons
covertly, a charge denied by Tehran. Enditem   

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 2 Aljazeera: Iran now ready to accelerate nuclear activities - 

Aljazeera.com      

  5/6/2005 7:23:00 PM GMT   
  
The Islamic republic's first nuclear reactor in the Gulf port of
Bushehr

According to Iranian chief negotiator, Syrus Nasseri, Tehran is
ready to accelerate its nuclear activities if no deal was
reached quickly with the European Union over the future of its
“peaceful” nuclear programme. 

“A long-term suspension or an end (to uranium enrichment) is
stupid, bad and irrational,” ISNA news agency quoted Nasseri as
saying. 

Last November, Iran agreed to temporarily suspend all activities
related to Uranium enrichment as a good will measure. But said
it will resume the process if no agreement was reached with the
European Union big states: Britain, France and Germany. 

Nasseri added that if the EU used “threats, the response in
terms of threats is perfectly ready”, said. 

“If we see that an agreement with the European three is not
possible, we will accelerate our (nuclear) activities.” 

The EU wants Iran to abandon all activities related to nuclear
enrichment in return of a package of political and economic
incentives. 

“If the Europeans don’t do anything, we will go to the next
stage in little time,” he said, referring to the country’s plan
to resume enrichment activities at its Ispahan plant. 

“We won’t be the first to make threats,” he said. “There is a
solution on the table and we are ready to resolve the problem
... but we do not have much time to give to the Europeans.” 

Iran has presented a proposal that would allow it build up in
phases from enrichment with 3,000 centrifuges, to an industrial
level of enrichment with 54,000 centrifuges. 

But in London’s meeting last week, the EU diplomats refused to
accept a written timetable from the Iranians for the first phase
of their enrichment project. 

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said earlier that
Washington's giving the EU-Iran talks until the end of this
summer before considering referring the Islamic republic’s
nuclear case to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions. 

Also Friday, Nasseri blamed "external factors" for Iran’s
prolonged nuclear talks with Europe, according to IRNA news
agency. 

"The negotiations have become prolonged because of external
factors which can not be controlled," Nasseri was quoted as
saying. 

"Even though the final solution is close to us, it is not clear
whether it will be available to Iran and the European trio (of
Britain, France and Germany) six months later," he added. 

"We have clearly and resolutely told them that the issue of
Iran's nuclear energy program is not something which will
concern only the current or the next administration of the
country and will rather concern all of the Iranian nation,"
Nasseri said. 

"The Europeans try to clam the situation so that they can arrive
at an acceptable compromise with Iran over the issue. From our
point of view, that agreement is now on the table," said
Nasseri. 

Aljazeera.com 
*****************************************************************
 3 IRNA: Japan backs Iran-EU3 talks - 
 
Tokyo, May 6, IRNA                                                                                                               

Iran-Nuclear-Japan 

Deputy spokesman of Japan's Foreign Ministry Akira Chiba said
here Friday that his country supports Iran-EU3 talks aimed at
solving complications in country's nuclear dossier.

 Speaking to IRNA, he added that although little progress has
been achieved in ongoing talks due to the gap between Iran and
EU's viewpoints regarding the conditions proposed by the two
sides, Japan's approach towards the issue remains unchanged.

 focussing on Japan's attitude toward the possibility of
referring the case to the UN Security Council he said that such
an option is not taken into view by his country.

 "Japan is not against Iran's access to peaceful nuclear
technology, but it considers as rational the demand for reliable
guarantee by Iran that its nuclear activities would be merely
intended towards peaceful intentions," Said the Japanese deputy
FM spokesman "Given the mutual favorable relations, Japan hopes
that a proper solution will soon be found," he added.

 Meanwhile, Chiba assured that Japan would support Iran's bid
for membership at World Trade Organization (WTO), if it meets
the required WTO's pre-qualifications for membership.

 "Japan's support for the US attack on Iraq took place under
special conditions having to do with the UN Security Council
regulations," added the Japanese official.

 During the 14th Japan-EU meeting held in Luxembourg last
Monday, the two sides have declared full support for the efforts
made aimed at reaching an agreement on long-term arrangements on
Iran's nuclear issue.

 Meanwhile, acceptance of Iran's request for WTO membership was
considered by the participants at the meeting as a significant
step towards achieving a result at Iran-EU talks.

 2326/2329/1432
*****************************************************************
 4 IRNA: Iran says external factors preventing conclusion of nuclear talks - 

May 6, IRNA                                                                                                            

Iran said Thursday it was close to a final solution to conclude
the case with Europe over its nuclear energy programs,
stressing, however, that external factors are delaying the issue
to be terminated.

 Sirous Nasseri, the head of Iran's nuclear negotiating team
with the European three of France, Germany and Britain, told a
news conference that the fact the negotiations have become
prolonged is because of external factors which cannot be
controlled.

 "Even though the final solution is close to us, it is not clear
whether it will be available to Iran and the EU trio six months
later," he said.

 Nasseri said Iran and the EU-3 have been able to set the stage
for a long-term compromise over Iran's nuclear energy plans,
stressing that this was a primary objective of the Paris deal.

 He added that the EU side has repeatedly told the Iranian
delegation that they are waiting for the results of Iran's
upcoming presidential polls.

 This, he stressed, has no justification for us.

 "We have clearly and resolutely told them that the issue of
Iran's nuclear energy program is not something which will
concern only the current or the next administration [in the
country] and will rather concern all the Iranian nation and the
future generations," Nasseri said.

 The Iranian negotiator said the Europeans are currently acting
as a barrier that prevent a serious tension between Iran and the
US over the nuclear energy activities of the Islamic Republic,
and that they try to clam the situation so that they can arrive
at an acceptable compromise with Iran over the issue.

 Nasseri said the Americans want to take up a bullying approach
toward Iran over its nuclear energy plans, stressing that the US
and Europe seem to be arriving at a solution which would be
acceptable to Iran, as well.

 "Our people have always wanted two things from us. Firstly,
they do not want Iran to withdraw from its positions in the
talks because they consider the issue as important, and
secondly, they want the talks to proceed on a peaceful
procedure," he said.

 Also, Manouchehr Mottaki, a member of Majlis National Security
and Foreign Policy Commission, told the conference that Iran has
been able to raise "logical and sound" positions in the nuclear
talks with the European countries.

 Mottaki said the Europeans have always been against Iran's
nuclear fuel cycle work, stressing that they have failed to
provide logical and legal justification for this position.

 He said Iran has been able to prove to the world over the past
two years that its nuclear plans are civilian, and that this has
already been testified by the reports of relevant world bodies
that Iran's nuclear plans indicate no irregularities.

 Still, the Majlis deputy said, we will never back up from this
national demand (peaceful nuclear technology).

 Mottaki said the negative aspect of Iran's nuclear talks with
EU trio is the fact that opportunities are being wasted.

 "One of the dangers of this wasting of the opportunities is the
international conditions and we can never have any guarantees
from the other side of the talks that they will not have
resolutions approved at the Security Council or the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) which will not be
acceptable to us," he said.

 Commenting on the remarks by EU Foreign Policy chief Javier
Solana about Iran's starting uranium enrichment activities,
Mottaki said Iran does not necessarily consider the starting of
uranium enrichment activities as tantamount to the cancellation
of the [Paris] deal.

 The MP's remarks on this issue were complemented by Nasseri who
said: "Iran's interpretation is that Paris negotiations had a
goal and it was an intermediary agreement that both sides
negotiate with each other in a calm and tension-free environment
until they arrive at an agreement which will be acceptable by
both sides."
 "From our point of view, that agreement is now on the table,"
the head of Iran's negotiating team said.

 Nasseri further said compromise is the basis of Iran's talks
with Europe, stressing, however, that it would be illogical if
France, Germany and Britain merely call on Iran to just continue
the talks.
*****************************************************************
 5 [NYTr] US Claims N. Korea May be Preparing Nuke Test
 
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 14:51:30 -0500 (CDT)

 
Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 

[More worthless WMD propaganda from the USA, dutifully reported by
The New York Times as if there were some credibility to the US
accusations.  Satellite photos allegedly show "rapid, extensive 
preparations for a nuclear weapons test..."]

The New York Times - May 6, 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/06/international/asia/06korea.html

U.S. Cites Signs of Korean Preparations for Nuclear Test

By DAVID E. SANGER and WILLIAM J. BROAD

WASHINGTON, May 5 - White House and Pentagon officials are closely 
monitoring a recent stream of satellite photographs of North Korea that 
appear to show rapid, extensive preparations for a nuclear weapons test, 
including the construction of a reviewing stand, presumably for 
dignitaries, according to American and foreign officials who have been 
briefed on the imagery.

North Korea has never tested a nuclear weapon.

Bush administration officials, when asked Thursday about the burst of 
activity at a suspected test site in the northeastern part of the 
country, cautioned that satellites could not divine the intentions of 
Kim Jong Il, North Korea's leader, and said it was possible that he was 
putting on a show for American spy satellites. They said the North 
Koreans might be trying to put pressure on President Bush to offer a 
improved package of economic and diplomatic incentives to the 
desperately poor country in exchange for curtailing its nuclear activities.

"The North Koreans have learned how to use irrationality as a bargaining 
tool," a senior American official said Thursday evening. "We can't tell 
what they are doing."

Nonetheless, American officials have been sufficiently alarmed that they 
have extensively briefed their Japanese and South Korean allies and 
warned them to be prepared for the political implications of a test.

On Thursday morning, Mr. Bush spoke at length about North Korea with 
President Hu Jintao of China, who has been his main interlocutor to Mr. 
Kim's government. The White House refused to say whether the two men had 
discussed the new evidence, focusing instead on what officials said was 
Mr. Bush's determination to get North Korea back to the negotiating 
table in six-nation talks.

American intelligence agencies have debated for years over the extent of 
North Korea's technical abilities, and whether it has successfully 
turned its stockpile of nuclear fuel into warheads. That debate has 
become particularly fevered since Feb. 10, when the North publicly 
boasted that it had manufactured weapons.

The accounts of North Korea's activities have come from three American 
officials who have reviewed either the imagery or the intelligence 
reports interpreting them. They were confirmed by two foreign officials 
who have been briefed by the Americans, but who cautioned that their 
countries had no independent way of interpreting the data.

Officials at one American intelligence agency said they were unaware of 
the new activity.

Since October, American officials have periodically seen activity 
suggesting preparations for a nuclear test, chiefly at the site in the 
northeast part of the country, near an area variously called Kilchu or 
Kilju. But in recent weeks, that activity appears to have accelerated.

Several officials said they had never before seen Korean preparations as 
advanced as those detected in recent days, including the digging of a 
tunnel. That tunnel resembles the one used in Pakistan for nuclear tests 
in 1998.

One of the creators of Pakistan's program, Abdul Qadeer Khan, traveled 
to North Korea repeatedly and has admitted to Pakistani interrogators 
that he supplied nuclear technology to the North, American intelligence 
officials said.

But officials said Thursday that they had not seen any evidence that 
North Korea was getting outside help with its current activity. "What 
we're seeing is everything you need to test," said a senior intelligence 
official who has reviewed the evidence. "We've never seen this level of 
activity."

Asked if the intelligence agencies, which have often been sharply 
divided about North Korea's nuclear abilities, had differences of 
opinion about the satellite photographs, the official said: " This looks 
like the real thing. There is wide agreement in the community."

But another American intelligence expert noted that so far, intelligence 
agencies had not seen the telltale signs of electronic equipment that is 
often used to monitor the size and success of a test, leading to "some 
debate about whether this is the real deal."

The intelligence official who reviewed the imagery, and others familiar 
with the evidence, said it was entirely possible that the activity was 
an elaborate ruse by Mr. Kim, to strengthen his bargaining position with 
the five other nations in the talks that he has boycotted: the United 
States, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea.

Mr. Kim is considered skilled at the art of escalating a crisis, and a 
senior diplomat said Thursday that the United States had not raised a 
public alarm "because we don't want to play his game."

In late 2002 and early 2003, North Korea threw out international 
inspectors and said it was preparing to reprocess 8,000 spent nuclear 
fuel rods into bomb fuel, the C.I.A. and other intelligence agencies 
have told Congress. In recent months, they have said that they believe 
all 8,000 rods were turned into bomb fuel.

The head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, Vice Adm. Lowell E. Jacoby, 
went further last week, telling the Senate Armed Services Committee that 
North Korea was believed to have the "capability" to mount a warhead on 
one of its long-range missiles.

Particular interest and concern was aroused in the White House by the 
construction of the reviewing stand, which appears luxurious by North 
Korean standards, several miles from the suspected test site.

An American official who confirmed that the images showed the reviewing 
stand recalled that in 1998, after Western intelligence was surprised by 
a North Korean missile launching, analysts went back over satellite 
imagery and other data to see if they had missed anything.

"What was interesting is they had built a reviewing stand for that 
launch, but that wasn't noticed," he said. "They had visitors from other 
countries in. We had seen movement, but we didn't know what for. The 
idea was that they invited other people to watch this other thing."

While satellite imagery is often hard to interpret, nuclear arms experts 
say it is easy to distinguish tunneling for a nuclear test site from, 
say, a mine. While both require the removal of vast quantities of rock, 
only a test site puts the rock and other sealing materials back into the 
hole after the weapon is installed deeply inside. The goal is to create 
a impenetrable barrier that keeps the powerful blast and radioactivity 
locked up tight inside the earth.

In this case, a senior intelligence official who specializes in nuclear 
analysis and has seen the images said, "you see them stemming the 
tunnel, taking material back into the mine to plug it up."

"There's grout and concrete that goes into the hole, and normally you 
don't see that in a mine. A mine you want as open as possible."

"There's a lot of activity," he added, "taking stuff in as opposed to 
taking it out."

He described the site as isolated and rugged, with enough of a mountain 
extending above the hole to contain a weapon equal in force to the bomb 
that destroyed Hiroshima.

Beyond the technical debate over North Korea's nuclear abilities and 
what kind of help it got from Dr. Khan's network and other suppliers 
over the years, the United States government has also debated whether 
Mr. Kim would determine a test to be in his interest.

Many in the intelligence agencies, along with outside experts, long 
assumed that Mr. Kim benefited by keeping the world guessing. The 
absence of a test proving North Korea's weapons ability has allowed 
China, North Korea's major supplier of food and fuel, to argue that the 
country may simply be boasting, that there was still time to work out 
the problem, and that sanctions or quarantines of the country would only 
drive it into a corner.

But that thinking has begun to shift. A senior European diplomat deeply 
involved in the issue said this week that he suspected that North Korea 
was "now pursuing the Pakistani model."

Pakistan and India were both condemned and subjected to economic 
sanctions after their 1998 tests. But all of those were lifted after the 
United States determined it needed Pakistan's help immediately after the 
Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

"The North Koreans may be thinking that in two or three years, it too 
may be regarded as just another nuclear power, outside of the 
Nonproliferation Treaty, the way we now view Pakistan and India and 
Israel," the official said.

[Thom Shanker contributed reporting for this article.]

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 6 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Seoul cautious on report North prepares for
test 

May 07, 2005 ¤Ñ KYOTO, Japan ¡ª Responding to a published 
report in the United States that North Korea appears to be 
preparing for a nuclear weapon test, South Korean officials 
yesterday acknowledged that unusual construction work was being 
done in the North but refused to link the activity with a 
possible test. 

Quoting U.S. and foreign officials, The New York Times reported 
yesterday that the White House and Pentagon officials are 
closely monitoring a series of recent satellite photographs of 
North Korea that seemed to indicate Pyongyang may be building a 
nuclear arms testing site. The report said American officials 
were paying particular attention to Kilju in the northeastern 
part of the country. 

Kilju is a town located in the mountainous area of North 
Hamkyong province near the coast. 
Seoul officials reacted with extreme caution to the report. 

"The South Korean government has been aware since the late 
1990s that a tunnel was being dug in the area," a senior Roh 
administration official said. "We have been closely monitoring 
the work, but there has been no sign indicating preparations for 
a nuclear arms test." 

A Foreign Ministry official also said there were no unusual 
developments. "Seoul and Washington have been closely sharing 
information including this case," he said. 

A military intelligence official expressed skepticism about 
analyses that Pyongyang would soon conduct an underground 
nuclear test. 

"For Kumchang-ri, North Pyeongyang province, it was easy to 
build underground military facilities because the area was 
scarcely populated," he said. "But a significant number of 
residents live in Kilju, and that puts a lot of limitations on 
building a nuclear facility there." 

After raising suspicion that North Korea had built a secret 
underground nuclear facility in Kumchang-ri, U.S. inspectors 
visited the site in 1999 and found it empty. The purpose of the 
facility is unknown. 
Another intelligence official in Seoul said North Korea is aware 
of the vulnerability of the Kilju location. "Pyongyang knows 
well that a nuclear facility close to the east coast is open to 
air strikes," he said. 
Meeting with journalists, Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung 
responded carefully, saying no one can make an accurate 
prediction about the possibility of a North Korean nuclear test. 

by Park Shing-hong, Ser Myo-ja myoja@joongang.co.kr> 

Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | 
*****************************************************************
 7 BBC: N Korea activity puzzles analysts
 
Last Updated: Friday, 6 May, 2005
 
By Adam Brookes BBC Pentagon correspondent   

Recent images taken by US spy satellites reportedly show activity 
at a suspected North Korean test site at Gilju, in the north-east 
of the country. 

[South Korean demonstration against North's nuclear programme]                              
Analysts see Kim Jung Il as having a keen ability to escalate 
tension in increments                                                               

The images show excavation and some construction which, according 
to a US defence official, could be preparations for an 
underground nuclear test. 

But the official also warned that the US intelligence community 
had not concluded that a nuclear test was imminent. 

"It's tough to say. They could be [preparations], they could not 
be. And there's disagreement within the community over the 
significance of this," he said. 

He also warned that the activities could be deliberately staged 
by the North Koreans "as a ruse". 

The North Koreans have "significant information operations", he 
said. 

His implication was that the North Koreans could have staged the 
excavation to simulate preparations for a test purely for the 
benefit of spy satellites. 

Nuclear 'assumption' 

The logics behind such a move are difficult to fathom. 

But by encouraging the perception that a test is imminent, North 
Korean leader Kim Jong-il may calculate that he increases 
tension, and thus his leverage with the international community. 

A strong adverse response China - a supplier of grain, fuel and a 
measure of diplomatic succour - could prove terminal to Kim 
Jong-il's regime. BBC's Adam Brookes      
	 

If North Korea does conduct an underground test, the world will 
know immediately. 

The reverberations from the test will be picked up by seismic 
measuring stations in the region. Intelligence agencies will 
detect chemical and radiological emissions through ship and 
airborne sensors. 

Analysts with links to US intelligence say it is still not known 
for sure whether North Korea has the ability to set off a nuclear 
explosion - simply because they never have. 

But it is virtually certain, they say, that North Korea has 
produced plutonium through the reprocessing of spent fuel rods at 
its Yongbyon reactor complex. 

And that has led to a working assumption in US intelligence that 
the North Koreans have produced a nuclear weapon. 

'Policy rethink' 

However, in South Korea, China and Russia, say the analysts, 
there is great scepticism that North Korea has a working bomb. 

[Satellite image of North Korea's Yongbyon Nuclear Centre - 
archive picture] There are fears North Korea may be about to test 
a nuclear bomb                                                                 

In and of itself, an underground nuclear test would not confirm 
that North Korea has a deployable nuclear weapon - much less one 
that is miniaturised, configured to fit atop a missile, and 
programmed to explode when and where it is intended to. 

"[Kim Jong-il] might be able to detonate a wad of plutonium to 
create a nuclear reaction, but that is a long way from a bomb you 
can put on a [missile] and visit on Los Angeles," said one 
analyst. 

Nonetheless, a nuclear test by North Korea would have profound 
political implications. 

"It would encourage a major policy rethink in the US," said the 
analyst. "And China will have absolutely no sense of humour." 

The response from the rest of the world is also likely to be 
robust. 

It could include referral to the United Nations Security Council 
for sanction, as well as unilateral action by the United States. 

Certainly it would destroy hopes of a diplomatic settlement of 
the international row over North Korea's nuclear programme. 

And it would eliminate any possibility of North Korea acquiring 
the food and energy it seeks. 

Provocation 

A strong adverse response by China - a supplier of grain, fuel 
and a measure of diplomatic succour - could prove terminal to Kim 
Jong-il's regime. 

[Kim Jong-il] slices the sala very thin indeed US intelligence 
analyst         

Such uncertainty would seem to militate against the possibility 
an early nuclear test. But Mr Kim is nothing if not 
counterintuitive in the way he proceeds. 

And nobody in Washington is ruling out the possibility that he 
plans to test. 

Yet analysts here see Kim Jong-il as possessing a keen ability to 
escalate tension by small increments when it suits him to do so, 
always stopping short of provoking a concerted international 
response. 

"He slices the salami very thin indeed," said one. 

The claim by the North two months ago that it does indeed possess 
nuclear weapons was just such an escalation. So was the recent 
missile test. 

Perhaps the activity at Gilju is, too. 

		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 8 AU ABC: Vague intelligence ups N Korea nuclear test speculation.
                   
07/05/2005. ABC News Online
 	
"Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online">   

Suggestions that North Korea may be planning to test a nuclear
weapon, though there is no firm evidence, has prompted the
United Nations atomic watchdog to ask world leaders to urgently
pressure the reclusive state to desist. 

A US Defence official in Washington said US spy satellites
images had shown what may be preparations for an underground
nuclear test, although he warned that this also might be an
elaborate ruse by the North Koreans. 

The images showed a vast hole being dug at a possible test site
at Kilju in north-eastern North Korea, and then the hole being
filled in, as might be done for an underground test, said the US
official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. 

The US official said the images did not show the North Koreans
placing a nuclear device underground, but it was possible US
satellites were out of position when such an event took place or
that a device was, in fact, not put in place, the official said. 

"You don't know what you don't see because they are a closed
society. So you see holes. You see them putting dirt back over
the holes. But did anybody see anything (a bomb) go in it? Why
didn't we see it?" the official said. 

The satellites also detected viewing stands set up some distance
from the hole, possibly for North Korean government officials to
watch any nuclear test, the official said. 

The head of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed
ElBaradei, said the situation was urgent and called on all
leaders in contact with Pyongyang to use their influence to stop
the reclusive state from detonating a nuclear bomb. 

"I hope every leader who has contact with North Korea is on the
phone today with North Korean authorities to dissuade (them)
from a test," Dr ElBaradei told reporters on the sidelines of a
UN-sponsored conference on nuclear disarmament. 

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, flying with US President
George W Bush to Latvia, declined to discuss the intelligence
reports of a possible test. 

"If North Korea did take such a step, that would just be another
provocative act that would further isolate it from the
international community," he said.

Disastrous repercussions

Asked what the effect of a North Korean nuclear test would be,
Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters: "There will be disastrous
political repercussions in Asia and the rest of the world. I
think there could be major environmental fallout, which could
lead (to) dissemination of radioactivity in the region." 

Dr ElBaradei told North Korea to return to the negotiating
table. 

"I think it will just get things from bad to worse. I'm not sure
North Korea will gain anything by continuing ... to escalate the
situation, by continuing to pursue nuclear blackmail," he said. 

Six-party talks involving the United States, North and South
Korea, China, Japan and Russia on Pyongyang's nuclear program
have been stalled for almost a year, and recent efforts to
restart them have shown little progress. 

After kicking out UN inspectors at the end of 2002, North Korea
became the first signatory of the nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty to withdraw from the 35-year-old bedrock pact for
stemming the spread of nuclear arms. 

Pyongyang announced in February that it had nuclear arms. 

Violations of the Non-Proliferation Treaty by North Korea and
Iran, which Washington accuses of pursuing atomic weapons under
cover of a civilian energy program, have dominated a conference
taking stock of the 1970 treaty. Tehran denies wanting arms. 

The NPT review conference, which runs until May 27, has been
unable to approve an agenda, with the treaty's 188 signatories
bickering with each other over whether and how to repair
loopholes in the pact. 

The United States and France are clashing with Egypt in an
attempt to block any official language at the conference that
could lead to a call for the five weapon states to scrap their
arsenals as called for in the pact, diplomats said. 

The declared weapons states are the United States, France,
Britain, Russia and China. Pakistan and India have tested
nuclear devices and Israel is assumed to have the bomb but none
have signed the NPT. 

-Reuters 

&copy; 2005 ABC| Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
 9 [southnews] McNamara - Apocalypse Soon
 
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 10:32:35 -0500 (CDT)

 
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> 
In low income neighborhoods, 84% do not own computers.
At Network for Good, help bridge the Digital Divide!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/HO7EnA/3MnJAA/E2hLAA/7gSolB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~-> 

Robert McNamara is worried. He knows how close we've come. His counsel 
helped the Kennedy administration avert nuclear catastrophe during the 
Cuban Missile Crisis. Today, he believes the United States must no 
longer rely on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. To do so is 
immoral, illegal, and dreadfully dangerous.

Apocalypse Soon

By Robert S. McNamara

May/June 2005
http://www.foreignpolicy.com

It is time-well past time, in my view-for the United States to cease its 
Cold War-style reliance on nuclear weapons as a foreign-policy tool. At 
the risk of appearing simplistic and provocative, I would characterize 
current U.S. nuclear weapons policy as immoral, illegal, militarily 
unnecessary, and dreadfully dangerous. The risk of an accidental or 
inadvertent nuclear launch is unacceptably high. Far from reducing these 
risks, the Bush administration has signaled that it is committed to 
keeping the U.S. nuclear arsenal as a mainstay of its military power-a 
commitment that is simultaneously eroding the international norms that 
have limited the spread of nuclear weapons and fissile materials for 50 
years. Much of the current U.S. nuclear policy has been in place since 
before I was secretary of defense, and it has only grown more dangerous 
and diplomatically destructive in the intervening years.

Today, the United States has deployed approximately 4,500 strategic, 
offensive nuclear warheads. Russia has roughly 3,800. The strategic 
forces of Britain, France, and China are considerably smaller, with 
200-400 nuclear weapons in each state's arsenal. The new nuclear states 
of Pakistan and India have fewer than 100 weapons each. North Korea now 
claims to have developed nuclear weapons, and U.S. intelligence agencies 
estimate that Pyongyang has enough fissile material for 2-8 bombs.

How destructive are these weapons? The average U.S. warhead has a 
destructive power 20 times that of the Hiroshima bomb. Of the 8,000 
active or operational U.S. warheads, 2,000 are on hair-trigger alert, 
ready to be launched on 15 minutes' warning. How are these weapons to be 
used? The United States has never endorsed the policy of "no first use," 
not during my seven years as secretary or since. We have been and remain 
prepared to initiate the use of nuclear weapons-by the decision of one 
person, the president-against either a nuclear or nonnuclear enemy 
whenever we believe it is in our interest to do so. For decades, U.S. 
nuclear forces have been sufficiently strong to absorb a first strike 
and then inflict "unacceptable" damage on an opponent. This has been and 
(so long as we face a nuclear-armed, potential adversary) must continue 
to be the foundation of our nuclear deterrent.

In my time as secretary of defense, the commander of the U.S. Strategic 
Air Command (SAC) carried with him a secure telephone, no matter where 
he went, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. The 
telephone of the commander, whose headquarters were in Omaha, Nebraska, 
was linked to the underground command post of the North American Defense 
Command, deep inside Cheyenne Mountain, in Colorado, and to the U.S. 
president, wherever he happened to be. The president always had at hand 
nuclear release codes in the so-called football, a briefcase carried for 
the president at all times by a U.S. military officer.

The SAC commander's orders were to answer the telephone by no later than 
the end of the third ring. If it rang, and he was informed that a 
nuclear attack of enemy ballistic missiles appeared to be under way, he 
was allowed 2 to 3 minutes to decide whether the warning was valid (over 
the years, the United States has received many false warnings), and if 
so, how the United States should respond. He was then given 
approximately 10 minutes to determine what to recommend, to locate and 
advise the president, permit the president to discuss the situation with 
two or three close advisors (presumably the secretary of defense and the 
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), and to receive the president's 
decision and pass it immediately, along with the codes, to the launch 
sites. The president essentially had two options: He could decide to 
ride out the attack and defer until later any decision to launch a 
retaliatory strike. Or, he could order an immediate retaliatory strike, 
from a menu of options, thereby launching U.S. weapons that were 
targeted on the opponent's military-industrial assets. Our opponents in 
Moscow presumably had and have similar arrangements.

The whole situation seems so bizarre as to be beyond belief. On any 
given day, as we go about our business, the president is prepared to 
make a decision within 20 minutes that could launch one of the most 
devastating weapons in the world. To declare war requires an act of 
congress, but to launch a nuclear holocaust requires 20 minutes' 
deliberation by the president and his advisors. But that is what we have 
lived with for 40 years. With very few changes, this system remains 
largely intact, including the "football," the president's constant 
companion.

I was able to change some of these dangerous policies and procedures. My 
colleagues and I started arms control talks; we installed safeguards to 
reduce the risk of unauthorized launches; we added options to the 
nuclear war plans so that the president did not have to choose between 
an all-or-nothing response, and we eliminated the vulnerable and 
provocative nuclear missiles in Turkey. I wish I had done more, but we 
were in the midst of the Cold War, and our options were limited.

The United States and our NATO allies faced a strong Soviet and Warsaw 
Pact conventional threat. Many of the allies (and some in Washington as 
well) felt strongly that preserving the U.S. option of launching a first 
strike was necessary for the sake of keeping the Soviets at bay. What is 
shocking is that today, more than a decade after the end of the Cold 
War, the basic U.S. nuclear policy is unchanged. It has not adapted to 
the collapse of the Soviet Union. Plans and procedures have not been 
revised to make the United States or other countries less likely to push 
the button. At a minimum, we should remove all strategic nuclear weapons 
from "hair-trigger" alert, as others have recommended, including Gen. 
George Lee Butler, the last commander of SAC. That simple change would 
greatly reduce the risk of an accidental nuclear launch. It would also 
signal to other states that the United States is taking steps to end its 
reliance on nuclear weapons.

We pledged to work in good faith toward the eventual elimination of 
nuclear arsenals when we negotiated the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty 
(NPT) in 1968. In May, diplomats from more than 180 nations are meeting 
in New York City to review the NPT and assess whether members are living 
up to the agreement. The United States is focused, for understandable 
reasons, on persuading North Korea to rejoin the treaty and on 
negotiating deeper constraints on Iran's nuclear ambitions. Those states 
must be convinced to keep the promises they made when they originally 
signed the NPT-that they would not build nuclear weapons in return for 
access to peaceful uses of nuclear energy. But the attention of many 
nations, including some potential new nuclear weapons states, is also on 
the United States. Keeping such large numbers of weapons, and 
maintaining them on hair-trigger alert, are potent signs that the United 
States is not seriously working toward the elimination of its arsenal 
and raises troubling questions as to why any other state should restrain 
its nuclear ambitions.

A Preview of the Apocalypse
The destructive power of nuclear weapons is well known, but given the 
United States' continued reliance on them, it's worth remembering the 
danger they present. A 2000 report by the International Physicians for 
the Prevention of Nuclear War describes the likely effects of a single 1 
megaton weapon-dozens of which are contained in the Russian and U.S. 
inventories. At ground zero, the explosion creates a crater 300 feet 
deep and 1,200 feet in diameter. Within one second, the atmosphere 
itself ignites into a fireball more than a half-mile in diameter. The 
surface of the fireball radiates nearly three times the light and heat 
of a comparable area of the surface of the sun, extinguishing in seconds 
all life below and radiating outward at the speed of light, causing 
instantaneous severe burns to people within one to three miles. A blast 
wave of compressed air reaches a distance of three miles in about 12 
seconds, flattening factories and commercial buildings. Debris carried 
by winds of 250 mph inflicts lethal injuries throughout the area. At 
least 50 percent of people in the area die immediately, prior to any 
injuries from radiation or the developing firestorm.

Of course, our knowledge of these effects is not entirely hypothetical. 
Nuclear weapons, with roughly one seventieth of the power of the 1 
megaton bomb just described, were twice used by the United States in 
August 1945. One atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima. Around 80,000 
people died immediately; approximately 200,000 died eventually. Later, a 
similar size bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. On Nov. 7, 1995, the mayor of 
Nagasaki recalled his memory of the attack in testimony to the 
International Court of Justice:

     Nagasaki became a city of death where not even the sound of insects 
could be heard. After a while, countless men, women and children began 
to gather for a drink of water at the banks of nearby Urakami River, 
their hair and clothing scorched and their burnt skin hanging off in 
sheets like rags. Begging for help they died one after another in the 
water or in heaps on the banks.
 Four months after the atomic bombing, 
74,000 people were dead, and 75,000 had suffered injuries, that is, 
two-thirds of the city population had fallen victim to this calamity 
that came upon Nagasaki like a preview of the Apocalypse.

Why did so many civilians have to die? Because the civilians, who made 
up nearly 100 percent of the victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were 
unfortunately "co-located" with Japanese military and industrial 
targets. Their annihilation, though not the objective of those dropping 
the bombs, was an inevitable result of the choice of those targets. It 
is worth noting that during the Cold War, the United States reportedly 
had dozens of nuclear warheads targeted on Moscow alone, because it 
contained so many military targets and so much "industrial capacity."

Presumably, the Soviets similarly targeted many U.S. cities. The 
statement that our nuclear weapons do not target populations per se was 
and remains totally misleading in the sense that the so-called 
collateral damage of large nuclear strikes would include tens of 
millions of innocent civilian dead.

This in a nutshell is what nuclear weapons do: They indiscriminately 
blast, burn, and irradiate with a speed and finality that are almost 
incomprehensible. This is exactly what countries like the United States 
and Russia, with nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert, continue to 
threaten every minute of every day in this new 21st century.

No Way To Win
I have worked on issues relating to U.S. and NATO nuclear strategy and 
war plans for more than 40 years. During that time, I have never seen a 
piece of paper that outlined a plan for the United States or NATO to 
initiate the use of nuclear weapons with any benefit for the United 
States or NATO. I have made this statement in front of audiences, 
including NATO defense ministers and senior military leaders, many 
times. No one has ever refuted it. To launch weapons against a 
nuclear-equipped opponent would be suicidal. To do so against a 
nonnuclear enemy would be militarily unnecessary, morally repugnant, and 
politically indefensible.

I reached these conclusions very soon after becoming secretary of 
defense. Although I believe Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon 
Johnson shared my view, it was impossible for any of us to make such 
statements publicly because they were totally contrary to established 
NATO policy. After leaving the Defense Department, I became president of 
the World Bank. During my 13-year tenure, from 1968 to 1981, I was 
prohibited, as an employee of an international institution, from 
commenting publicly on issues of U.S. national security. After my 
retirement from the bank, I began to reflect on how I, with seven years' 
experience as secretary of defense, might contribute to an understanding 
of the issues with which I began my public service career.

At that time, much was being said and written regarding how the United 
States could, and why it should, be able to fight and win a nuclear war 
with the Soviets. This view implied, of course, that nuclear weapons did 
have military utility; that they could be used in battle with ultimate 
gain to whoever had the largest force or used them with the greatest 
acumen. Having studied these views, I decided to go public with some 
information that I knew would be controversial, but that I felt was 
needed to inject reality into these increasingly unreal discussions 
about the military utility of nuclear weapons. In articles and speeches, 
I criticized the fundamentally flawed assumption that nuclear weapons 
could be used in some limited way. There is no way to effectively 
contain a nuclear strike-to keep it from inflicting enormous destruction 
on civilian life and property, and there is no guarantee against 
unlimited escalation once the first nuclear strike occurs. We cannot 
avoid the serious and unacceptable risk of nuclear war until we 
recognize these facts and base our military plans and policies upon this 
recognition. I hold these views even more strongly today than I did when 
I first spoke out against the nuclear dangers our policies were 
creating. I know from direct experience that U.S. nuclear policy today 
creates unacceptable risks to other nations and to our own.

What Castro Taught Us
Among the costs of maintaining nuclear weapons is the risk-to me an 
unacceptable risk-of use of the weapons either by accident or as a 
result of misjudgment or miscalculation in times of crisis. The Cuban 
Missile Crisis demonstrated that the United States and the Soviet 
Union-and indeed the rest of the world-came within a hair's breadth of 
nuclear disaster in October 1962.

Indeed, according to former Soviet military leaders, at the height of 
the crisis, Soviet forces in Cuba possessed 162 nuclear warheads, 
including at least 90 tactical warheads. At about the same time, Cuban 
President Fidel Castro asked the Soviet ambassador to Cuba to send a 
cable to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev stating that Castro urged him 
to counter a U.S. attack with a nuclear response. Clearly, there was a 
high risk that in the face of a U.S. attack, which many in the U.S. 
government were prepared to recommend to President Kennedy, the Soviet 
forces in Cuba would have decided to use their nuclear weapons rather 
than lose them. Only a few years ago did we learn that the four Soviet 
submarines trailing the U.S. Naval vessels near Cuba each carried 
torpedoes with nuclear warheads. Each of the sub commanders had the 
authority to launch his torpedoes. The situation was even more 
frightening because, as the lead commander recounted to me, the subs 
were out of communication with their Soviet bases, and they continued 
their patrols for four days after Khrushchev announced the withdrawal of 
the missiles from Cuba.

The lesson, if it had not been clear before, was made so at a conference 
on the crisis held in Havana in 1992, when we first began to learn from 
former Soviet officials about their preparations for nuclear war in the 
event of a U.S. invasion. Near the end of that meeting, I asked Castro 
whether he would have recommended that Khrushchev use the weapons in the 
face of a U.S. invasion, and if so, how he thought the United States 
would respond. "We started from the assumption that if there was an 
invasion of Cuba, nuclear war would erupt," Castro replied. "We were 
certain of that
. [W]e would be forced to pay the price that we would 
disappear." He continued, "Would I have been ready to use nuclear 
weapons? Yes, I would have agreed to the use of nuclear weapons." And he 
added, "If Mr. McNamara or Mr. Kennedy had been in our place, and had 
their country been invaded, or their country was going to be occupied 
 
I believe they would have used tactical nuclear weapons."

I hope that President Kennedy and I would not have behaved as Castro 
suggested we would have. His decision would have destroyed his country. 
Had we responded in a similar way the damage to the United States would 
have been unthinkable. But human beings are fallible. In conventional 
war, mistakes cost lives, sometimes thousands of lives. However, if 
mistakes were to affect decisions relating to the use of nuclear forces, 
there would be no learning curve. They would result in the destruction 
of nations. The indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear 
weapons carries a very high risk of nuclear catastrophe. There is no way 
to reduce the risk to acceptable levels, other than to first eliminate 
the hair-trigger alert policy and later to eliminate or nearly eliminate 
nuclear weapons. The United States should move immediately to institute 
these actions, in cooperation with Russia. That is the lesson of the 
Cuban Missile Crisis.

A Dangerous Obsession
On Nov. 13, 2001, President George W. Bush announced that he had told 
Russian President Vladimir Putin that the United States would reduce 
"operationally deployed nuclear warheads" from approximately 5,300 to a 
level between 1,700 and 2,200 over the next decade. This scaling back 
would approach the 1,500 to 2,200 range that Putin had proposed for 
Russia. However, the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture Review, 
mandated by the U.S. Congress and issued in January 2002, presents quite 
a different story. It assumes that strategic offensive nuclear weapons 
in much larger numbers than 1,700 to 2,200 will be part of U.S. military 
forces for the next several decades. Although the number of deployed 
warheads will be reduced to 3,800 in 2007 and to between 1,700 and 2,200 
by 2012, the warheads and many of the launch vehicles taken off 
deployment will be maintained in a "responsive" reserve from which they 
could be moved back to the operationally deployed force. The Nuclear 
Posture Review received little attention from the media. But its 
emphasis on strategic offensive nuclear weapons deserves vigorous public 
scrutiny. Although any proposed reduction is welcome, it is doubtful 
that survivors-if there were any-of an exchange of 3,200 warheads (the 
U.S. and Russian numbers projected for 2012), with a destructive power 
approximately 65,000 times that of the Hiroshima bomb, could detect a 
difference between the effects of such an exchange and one that would 
result from the launch of the current U.S. and Russian forces totaling 
about 12,000 warheads.

In addition to projecting the deployment of large numbers of strategic 
nuclear weapons far into the future, the Bush administration is planning 
an extensive and expensive series of programs to sustain and modernize 
the existing nuclear force and to begin studies for new launch vehicles, 
as well as new warheads for all of the launch platforms. Some members of 
the administration have called for new nuclear weapons that could be 
used as bunker busters against underground shelters (such as the 
shelters Saddam Hussein used in Baghdad). New production facilities for 
fissile materials would need to be built to support the expanded force. 
The plans provide for integrating a national ballistic missile defense 
into the new triad of offensive weapons to enhance the nation's ability 
to use its "power projection forces" by improving our ability to 
counterattack an enemy. The Bush administration also announced that it 
has no intention to ask congress to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban 
Treaty (CTBT), and, though no decision to test has been made, the 
administration has ordered the national laboratories to begin research 
on new nuclear weapons designs and to prepare the underground test sites 
in Nevada for nuclear tests if necessary in the future. Clearly, the 
Bush administration assumes that nuclear weapons will be part of U.S. 
military forces for at least the next several decades.

Good faith participation in international negotiation on nuclear 
disarmament-including participation in the CTBT-is a legal and political 
obligation of all parties to the NPT that entered into force in 1970 and 
was extended indefinitely in 1995. The Bush administration's nuclear 
program, alongside its refusal to ratify the CTBT, will be viewed, with 
reason, by many nations as equivalent to a U.S. break from the treaty. 
It says to the nonnuclear weapons nations, "We, with the strongest 
conventional military force in the world, require nuclear weapons in 
perpetuity, but you, facing potentially well-armed opponents, are never 
to be allowed even one nuclear weapon."

If the United States continues its current nuclear stance, over time, 
substantial proliferation of nuclear weapons will almost surely follow. 
Some, or all, of such nations as Egypt, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and 
Taiwan will very likely initiate nuclear weapons programs, increasing 
both the risk of use of the weapons and the diversion of weapons and 
fissile materials into the hands of rogue states or terrorists. 
Diplomats and intelligence agencies believe Osama bin Laden has made 
several attempts to acquire nuclear weapons or fissile materials. It has 
been widely reported that Sultan Bashiruddin Mahmood, former director of 
Pakistan's nuclear reactor complex, met with bin Laden several times. 
Were al Qaeda to acquire fissile materials, especially enriched uranium, 
its ability to produce nuclear weapons would be great. The knowledge of 
how to construct a simple gun-type nuclear device, like the one we 
dropped on Hiroshima, is now widespread. Experts have little doubt that 
terrorists could construct such a primitive device if they acquired the 
requisite enriched uranium material. Indeed, just last summer, at a 
meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, former Secretary of Defense 
William J. Perry said, "I have never been more fearful of a nuclear 
detonation than now.
 There is a greater than 50 percent probability of 
a nuclear strike on U.S. targets within a decade." I share his fears.

A Moment of Decision
We are at a critical moment in human history-perhaps not as dramatic as 
that of the Cuban Missile Crisis, but a moment no less crucial. Neither 
the Bush administration, the congress, the American people, nor the 
people of other nations have debated the merits of alternative, 
long-range nuclear weapons policies for their countries or the world. 
They have not examined the military utility of the weapons; the risk of 
inadvertent or accidental use; the moral and legal considerations 
relating to the use or threat of use of the weapons; or the impact of 
current policies on proliferation. Such debates are long overdue. If 
they are held, I believe they will conclude, as have I and an increasing 
number of senior military leaders, politicians, and civilian security 
experts: We must move promptly toward the elimination-or near 
elimination-of all nuclear weapons. For many, there is a strong 
temptation to cling to the strategies of the past 40 years. But to do so 
would be a serious mistake leading to unacceptable risks for all nations.

Robert S. McNamara was U.S. secretary of defense from 1961 to 1968 and 
president of the World Bank from 1968 to 1981.

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/
*****************************************************************
 10 the Times: Bilirakis: You judge free trips to Vegas
 
Rep. Mike Bilirakis says voters can make up their own minds
about the trips, which break no rules and are paid for by
private groups.

 By ANITA KUMAR, Times Staff Writer

 Published May 6, 2005
 
WASHINGTON - If a special interest group wants Rep. Mike
Bilirakis to attend an event, the Tarpon Springs Republican says
there's one way to get his attention: 

Hold it in Las Vegas. 

Bilirakis has taken eight trips there since 1997, all paid for
by private organizations looking to influence him on issues
pending before Congress. The most recent trip was in April. 

During the eight years since the House modified the way it keeps
travel records, Bilirakis accepted 13 trips for himself and
family members at a cost of almost $40,000, including one to the
Yucca Mountain federal nuclear waste repository in Nevada - 90
miles northwest of Las Vegas. 

"There's no magic to it. I enjoy being at a particular
location," Bilirakis said. "I like organized casino gambling. I
like going through the looking glass into fantasy world." 

Bilirakis, who has been put up at the Bellagio Hotel &Casino and
Paris Las Vegas, said he likes blackjack and dice games. 

The trips are legal, but Bilirakis said he understands why his
constituents might criticize him for going. He said he might be
critical himself if he were not a public official. 

"It's an argument people could certainly make," he said. "As
long as there is complete disclosure, let them judge. It's in
the eye of the beholder." 

Lawmakers are invited on trips to attend conferences, give
speeches or accept awards; often the travel is considered a
"fact-finding" excursion. Lawmakers used to be paid hundreds of
dollars to give a speech, but that practice was banned in 1989. 

"These trips to some extent are suck-up contests to show members
a really good time," said Gary Ruskin, director of the
Congressional Accountability Project, a nonpartisan,
anticorruption group. "Bilirakis knows that he can sponge off
his special interest groups to get his gambling fix." 

Bilirakis said he chooses trips based on which group invites
him, the purpose of the event, his professional calendar and
personal schedule with his family. The trips are usually three
or four days, long weekends, built around congressional votes. 

"I'm a homebody," he said. "I like to be home." 

The 74-year-old congressman, who says he hopes his son will
succeed him when he retires next year, has taken more trips paid
for by special interest groups in the past five years than other
west-central Florida House members. 

Lawmakers take two kinds of trips - those approved by Congress
and paid with taxpayer dollars, such as the recent one to Rome
for Pope John Paul II's funeral, which Bilirakis did not attend,
and those paid for by special interest groups. House Majority
Leader Tom DeLay has come under fire recently for taking trips
financed by private lobbyists, which is not allowed, instead of
groups like the ones that paid Bilirakis' bill, which are
allowed. 

Most of Bilirakis' trips were paid for by the Consumer
Electronics Association and the National Association of
Broadcasters, which hold national conventions in Las Vegas each
year, records show. Others were courtesy of the Pinellas County
Osteopathic Medical Society and the Non-Commissioned Officers
Association of United States of America. 

Jeff Joseph, spokesman for the Consumer Electronics Association,
said that he understands some guests like to gamble or shop in
Las Vegas but that the group offers a rigorous schedule of
panels, speeches and tours. "It's not like a golfing trip to
Florida," he said. "There's a distinct difference. There is work
to be done." 

But Joseph did allow that the casinos of Las Vegas are a draw.
"I'm sure it helps," he said. 

Bilirakis, whose district encompasses much of north Pinellas and
Hillsborough counties and the coastal areas of Pasco County,
acknowledges most trips include time that has nothing to do with
the stated purpose, especially if he is participating in a panel
discussion that lasts only two to three hours. 

"The rest of the time, how much value is there?" he said. "Most
would include time when there isn't value. I'm the first one to
admit it. You have to be honest about that." 

Bilirakis said he doesn't go to the events just to get a free
trip to Las Vegas. He said he can - and does - pay for his trips
to Las Vegas about once every two years. 

He said he became interested in gambling in the mid 1970s,
betting small amounts on blackjack and dice. He said he doesn't
like betting on sports or playing cards, but Rep. Joe Barton,
R-Texas, once showed him how to play Texas hold 'em poker on a
trip to Las Vegas. 

Bilirakis said he doesn't smoke, drink much or play poker and
describes himself as a conservative person. And yet he likes to
gamble. 

"It kind of belies my nature," he said. 

Las Vegas ranks as the third-most-popular U.S. destination for
lawmakers since 2000, with 165 members traveling to the city,
which has one of the largest convention centers in the nation,
according to the Political Moneyline Web site. 

"It's no secret that part of the allure is that their holding
events at nice locales," said Steven Weiss of the Center for
Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan group that tracks money in
politics. 

A member of Congress since 1982, Bilirakis has traveled less
frequently in recent years, cutting back on trips - though not
the ones to Las Vegas. 

He has taken at least 11 trips to Vegas since 1990, according to
his financial and travel records. He has also gone to New
Orleans, Atlanta and Los Angeles, as well as Canada, Bermuda,
South Africa and Greece, where his parents were raised. 

Bilirakis went to the Kentucky Derby in 1990 and 1991, paid for
by the American Horse Council and the Lincoln National Insurance
Co. and the Brown and Williamson tobacco company. 

His wife, Evelyn, 70, almost always accompanies him. At least
once, one of his sons, Emmanuel, a doctor in Palm Harbor, went
with him. 

The trips include transportation, hotels and meals. Together
with his wife, trips to Las Vegas cost $2,500 to $6,000, with
airfare the bulk of the cost. Tickets from Washington or Tampa
to Las Vegas usually cost more than $1,000. Once, it cost
$3,773. 

Bilirakis said he doesn't remember the last time he flew
first-class on one of these trips. He said the tickets are
usually higher priced because he books them at the last minute
to accommodate his duties at the Capitol or returns to a city
different from the departing city. 

He said most invitations come because he is vice chairman of the
House Energy and Commerce Committee - whose members often get
attention from groups offering campaign money and free trips -
and he was chairman of one its subcommittees. 

"You have human beings up here," Bilirakis said. "Some will do
it. Some will not. I don't know that those who don't are more
honest or more fair." 

Times staff writer Bill Adair and researcher Kitty Bennett
contributed to this report. Anita Kumar can be reached at or 202
463-0576. [Last modified May 6, 2005, 14:44:42]

                                
© 2005 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times
*****************************************************************
 11 Arms Control Association: U.S. Weighing Nuclear Stockpile Changes 

Arms Control Today

Wade Boese  

Existing nuclear weapons and infrastructure need a makeover if
the United States wants to continue reducing its arsenal, a top
Department of Energy official told Senate panels in April. But
some lawmakers are leery that the initiative might open the door
to new nuclear weapons and resumed nuclear testing.
 
Testifying before the Senate Armed Services subcommittee on
strategic forces April 4, Linton Brooks, head of the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), said the U.S. nuclear
infrastructure and stockpile, although safe and reliable, should
ideally be revamped so that weapons are easier to maintain and
more responsive to current and future threats. The NNSA, part of
the Energy Department, maintains U.S. nuclear forces.
 
Failure to establish a responsive infrastructure capable of
producing or refurbishing arms in a more timely fashion, Brooks
argued, could prevent the United States from cutting its nuclear
forces in the future. Until we achieve a responsive nuclear
weapons infrastructure, were going to have to retain substantial
non-deployed warheads to hedge against technical failure of a
critical system or to hedge against unforeseen geopolitical
changes, the NNSA head stated. The Bush administration announced
last June that it intended to cut the total U.S. stockpile of
more than 10,000 nuclear warheads almost in half by 2012. (See
ACT, July/August 2004.)
 
The United States currently preserves its warheads through
life-extension programs and verifies their viability through
scientific and computer means without nuclear testing, which the
United States halted in 1992. Although Brooks described these
efforts in April 14 testimony to the Senate Appropriations
energy and water subcommittee as rigorous, he claims an
unforeseen technical problem might still arise.
 
Brooks identified several deficiencies with the status quo.
Noting April 4 that the United States last developed a new
nuclear warhead 20 years ago, he said existing weapons were made
for a different time when the emphasis was putting the biggest
bang in the smallest and lightest package possible so several
warheads could fit on a missile. Brooks explained this
imperative led designers to craft weapons very close to
performance cliffs, meaning that the designs pushed the margins
of what might work. Warheads also were made of materials and
components that were not easy to refurbish, which was not a
concern at that time because warheads were only to be in service
for about 15-20 years, he added.
 
Brooks further asserted that existing weapons are out of sync
with some present and future missions. Current warheads, he
said, are too powerful and ill suited for destroying hardened
and deeply buried targets or chemical and biological weapons.
U.S. officials increasingly express concern that potential foes
are building hardened bunkers deep underground to make their
leadership and weapons impervious to U.S. attack.
 
The Bush administration had been studying modification of two
existing high-yield warheads to make them more capable of
penetrating deeper into the earth before exploding, but Congress
blocked funding last year for the program, known as the Robust
Nuclear Earth Penetrator. (See ACT, December 2004.) However, a
request to complete the study for one of the warheads over the
next two years appeared in the administrations proposed fiscal
year 2006 budget released in February. Current administration
plans estimate that a total of $22.5 million is necessary to
finish research. Congress would need to approve any engineering
and development work beyond this stage.
 
In his prepared statement April 4, Brooks argued that more
appropriate weapons designs for today would be less concerned
with size, weight, and explosive power. Instead, they would
emphasize increased performance margins, system longevity, and
ease of manufacture, as well as have the capability to address
emerging threats.
 
To explore this option, the administration asked for $9 million
in fiscal year 2006 funding for the Reliable Replacement Warhead
(RRW) program, which Brooks said could be key to transforming
the stockpile. Brooks stated that the aim of the program would
be to investigate replacements for existing weapons that can be
more easily manufactured with more readily available and more
environmentally benign materials. If successful, the program,
which received $9 million from Congress last year, could result
in more durable warheads, according to Brooks.
 
Some lawmakers are concerned that the RRW program might lead the
United States to acquire new warhead capabilities or renounce
its current nuclear testing moratorium to verify that whatever
the RRW program produces works. At the April 4 hearing, Sen.
Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) questioned whether the program might be
just an excuse to develop a new nuclear weapon and to return to
nuclear weapons testing.
 
Brooks insisted the opposite was true. Arguing that the programs
goal is to make warheads less sensitive to aging effects and
easier to certify as functional, Brooks stated it would reduce
the possibility that the United States would ever need to
conduct nuclear tests in order to diagnose or remedy a
reliability problem.
 
At the April 14 hearing, Brooks adamantly said, We dont envision
this program as leading to new weapons. The purpose, he
maintained, is to develop new components which will go in
existing warheads that are delivered by existing missiles and
aimed at existing targets; theres no new weapons, new targets,
new military capabilities being sought here.
 
Despite Brooks assurances, some in Congress remain
uncomfortable. Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.) in a statement to
Arms Control Today April 18 said, While I believe that the RRW
program may be valuable, and we certainly need to take a closer
look at our nuclear infrastructure, Ambassador Brooks testimony
raises more questions than it answers. Adding that she is deeply
concerned that the RRW [program] not lead to either new weapons
or testing, Tauscher warned, [t]he administration will have to
do a better job to sell this new program if it wants
congressional support.
 
Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio) also feels that there is a need for
more information on what actually constitutes RRW, according to
an April 19 statement to Arms Control Today. Hobson, chairman of
the House Appropriations subcommittee responsible for nuclear
weapons funding, has previously sunk administration initiatives
that he disagrees with, leading the fight last year to deny
funding for the nuclear earth penetrator study and possible
research into other new or modified types of nuclear weapons. 	 

© 2005 Arms Control Association,
 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 620
 Washington, DC 20036
 Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: (202) 463-8273
*****************************************************************
 12 [NYTr] Selective Adherence to NPT Condemned at UN
 
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 09:00:06 -0500 (CDT)

 
Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com

US Nuclear Deployment in Europe Condemned at the UN

United Nations, May 4 (Prensa Latina) As the United Nations discusses
how to make the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) effective, about 480
US tactical weapons are deployed in NATO bases in European countries.

Condemning this US violation, Belgium"s Mayors for Peace Movement
coordinator Pol D Huyvetter asked how seriously the European Union can
be taken when it allows this dangerous arms presence to remain.

D Huyvetter is a main organizer of a campaign begun in 1997, when
thousands of people inspected the Kleine Brogel secret nuclear weapons
base in Belgium.

He said some Belgium senators have pleaded for a withdrawal of these
NATO arsenals from Europe.

"We are still living under a nuclear apartheid in which some enjoy
unjustified privileges over others," he commented.

He added that US taxpayers will end up paying for 40 billion dollars
worth of nuclear arms by the end of the year.

rma/hr/jwp
                               ***

Cuba Condemns Nuclear Treaty Selective Application

United Nations, May 5 (Prensa Latina) Cuba ratified its condemnation
of the selective application of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty
(NPT) and the privileges granted to those possessing weapons of mass
destruction.

Addressing a UN meeting on the treaty fulfillment on Thursday, Cuban
Science, Technology and Environment Vice Minister Wenceslao Carrera
asserted several countries ignored the consensus reached in the
conference on the NPT, which came in effect in 1970 to eliminate nuke
arsenals.

Carrera termed unacceptable and unsustainable the new US and North
Atlantic Treaty Organization strategic defense doctrines,
international security concepts based on the promotion and development
of military and political alliances of nuclear deterrence.

He said Cuba adhered to the NPT in 2002 but made it clear that its
defense plans had never been based on the possession of nukes or other
weapons of mass destruction.

We are only interested in the peaceful utilization of nuclear energy
under the verification of the International Atomic Energy Agency,
maintained the Cuban official.

Carrera also denounced attempts to impose the so-called security
initiative for non-proliferation, which is a selective mechanism that
violates the sovereignty of states.

He said his country was fraught with concern over the risks of
connection between terrorism and weapons of mass destruction, and
noted that should be fought without double standards.

The vice minister stated it was impossible to eliminate terrorism by
punishing certain acts and silencing, tolerating or justifying others.

"One cannot trot the world boasting about an alleged international
crusade against terrorism while notorious, abominable and confessed
terrorists are sheltered in the country proclaiming itself the paladin
of the anti-terrorism fight," he concluded.

sus/ecq/hr
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 13 Mail & Guardian: Don't panic!  

Saturday, May 07, 2005 6:53 AM

Editorials  
    
  The initial thought was that Minister of Minerals and Energy
Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka had suffered an uncharacteristic
brainstorm. Anti-panic legislation, designed to make South
Africans speak â€œresponsibly on sensitive mattersâ€ and avoid
spooking the public? To deal with a tiny anti-nuclear NGOâ€™s
claims of high radiation levels at a site near Pelindaba? But
no, the usually solid minister seemed quite serious. The
legislation would be jointly prepared with the ministries of
justice and communications, and might take a year to canvass
with stakeholders. 

Mlambo-Ngcukaâ€™s bender was of a piece with President Thabo
Mbekiâ€™s furious diatribe against Earthlife Africa as
â€œrecklessâ€ and its claims as â€œimpermissibleâ€. Where was
the evidence of a terrified citizenry? What was going on?

One suspects that the over-reaction is partly related to the
presidentâ€™s well-known dislike of NGOs. Could it also be
related to the governmentâ€™s adoption of the pebble-bed modular
reactor project and plans to raise R11-billion for its next
phase? Is he afraid the greenies will whip up popular resistance
to the nuclear option, like their counterparts in Europe?

Whatever the motivation, the panic law proposal is preposterous.
The only way it could be squared with the Constitutionâ€™s
freedom of expression clause would be if it was aimed at
â€œincitement to imminent violenceâ€ â€” which the Earthlife
claims clearly are not. 

As we report in this edition, the Earthlife take on the
Pelindaba site has received some backing from the Nuclear Energy
Corporation and the Land Claims Commission, which ruled the
disputed site uninhabitable. But the truth or falsehood of the
claims is beside the main point. The real issue is the
governmentâ€™s apparent desire to criminalise inaccurate public
pronouncements that embarrass the state â€” a classic reflex of
dictatorial regimes. Zimbabwe has enacted such a law as a way of
muzzling the media. 

Perhaps the closest parallel is apartheid-era legislation in
South Africa that made it an offence to publish inaccurate
reports about the police, defence force or prisons without
taking adequate steps to check their veracity. It was the
Prisons Act that was used to attack the Rand Daily Mail and
prevent any further revelations about conditions in
apartheidâ€™s correction facilities. Because newspapers are
rarely 100% sure of their information, it increasingly became
the practice to play it safe by not publishing â€” in other
words, to self-censor. Generally speaking, the mainstream media
under apartheid did not publish critical reports about the
police, military or prisons unless they were first confirmed by
the authorities. Is this what our present government wants?
Whose definitions of â€œsensitive matterâ€, â€œincitementâ€
and â€œpublic alarmâ€ will find their way into the proposed
law? Will â€œsensitiveâ€ institutions, like Pelindaba, be
protected from adverse reporting, as under apartheidâ€™s Key
Points Act?

The fact is that the normal system of testing for truth in a
democracy â€” through a public debate in which all sides have
their say â€” has worked well over Earthlifeâ€™s claims. The
allegations were made and rebutted by government, and a sort of
middle ground was established by the nuclear regulator. South
Africa has no need for a kragdadig panic law. What it needs is a
more thorough and informed airing of issues.

Right ring, wrong ring
The Public Investment Commissionerâ€™s (PIC) solution to the
controversial sale of an empowerment stake in Telkom is
audacious. After buying up the entire stake of 15,1% in Telkom
at the height of a political outcry last year, it has sold back
only half the Telkom shares it has been â€œwarehousingâ€ since
last November to Andile Ngcabaâ€™s Elephant Consortium,
significantly reducing the ambitions of the wannabee
telecommunications tycoon.

Of course, the rise in the share price still makes Ngcaba a very
rich man, though he has been forced to dilute his personal
holding by giving up a stake which will now benefit civil
service pensioners and undecided broad-based beneficiaries. The
banks and other institutions who could have funded the initial
deal have been caught snoozing; the PIC has also earned its
pensioners a cool R1,5-billion.

The PIC is the fund manager for the government employeesâ€™
pension funds, and its CEO, Brian Molefe, is quickly earning a
reputation as a crafty deal-maker and a frontman for good
corporate governance. He has shown his mettle again.

Yet the cheer must be a muted one. The Mail &Guardian has
consistently argued that government servants and senior
officials of the ruling party and its allies should not
immediately benefit from the revolving door between a life in
public service and one in private business. The temptation to
use the contacts and influence of public office to grease a life
as a businessman is often too great, and Ngcaba is perhaps the
most glaring recent example of a man who has done this. It
should not be forgotten that he was, until recently, the
director general of the Department of Communications, with great
inside knowledge of the Telkom deal.

The African National Congress spokesperson, Smuts Ngonyama, is
also an individual beneficiary, presenting a conflict that is
arguably more serious. A senior member and employee of the
ruling party has just been handed a tidy stake in the national
telecoms operator. Itâ€™s not corruption, but it is textbook
influence-peddling and enrichment of a connected elite. Sies!

The country urgently needs to legislate the post-employment
restrictions for ministers and senior public servants which have
languished in Parliament for too long. And the ANC needs to
stamp on the moonlighting at its headquarters.  

All material copyright Mail&Guardian.                           
*****************************************************************
 14 Zenit News Agency: The World Seen From Rome (Nuclear Disarmament)
                         
Code: ZE05050520 

Date: 2005-05-05 

Holy See's Address on Nuclear Disarmament 

The Time Has Passed "for Finding Ways to a 'Balance in Terror'" 

NEW YORK, MAY 5, 2005 (Zenit.org).- Here is the statement that 
Archbishop Celestino Migliore, permanent observer of the Holy See 
to the United Nations, delivered to the 7th Review Conference of 
the States Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of 
Nuclear Weapons (NPT). He delivered it Wednesday.

* * *

Mr. President,

The Holy See adhered to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons on 25 February 1971, convinced that it was an
important step forward in the creation of a system of general
and complete disarmament under effective international control,
something that would be possible only if it were completely
observed both in detail and in its entirety.

After 35 years, the treaty has become a cornerstone in the
global security framework since it has, to some extent, helped
slow the arms race. The fact that it has received an extremely
high number of adhesions, with 188 states-parties, shows the
importance it has for the international community. This is so by
means of three pillars: preventing the spread and proliferation
of nuclear arms, promoting cooperation in the peaceful use of
nuclear energy, and pursuing the objective of nuclear
disarmament which implicitly leads to general and complete
disarmament. In essence, the NPT promised a world in which
nuclear weapons would be eliminated and technological
cooperation for development would be widespread.

A Review Conference of the NPT is therefore a time to measure
the progress of the international community in achieving the
goals of the treaty. When the NPT was indefinitely extended in
1995, the nuclear weapons states joined all other parties to the
treaty in making three promises: a comprehensive test ban treaty
would be achieved by 1996; negotiations on a treaty to ban the
production of fissile material for nuclear weapons would come to
an "early conclusion"; and "systematic and progressive efforts
globally" to eliminate nuclear weapons would be made. In 2000,
all parties gave an "unequivocal undertaking" to the elimination
of nuclear weapons through a program of 13 Practical Steps.
Nevertheless, the preparatory committee for the current Review
Conference failed to achieve consensus on the documents to be
adopted now, which leads to concern for the outcome of the
conference.

With regard to the 1970s, when the NPT entered into force, there
took place at the same time profound social and geopolitical
changes. An awareness began to grow of the close correlation and
interdependence between national and international security,
while new challenges sprang up, like transnational terrorism and
the illegal spread of materials for making weapons of mass
destruction. These are two phenomena which, among others,
directly question the capacity of the NPT to respond to new
international challenges. In this regard, the Holy See considers
the General Assembly's adoption of the International Convention
for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism as an important
step forward. The time has come to underline again the
importance of observing the NPT in detail and in its entirety.

Since the treaty is the only multilateral legal instrument
currently available, intended to bring about a nuclear weapons
free world, it must not be allowed to be weakened. Humanity
deserves no less than the full cooperation of all states on this
grave matter. The Holy See makes an appeal that the difficult
and complex issues of the Review Conference be addressed in an
evenhanded way. Measures taken at this Review Conference, even
if they are small steps forward, must be framed by the overall
goals of the treaty. The Review Conference must not go backwards
by forgetting past commitments; it must advance the
effectiveness of the NPT.

The world is rightly concerned about the proliferation of
nuclear weapons and attempts to redirect nuclear technologies
and fuels away from their peaceful use and towards nuclear
weapons instead. The non-proliferation side of the NPT must be
strengthened through increasing the capacity of the
International Atomic Energy Agency to detect any misuse of
nuclear fuels. The compliance measures of the treaty must also
be strengthened.

But concentrating only on non-proliferation measures distorts
the meaning of the treaty. Compliance with its nuclear
disarmament provisions is also required: non-proliferation and
nuclear disarmament are interdependent and mutually reinforcing.
The Holy See therefore calls upon the nuclear weapons states to
take a role of courageous leadership and political
responsibility in safeguarding the very integrity of the NPT and
in creating a climate of trust, transparency and true
cooperation, with a view to the concrete realization of a
culture of life and peace which will promote the integral
development of the world's peoples. Thus, in an effort to put
priorities and hierarchies of values in their proper place, a
greater common effort must be made to mobilize resources towards
moral, cultural and economic development so that humanity may
turn its back on the arms race.

The time has gone for finding ways to a "balance in terror"; the
time has come to re-examine the whole strategy of nuclear
deterrence. When the Holy See expressed its limited acceptance
of nuclear deterrence during the Cold War, it was with the
clearly stated condition that deterrence was only a step on the
way towards progressive nuclear disarmament. The Holy See has
never countenanced nuclear deterrence as a permanent measure,
nor does it today when it is evident that nuclear deterrence
drives the development of ever newer nuclear arms, thus
preventing genuine nuclear disarmament.

The Holy See again emphasizes that the peace we seek in the 21st
century cannot be attained by relying on nuclear weapons. The
century opened with a burst of global terrorism, but this threat
must not be allowed to undermine the precepts of international
humanitarian law, which is founded on the key principles of
limitation and proportionality. We must always remember that the
use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the
evil to be eliminated. Nuclear weapons, even so-called low yield
weapons endanger the processes of life and can lead to extended
nuclear conflict.

Nuclear weapons assault life on the planet, they assault the
planet itself, and in so doing they assault the process of the
continuing development of the planet. The preservation of the
Non-Proliferation Treaty demands an unequivocal commitment to
genuine nuclear disarmament.

Therefore, the Holy See looks to all states-parties to the NPT
to uphold the integrity of the treaty. All Parties should
contribute to the success of the Review Conference in preserving
and strengthening the credibility of the treaty, so that it can
be effective and lasting. In this way the culture of peace can
be advanced and the culture of war diminished, for the enduring
benefit of all humanity.

Thank you, Mr. President.

For reprint permission, please contact: infoenglish@zenit.org . 
*****************************************************************
 15 IRNA: Kharrazi, Annan hold talks on Iran-EU trio nuclear talks

United Nations, New York, May 6, IRNA                                                                                                            

Iran-Kharrazi-Nuclear 

Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharrazi and the UN Secretary
General Kofi Annan in a meeting here Thursday discussed the
latest developments in Iran's talks with the EU trio over its
nuclear energy plans.

 Speaking on the sidelines of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty review conference, the two sides also exchanged views on
the reforms planned to be implemented in the UN as well as the
revision of the NPT.

 They also discussed several regional developments in the
meeting.

 Kharrazi stressed the significance of the improvement of the UN
structure, and highlighted the need to increase the number of
the permanent members of UN Security Council. He also
underscored the crucial role of the developing countries in the
organization.

 Concerning the NPT revision, Kharrazi said that any new
discrimination against non-nuclear countries is not acceptable.

 He urged the need to take new practical decisions on banning
nuclear weapons worldwide.

 Turning to Iran's nuclear talks with France, Germany and
Britain, the minister said that Iran's proposals were merely
meant as guarantees and that the suspension of enrichment
process should not be taken as such a guarantee.

 "We do not want to have negotiations for negotiations. We
rather expect to reach a tangible progress and obtain a positive
outcome," he added.

 Kharrazi expounded on Iran's approach towards the latest
regional developments and expressed satisfaction over the
formation of the Lebanese government and the cooperation of the
Lebanese political parties with the government.

 "Lebanon's Hezbollah is the symbol of the country's resistance
against the Zionist occupiers and the resistance of Lebanon
belongs to the people of that country," he said.

 For his part, Annan said he was happy over Iran's cooperation
with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and hoped
that the ongoing talks will proceed in line with the Paris
accord.

 He assessed as significant the role of Iran and Iraq's
neighboring states in promoting security in the war-torn country
and underlined the importance of security in Iraq.

 Annan referred to the sensitivity of the Middle East and said
that the UN is closely following the developments in the region.

*****************************************************************
 16 Las Vegas SUN: Egypt Bogs Down U.N. Nuclear Conference

Today: May 06, 2005 at 14:17:36 PDT 

 By CHARLES J. HANLEY ASSOCIATED PRESS 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - 

Delegates from scores of nations agreed Friday on an overdue
agenda for the conference reviewing the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty, but a last-minute objection by Egypt stalled the crucial
meeting once more, at a time of rising nuclear tensions in the
world. 

The Egyptians were seeking a greater agenda focus on assessing
how well the nuclear weapons powers have done in meeting
commitments made at the 2000 conference - to take specific steps
toward nuclear disarmament, as mandated by the 1970
nonproliferation treaty. 

Many nonweapons states complain that the Bush administration has
taken steps contrary to that commitment, such as rejecting the
nuclear test-ban treaty. 

After first thanking delegations "for their spirit of
cooperation" in reaching consensus, the conference president,
Brazilian diplomat Sergio de Queiroz Duarte, had to return to
the conference podium, hear the Egyptian objection and
acknowledge he still did not have an agenda in the conference's
fifth day. 

"We have to start work, and we have to start substantive work,"
a frustrated Duarte said. 

The details of the disputed agenda language were not immediately
available. 

Iranian-U.S. antagonisms during the first four days of the
monthlong conference had stalled adoption of the agenda. 

A prolonged delay might keep the twice-a-decade global gathering
from dealing with the most contentious issues surrounding the
1970 nonproliferation treaty, under which nations without
nuclear weapons pledge not to pursue them, in exchange for a
commitment by five nuclear-weapons states - the United States,
Russia, Britain, France and China - to negotiate toward nuclear
disarmament. 

A third "pillar" of the treaty guarantees access to peaceful
nuclear technology for nonweapons states. Citing that treaty
article, Iran has developed uranium-enrichment facilities, which
can produce fuel for nuclear power plants and, if the process is
extended, material for nuclear bombs. 

Washington contends Tehran is using the program as cover for
plans to build weapons, a charge the Iranians deny. 

The dispute was reflected in the agenda battle here. 

Conference organizers said Iran had been balking at a proposed
agenda focus on "developments" relevant to treaty implementation
- a word understood by all as diplomatic code for Iran's current
flirtation with sensitive nuclear technology. 

But other delegations, including Egypt, had complained that
proposed agenda language did not focus enough on the nuclear
powers' disarmament obligations. They want the current
conference to assess recent U.S. actions that run contrary to
earlier arms-control commitments, such as the United States'
rejection of the nuclear test-ban treaty. 

The agenda agreement would allow conference committees to begin
their work of debating and formulating positions on ways to
strengthen the treaty. The conference will not amend the treaty,
but its final consensus documents are considered politically
binding, giving a boost to nonproliferation initiatives. 

On Iran and the nuclear-fuel issue, for example, proposals have
been made for international guarantees or controls over fuel
production, to keep enrichment technology out of more hands. For
their part, nonweapons states here want to promote such
disarmament steps as the test-ban treaty and a treaty to end
production everywhere of fissile material for nuclear bombs. 

Tehran has been negotiating over its nuclear program with the
European Union, which wants the Iranians to shut the enrichment
facilities down in exchange for economic and other incentives. 

The conference also may take up the issue of North Korea, if
only indirectly. The North Koreans have announced their
withdrawal from the nonproliferation agreement and said they
have built nuclear weapons, all without international sanction
under the treaty. 

The United States and others in six-party talks with Pyongyang
have been trying to draw it back into the treaty and end its
weapons program, but those talks have been suspended. The U.N.
conference may discuss making treaty withdrawal more difficult
and subject to penalties. 

-- 


 
*****************************************************************
 17 TOP 25 REASONS TO KEEP SAN ONOFRE OPEN -- ANSWERED (May 6th,
 
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 14:55:30 -0700

 
<x-flowed>


TOP 25 REASONS TO KEEP SAN ONOFRE OPEN --
ANSWERED

-- By Russell D. Hoffman, Concerned Citizen, Carlsbad, CA --
-- The author is not connected with nuclear power or any other power entity --
-- Please see list of URLs at the end of this document for more information --
-- May 6th, 2005 --
-- Re: California CPUC DEIR;  App. # A.04.02.026; SCH No. 2004101008 --

1)  We need San Onofre's electrical output

The 2000-2001 California blackouts were ENGINEERED BY CORPORATIONS.  In 
prior years, we actually had HIGHER peak energy usage with NO 
blackouts.  What was different?  At one point THREE OUT OF OUR FOUR nuclear 
power plants in California were out of commission (one for an extended 
period because of a fire), and the power companies did not want us to 
realize that we simply don't need nuclear power.  So they invented the 
blackouts just at a time when it was both EASY and PROFITABLE for companies 
like ENRON to do so.

We might have shut nuclear power down in California completely THEN if the 
activists had BANDED TOGETHER ON THE SUBJECT AT THE TIME.

We don't need San Onofre's energy output.  Aside from the enormous 
inefficiencies in what is called the "Nuclear Fuel Cycle," it is dangerous 
and dirty, even when it is simply running without obvious problems.

Also, there are many ways to harness the energy nature already produces 
(and then throws away).  There are hundreds of methods for producing large 
amounts of electricity which were inconceivable or impossible to build when 
nuclear power was chosen as the "solution" to our electrical energy 
problems, but which are now technologically practical.  Think plastics, 
computers, buckyballs, nanotechnology, expert systems, artificial 
intelligence, robotics, transistors, distributed 
processing/Internet/virtual presence, carbon fiber, kevlar, titanium, 
lasers, DVDs.  Think efficiency.  Only about 7% of America's total energy 
usage goes directly to producing electricity.  The State of California has 
officially asked Californians to try to reduce electricity usage by 20% -- 
MORE than San Onofre and Diablo Canyon COMBINED deliver to 
California!  This writer does not believe cutting back is the 
answer.  Clean energy is the answer.

If you look at TYPICAL GOVERNMENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENTS such as 
the current State of California's CPUC DEIR for the Steam Generator 
Replacement Project at San Onofre, you'll see that realistic alternatives, 
such as OFF-SHORE WIND POWER SITES, TIDE POWER, WAVE POWER, HYDROELECTRIC 
POWER, MORE LONG-DISTANCE TRANSMISSION LINES, AND SO ON are ALL IGNORED OR 
PAID ONLY THE BAREST "LIP SERVICE."

2) We need San Onofre's jobs

Jobs?  You want to talk about JOBS?  First of all, all any nuclear power 
plant is, is a big bucket of bolts.  It's not magic.  It's not lab 
technicians in white coats performing technological miracles.  No, nuclear 
power is just like any other big business, except for the "quap" it 
creates.  Nuclear power plants are nothing more than "Pipes, Pumps, Valves, 
and Vessels" just like a hydroelectric plant or a coal-fired plant or an 
oil-fired plant.  But, because of all the "safety" systems, "backup" 
systems, "instrumentation" systems, "feedback loops", etc. etc. etc., 
nuclear power plants are enormously complicated -- so complicated that no 
one can be quite sure of what any particular plant is actually doing at any 
particular moment.  This is the opinion of highly qualified experts in 
instrumentation and control.

Nuclear power facilities such as San Onofre -- even with the "efficiency" 
of having two nuclear generators at the site (three, if you count the 
closed one that still sits at the site) -- are so complicated that they 
require, on average, about 1,500 people to operate where a conventional 
power plant would require about 1/10th as many people for the same power 
output, and a renewable energy power plant might only require 1/10th of 
that (15 people) to operate.

During refueling, the work force DOUBLES at nuclear power facilities, and 
yet power output is ZERO for the unit being refueled.  If the operational 
unit fails during refueling of the other unit, the facility produces ZERO 
power -- in fact, it drains enormous amounts of power FROM THE GRID to 
maintain its temporary "off" state!   Nuclear power is UNRELIABLE if 
nothing else.

All these people are skilled in some sort of technology and most are highly 
qualified to work on renewable energy systems if we shut San Onofre down, 
or they could be retrained.  But it's the "quap" that makes ALL the 
difference!  We need to shut San Onofre down because day by day, it creates 
enormous amounts of deadly radioactive poisons, which can be turned into a 
deadly POISON GAS and CARCINOGENIC PARTICULATES at any moment, by a 
terrorist, tsunami, earthquake, fire, flood, asteroid, riot, operator 
error, equipment failure, train wreck on the nearby tracks, procedural 
error (where the operators do what the book tells them to do, but the book 
is wrong), or some other catastrophe.  NO RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCE IS 
CAPABLE OF SUCH CATASTROPHIC EVENTS.


3) We need San Onofre's tax base

Huh?  A valid tax base can ONLY come from something which produces 
something of VALUE to society.  Everything else, no matter how it might 
appear, is, in fact, a LIABILITY to society.  We are burdened with 
4,000,000 pounds of "Spent Fuel" at San Onofre Nuclear WASTE Generating 
Station.  What will society do with this waste?  Knowledgeable experts know 
that Yucca Mountain and every other solution are NOT FEASIBLE, not wanted 
by their local communities, dangerous as all get-out to get the waste to 
the sites, and prone to long delays.  In other words, THE WASTE STAYS 
HERE.  It will cost a fortune.  It will be dangerous.  THE MORE THERE IS, 
THE MORE DANGEROUS IT IS.  In recent years, activists in California argued 
amongst themselves whether dry cask storage was safer than spent fuel pools 
or not.  But it was not an "or" question, because the reactors still are 
running.  And therefore, we have BOTH spent fuel pools AND dry casks!  If 
we shut the reactors down, then in 5 to 10 years we could eliminate the 
spent fuel pools (which most people feel are more dangerous) or we could at 
least STOP BUILDING MORE DRY CASKS, which this writer feels are much more 
vulnerable to terrorism.


4) Nuclear Power is cheap energy

No, it isn't, and let's not bother talking about the TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS 
even a "small" MELTDOWN would cost!  Right now, wind energy is the cheapest 
available energy, and will get relatively cheaper over the next 50 years 
and beyond, compared to non-renewable energy solutions, which will only 
continue to get more expensive.  Combined offshore wind/wave devices take 
no land, do practically no environmental damage, and can provide a constant 
baseline of power along with more than enough peak power to supply all of 
California with electricity for decades to come, INCLUDING energy for 
ELECTRIC / HYDROGEN VEHICLES.  (Hydrogen vehicles require enormous amounts 
of ELECTRICITY to produce the hydrogen they burn cleanly.  Thus, CLEAN 
ENERGY for these vehicles is vital to making them part of an environmental 
solution.  The Bush Administration seriously misunderstands this point.)

Society tends to give undue weight to "up-front" costs.  But in reality, 
ALL costs of any chosen (or discarded) technology must be applied to ANY 
decision regarding using (or continuing to use) that technology.  Nuclear 
power has been -- and continues to be through such things as the 
Price-Anderson Act -- highly subsidized by the federal government from day 
one.  But ratepayers have never received one kilowatt of cheap electricity 
from nuclear power, taxpayers have paid through the nose, and those who 
have been or will be harmed by radiation will never receive any 
compensation.  To whatever extent nuclear power is cheap (which it's not), 
these are the reasons why.


5)  Nuclear Power is safe energy

If it's so safe, why did Osama consider attacking it on 9-11?  Why did San 
Onofre claim to have doubled the number of armed guards it maintains on the 
premises at all times after 9-11?  They will NOT say how many they actually 
use, but concerned EXPERTS have determined that the previous number was 
almost surely not more than FOUR.  Have they DOUBLED THAT?  Would 50 armed 
guards be able to stop a PRIVATE PLANE FROM OCEANSIDE AIRPORT, filled with 
explosives, from crashing into the facility?  Not a chance.

But what about natural disasters? Isn't San Onofre safely protected against 
those?  Again, no.  For tsunamis, there is a 30 foot sea wall (variously 
reported in the media to be a 35 foot sea wall).  In the December 26th, 
2004 tsunami disaster, waves of SIXTY FEET were reliably reported in MANY 
LOCATIONS!  Similarly, San Onofre claims to be protected against a 7.0 
earthquake.  But it's anyone's guess as to whether it really is -- or 
whether that's good enough.  What IS well-known is that after major 
earthquakes in California over the past few decades, numerous buildings 
collapsed which were expected to survive the forces they are believed to 
have encountered --  many of these buildings were built long after San 
Onofre.  Asteroid protection?  No, that's NOT what the domes are 
for!  Those huge concrete domes are only a few feet thick on the top!  And 
the spent fuel pools and dry cask storage systems are also not adequately 
protected against natural disasters.  San Onofre officials have said that 
the dry casks are designed to withstand being submerged in 50 feet of 
water.  This is untested, and -- since 60 foot waves (or larger!) should be 
expected in the area sooner or later -- utterly inadequate!

A meltdown at an operating nuclear power plant can happen in a matter of 
seconds.  A terrorist attack can be over before any outside forces have had 
any chance to grab their weapons, let alone head for the facility.  The 
meager private security forces at the plant can be overrun by any 
well-trained, suicidal band of terrorists because they will bring with them 
overwhelming firepower such as grenades, poison gas, laser weapons, etc. 
etc. etc..  Experts have concluded that no adequate protection can be built 
cost-effectively.  "Too cheap to meter" is really "too expensive to 
protect" and we ought to just shut them down for this reason alone.


6) Radiation in low doses is harmless

Harmless?  Not at all!  Numerous studies have shown that there are 
"standard" ways that radiation harms the body, such as the "bystander 
effect" (kills adjacent cells), the creation of "free radicals," and direct 
DNA damage.  These cause various kinds of cancer, a weeping heap of forms 
of genetic damage, some of the most common types of heart failure, some 
forms of dementia, most leukemias, and many other ailments.

Take tritium, for example, or what they call "tritiated water."  Tritium is 
radioactive hydrogen, of which a tiny fraction occurs naturally.  But 
around a nuclear power plant, thousands of Curies of tritium are released 
each year.  Its half-life is about 12 years.  Even though tritium decays 
with very low energy, each radioactive decay can destroy 20,000 chemical 
bonds in your body.  20,000 "free radicals" can be created, or 20,000 DNA 
strands can be broken, or 20,000 holes in your cell's walls can be 
created.  You have trillions of cells, with millions of chemical bonds in 
each cell.  So what if 20,000 are damaged by one little radioactive decay 
of tritium, you might ask.  Dr. Caldicott put it this way recently: "It 
takes a single mutation in a single gene in a single cell to kill 
you."  And, it's not just one radioactive decay.  EACH ACCIDENT THE NUCLEAR 
INDUSTRY HAS POISONS YOU.  For example, many people have tried to estimate 
the burden we each carry (in the Northern Hemisphere) from the radioactive 
contents on board NASA's SNAP 9A rocket in the 1960s.  SNAP 9A fell to 
earth, releasing 2.1 pounds of plutonium (about 17,0000 Curies) into the 
environment.  NASA had estimated the chance of failure at one in ten 
million.  Pro-nukers have calculated that the average male adult pisses out 
ONE MILLION ATOMS OF PLUTONIUM PER DAY from that ONE accident.  Their 
"proof" that this is harmless is that we have not all died of testicular 
cancer!  And, they say, a small amount of radiation may even be GOOD FOR YOU!

With logic like that extended to the everyday world, pregnant women would 
be required to smoke cigarettes and drink several shots of whiskey every 
morning.  And lead plumbing would come back in style, which some say led to 
the fall of the Roman Empire, as stupidity set in from the piped-in water 
system.  A marvel of engineering, and seemingly so environmentally 
friendly!  But it had a hidden flaw.  Nuclear power's flaws are not so well 
hidden!  Instead, the nuclear industry spends MILLIONS OF DOLLARS EACH YEAR 
covering up their mistakes.  How many people reading this have ever heard 
of DAVIS-BESSE in Ohio?  In 2002, it came closer to a MELTDOWN than Three 
Mile Island did in 1979, which most people have, presumably, heard of.  THE 
INDUSTRY HAS COVERED UP THE DAVIS-BESSE DEBACLE, including the fact that it 
resulted in the largest fine (over $5,000,000) the NRC has ever handed out 
(it's being appealed).


7) Coal is the only alternative, or some other fossil fuel

First of all, why WOULD anyone choose coal over solar, wind, tide, wave, 
hydro, or geothermal?  Or space-based mirrors for added evening light in 
major cities?  Coal, like oil, is a wonderful substance which should be 
processed, not simply burned!  Second of all, if you believe the hype the 
Bush Administration is offering about "Clean Coal Technology", then what's 
the worry?


8) Nuclear power is a proven technology

Yeah, proven FAULTY!  This is an industry which has had to send memos 
around the country reminding themselves not to leave TAGS on their control 
room indicators and switches which overlay other important switches, 
gauges, dials, etc.!  In other words, this has been a recurrent problem at 
U.S. nuclear power plants.  It was considered a factor in the Three Mile 
Island accident, and has NEVER been completely resolved, along with 100s of 
other control-room problems such as stress-related mistakes, or medical 
drug-induced confusions.  For example, a common class of heart medication, 
known collectively as "beta blockers" (no connection to "beta particles" 
which are released by nuclear power plants), is itself known to cause heart 
failures, as well as hallucinations, mood swings, and depression.  Yet this 
author has not been able to find a single study of the use of "beta 
blockers" among nuclear power control room staff who, because of their age 
(especially senior management) and low physical-exertion jobs, are among 
the population most likely to be using these medications.

For several years at Davis-Besse in Ohio, WARNING SIGNS had appeared that 
there was a rust problem.  Air filters would clog with RADIOACTIVE RUST 
PARTICLES so often that the filters -- which are supposed to be changed 
every three months -- were being changed DAILY.  The NRC was not regulating 
carefully enough to notice, and the plant operators who had to order and 
replace and dispose of all those filters didn't notice, and the 
filter-supply company didn't notice -- NOBODY noticed the hole in the 
REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL (RPV) that was forming.  But by chance, a worker 
leaned against a CONTROL ROD HOUSING above the RPV during an outage, and it 
FELL OVER AGAINST THE NEXT CONTROL ROD HOUSING.  This led to a more careful 
inspection which led to the discovery of a HOLE which was created by a LEAK 
of the HIGHLY CAUSTIC PRIMARY COOLANT from pipes above the reactor 
itself.  At least one more control rod housing was similarly wobbly from a 
second leak and a second rust spot.  The larger hole went all the way 
through the RPV and the ONLY thing holding back the 2,200 PSI Primary 
Coolant inside the reactor was a 1/8th inch (some say 3/16ths) STAINLESS 
STEEL LINER whose sole purpose in the reactor was to PROTECT the RPV from 
the CAUSTIC CHEMICAL BROTH on the inside -- it was not designed to serve 
any pressure-containment purpose at all!  This was more nearly a serious 
meltdown than Three Mile Island was, in many ways.  But it happened in 2002 
and nobody noticed, nobody was told.

Then there was Monticello.  In 2001 at Monticello, an old Boiling Water 
Reactor (BWR) in the midwest, they discovered that ever since the plant had 
opened in 1970, the Emergency Core Cooling System (ECCS) would NOT HAVE 
BEEN AVAILABLE if needed.  Why not?  Shipping bolts -- 32 of them, to be 
removed at installation time -- had been LEFT ON the "bellows" that would 
have let the ECCS water circulate around the reactor!  Obviously, these 
parts were never inspected, never tested, and fortunately, never 
needed.  In fact, no ECCS in America has ever been needed, and many of them 
are HIGHLY SUSPECT as to whether they would work at all!

The only thing "proven" about nuclear power is that sooner or later, if we 
do not shut down the plants FOR GOOD, there WILL BE A MELTDOWN.  That is a 
proven, statistically INEVITABLE fact.  BWR, PWR, PBMR, it doesn't 
matter.  They can all burn up, melt down, be vaporized in a terrorist's 
nuclear bomb attack, etc. etc. etc..  Ask yourself this:  If the people 
trying to promote the NEXT GENERATION of nukes are so sure they are so much 
safer than the CURRENT GENERATION as to make nuclear power "good" again, 
then WHY aren't these same people calling for shutting down the current 
generation and making do with less energy (or adding more peak power 
capacity elsewhere for a few years), and concentrating their money (instead 
of ours) on the new technology instead of throwing more money (OUR MONEY) 
down the nuclear rat-hole that today's plants are, and making US throw OUR 
money towards these new generations of nukes?

They refuse to educate themselves about the dangers, the side effects, the 
downside, the real costs, the potential catastrophic loss of life that 
could occur because we have places like San Onofre in our midst.

9) Renewable energy isn't ready

Yes it is, and it has been for decades.  Sure, there will be some stumbling 
along the way if we try to build the "farthest out" ideas in the first 
steps.  We will probably need to replace our renewable technology as 
better, more efficient, more renewable technology comes along.  And guess 
what?  Renewables have a big advantage there, too, because unlike USED 
NUCLEAR MACHINERY, renewable energy systems are, themselves, 
recyclable.  But everything at a nuclear power plant is RADIOACTIVE.  The 
only way the government or industry can reuse any of it is by ALLOWING 
DEADLY POISONS INTO YOUR HOME which, by the way, there is an enormous move 
to do -- recycling what they call "slightly" radioactive metals into 
children's braces, for instance (I KID YOU NOT).

Let's take a look at those "old" steam generators they want to "replace" at 
San Onofre -- the ones that were SUPPOSED to last the entire life of the 
plants (that's why they have to cut a hole in the supposedly impenetrable 
containment dome to replace them).  The old ones might very well end up 
sitting on the grounds of the facility, letting off their radioactive 
"shine."  They are considered too "hot" for anywhere but one possible waste 
facility in the whole country, and that one place (in Utah) might also not 
be able to accept them, so the plans currently call for semi-permanent 
storage on site.


10) Renewable energy, even if it's ready, can't replace all that many other 
sources, it can only do a little bit

Not true.  In just one location (the Tehachapi Pass) California PLANS to 
build more than enough wind power capacity to replace all four nuclear 
power plants in the state.  Renewable energy WILL dot the landscape, if 
it's applied properly.  We just have to APPLY IT properly.  Some birds will 
die from collisions with windmill blades, just as they now die from 
collisions with cars, trucks, and airplanes.  Whales die from collisions 
with submarines (it's called "hitting a cow" in the nuclear navy).  Jobs 
will change and who makes money will change.  With San Onofre operating, 
Southern California Edison (the operator and primary owner) makes millions 
of dollars every day, while deadly "spent fuel" nuclear waste piles up for 
our children to take care of, and while we risk ruining Southern California 
for thousands of years.

For 50 years, we have been told that a solution to the problem of nuclear 
waste was coming.  But NOBODY -- not Edward Teller, nor Glenn Seaborg, nor 
anyone else in the pro-nuclear camp, or in any camp, has EVER come up with 
ANYTHING that even REMOTELY BEGINS TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM!  Cost-effectively.

Sure, we can build, for about TWO BILLION dollars, ANOTHER sarcophagus 
around CHERNOBYL.  And then ANOTHER.  And then ANOTHER.  And each will cost 
BILLIONS MORE than the previous one.  And each will crumble from the 
INTENSE RADIATION WITHIN THE PLANT.

Sure, we can take the SPENT REACTOR CORES FROM SAN ONOFRE and dump them in 
a leaky tunnel in an earthquake-prone section of NEVADA -- if they'll let 
us.  But that doesn't mean we've safely disposed of them.  And we can't be 
sure we can get them there safely.  And we can't do any of that without 
OSAMA seeing one of the thousands of trips.  At least 5,000 trips from 
California reactor sites alone will be needed to remove the CURRENT WASTE 
PILES.  The more waste we make, the more trips we'll need.  OSAMA ONLY 
NEEDS TO FIND ONE OF THEM.

Did I mention the DOE proposed vehicle for these trips has about 92 wheels 
and something like 20 axles?  It has to; the shipments are enormous, even 
with 5,000 of them to go.  Osama will have little trouble picking out the 
target.


11) It's too expensive to switch now

It only gets more expensive.  As non-renewable resources are depleted, the 
cost of switching increases because the cost of doing business increases 
for EVERYBODY.  Uranium, by the way, is a non-renewable resource!


12) People studied this in the past and decided it was ok

Yeah, we've heard lots of things are okay that, in retrospect, we should 
have known better about.  Few people would ride a bike or ski without a 
helmet nowadays, but when nuclear power was approved, only racers wore 
helmets.  Cigarettes, of course, were not considered dangerous by most 
people when nuclear power came along.  X-rays were considered so harmless, 
children's feet were routinely x-rayed to see if their shoes fit!  Many of 
these children suffered horrible cancers, along with the shoe salesmen, 
whose hands would be irradiated during the procedure.  People have made 
mistakes in the past; nuclear power is undoubtedly one of them.


13) People want nuclear power

People don't like being told they'll freeze in the dark.  People know they 
need electricity to survive and enjoy life.  Furthermore, they are not told 
about Davis-Besse, or Monticello, or that Osama was considering targeting 
nuclear power facilities, or that the real reason we have nuclear power was 
that we "needed" the power plants to produce plutonium for nuclear bombs 
(San Onofre produces several hundred POUNDS of bomb-grade plutonium EACH YEAR).


14) It's anti-technology to be against nuclear power

No, the opposite is true.  Nuclear power is 50 years old and the so-called 
"new" designs (like Pebble Bed Modular Reactors) are actually just old 
designs redesigned using one or two new features -- like, NO CONTAINMENT 
DOME.  There are lots of exciting, innovative technologies for renewable 
energy.  By 2020, with or without the Steam Generator Replacement Project, 
renewable energy in California is expected to produce at least double to 
triple the total power output of San Onofre AND Diablo Canyon COMBINED.  So 
we actually ARE replacing San Onofre's power several times over.  Yet we 
are told, year after year, that we cannot!


15) Only ignorant people oppose nuclear power

Not true again.  There are hundreds of books by highly meticulous 
researchers and scientists which discuss the many dangers of nuclear 
power.  This author has collected over 500 books about nuclear power (see 
URLs at the end of this document for a list of many of them).  Only a 
relatively small handful of books have actually been WRITTEN in SUPPORT of 
nuclear power -- the author has many of them in his collection, books by 
Teller, Seaborg, Cohen, and other pro-nukers.

It's certainly true that a lot of ignorant people oppose nuclear power.  A 
lot of ignorant people also support it.

People are demanding a stop to the creation of ever-increasing piles of 
radioactive waste NOT because they are ignorant but because they are 
EDUCATED ABOUT THE DANGERS AND HAVE LEARNED TO SAY 'NO'!


16) Science supports nuclear power

Scientists are more easily bought than most people would 
believe.  Scientists are more easily fooled than most people would 
believe.  Science has yet to come up with a cost-effective, safe solution 
to the problem of radioactive waste.  Despite spending 30 billion dollars 
on the problem over 50 years, they are still at a virtual 
standstill.  Yucca Mountain isn't much of "scientific" solution anyway, 
even if it gets built -- a big hole in the ground!  That's not what we were 
promised when Americans decided, in the 1950s and 1960s, to build a few 
nuclear power sites.  The industry always wanted -- and still wants -- 
THOUSANDS of nuclear reactors.  We have 103, which is 103 too many.


17) Media supports nuclear power

There are a lot of members of the media who should be ashamed of themselves 
for not investigating nuclear power thoroughly enough to understand its 
dangers.  Too many members of the media are NOT AWARE, for example that the 
"spent fuel pools" and "dry casks" are OUTSIDE THE CONTAINMENT DOMES.  Or 
even that there are MANY vital parts outside those domes, such as emergency 
power generators, control rooms, pumps, and emergency core cooling system 
water supplies.  But OSAMA knows!   The California state government would 
have you believe that the SPENT FUEL POOLS at San Onofre are safe from 
AIRPLANE STRIKES because they are located BETWEEN THE TWO DOMES.  Media 
need not take such foolish assurances to mean anything but that the person 
claiming the spent fuel pools are safe from airplane strikes is either 
lying, crazy, or both.  An East-to-West or West-to-East approach, or a dive 
straight down into the facility, is all it would take.  And baby, can you 
maneuver a 747 if you don't mind making the passengers' stomachs 
queezy!  You can flip it over on its back and dive it straight in.  Even if 
the wings peel off it won't matter much if you choose the right angle of 
approach.  Don't believe me?  Buy a flight simulator and try it.  We all 
know the terrorists can fly planes.  They just don't know how to land them.


18) The military supports nuclear power

It has to.  It needs a retirement program for all those people it trains to 
operate the military reactors, who are expecting high-paying, respectable 
jobs when they get out of the service.  Furthermore, the only way they can 
claim their reactors are not spewing dangerous radiation into our 
environment, and creating massive quantities of radioactive waste we can't 
do anything with safely, is by claiming the commercial power reactors are 
also safe, and that low-level radiation is harmless.

But in reality, nuclear power is NO BETTER for military use than for 
civilian use.  The U.S. Government's own General Accounting Office, WITHOUT 
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ACCIDENTS, DAILY RELEASES, OR THE PROBLEM OF DISPOSING 
OF THE RADIOACTIVE SPENT FUEL WASTE, still concluded that there is no 
advantage to nuclear aircraft carriers from a purely cost/benefit point of 
view.  After all, it's the depleted-uranium-spewing planes that do the 
fighting, not the carriers, which only launch the planes and retrieve 
them.  It's the depleted-uranium-tipped Tomahawk missiles that destroy 
targets, not the cruisers which launch them.  And the submarines don't 
really need to run silently for that long -- it's all hype.   When they 
really want to run silent, they have to shut the reactor down and run on 
batteries, anyway!   Besides, the Cold War's over, remember?


19) The government supports nuclear power

The Department of Energy and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission were created 
because the Atomic Energy Commission was too biased.  After Three Mile 
Island, the job of regulating nuclear power was divested from the job of 
promoting it.  But the NRC never divested itself of supporting nuclear 
power at any cost.  If you try to ask an NRC official why they do not 
support a switch to renewables, they will NOT tell you all about the 
inefficiencies of wind power, etc. etc..  Instead, they will simply tell 
you that is NOT THEIR JOB -  that you should go to the DOE to talk about 
alternatives.  They only make sure the plants run safely, they say.  But if 
you go to a toadie at the DOE, they'll tell you that as long as the NRC 
says nukes are safe, they don't have a problem with them and WON'T 
INVESTIGATE the advantages of switching to renewable energy instead.  Try 
it yourself: That's the kind of run-around you'll get.


20) Nuclear power was democratically chosen by the people

That's just simply not true.  People were told we needed the plants for 
electricity production when really they were for making plutonium -- THAT's 
how it all got started!  We've been told every excuse under the sun 
(literally) except the right one.  We've been told we need it or our lights 
will go out -- NOT TRUE.  We've been told it's cheap -- NOT TRUE.  We've 
even been told it will release us from the grip of foreign cartels, but 
that's NOT TRUE either!  And what is the REAL reason we keep using nuclear 
power, even though none of the reasons we've been given are accurate?  IT'S 
BECAUSE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS MAKE BILLIONS OF DOLLARS FOR THEIR OPERATORS 
-- AT THE COST OF YOUR LIFE!  That's the reason we have nuclear power in 
America.  Because the owners love to make money and the military needs both 
the byproducts of nuclear power (Plutonium and Uranium for atomic bombs) 
and a "civilian" reactor program to create public support for the military 
reactor and nuclear bomb programs.  And not to mention the Uranium 
munitions program, another waste product of the nuclear reactor program 
which is finding its way into our environment at an ever-increasing rate.


21) More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than from nuclear power

That's the claim of a popular pro-nuclear bumper sticker, but it isn't 
true.  Three Mile Island alone released so much radioactivity that cancer 
clusters around the plant have existed ever since.  A few biased studies 
which suggest otherwise are widely promoted, but the reality is:  That area 
is highly polluted.  And Chernobyl killed tens of thousands of people, 
maybe hundreds of thousands.


22) Leading "anti-nuclear" scientists and researchers have been discredited

Oh, you mean Dr. John W. Gofman?  No, he hasn't.  His role in the Manhattan 
Project, his eminent stature in the medical field as well as in nuclear 
physics, has not been diminished by anyone.  Or do you mean Dr. Helen 
Caldicott, Nobel Peace Prize Nominee and founder of Physicians for Social 
Responsibility and other organizations?  No, she hasn't been discredited, 
either.  Or perhaps you are thinking of Dr. Alice Stewart, who discovered 
the connection between prenatal x-rays and childhood cancers?  No, her soul 
rests untarnished.  Or do you mean Dr. Ernest Sternglass, whose inventions 
are still used by NASA on every space launch?  Or perhaps you mean author 
and videographer Karl Grossman?  Wrong again -- his meticulous footnoting 
of his books may bore the average reader to tears, but it's accurate.


23) The "anti-nuclear" activists are a bunch of whackos

There are "whackos" everywhere, in every group.  Recently, one of the most 
important anti-nuclear activist organizations -- Global Network -- was 
found to be INFILTRATED by the local police force (in Florida), acting as 
spies for NASA and the Pentagon.  When you see an activist you think is 
"whacko" remember they might just be putting on a show for you to see.  Get 
out and get the facts for yourself.   The anti-nuclear organizations have 
some very qualified, very talented, very rational, and very respected 
scientists who lead and support them and advise the true activists.


24) We're all going to die somehow anyway

That's a fact.  But we each have a right to determine FOR OURSELVES what 
risks we want to take.  And society should generally be VERY WARY of 
"solutions" which require each of us to take on an added risk, however 
small, for hundreds or even thousands of generations and 
globally.  Billions of CURIES of radioactive waste have been released into 
the environment already because of nuclear power, which has contributed, 
along with nuclear weapons testing, to global increases in thyroid cancer, 
leukemia, and other ailments typical of an environment irradiated with 
POISON GAS MADE OF RADIOACTIVE INHALABLE AND INGESTIBLE PARTICLES.


25 ) But we've ALWAYS done it like this!

No we haven't.  Nuclear power was once the "new kid on the block" and 
everybody was thrilled by the idea that we would have electrical energy 
that was "too cheap to meter."  Although it was later learned that it would 
be expensive electricity prone to outages and other problems, we are STILL 
being told that it is cheap energy!  It isn't, it never was, it never will be.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Suggested URLs for further information about nuclear power:

Please visit these web sites:

SHUT SAN ONOFRE!:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/onofre/index.htm

POISON FIRE USA:  An animated history of major nuclear activities in the 
continental United States, including:

1033 nuclear bomb blasts
21 subcritical tests
190 nuclear submarine launches
41 Boiling Water Reactors
83 Pressurized Water Reactors
28 Nuclear space launches
10 Nuclear Aircraft Carrier launches
9 Nuclear Cruiser launches
Numerous mines, processing facilities, waste dumps, etc:
www.animatedsoftware.com/poifu/poifu.swf

STOP CASSINI web site.  NASA plans to launch approximately 135,000 Curies 
of Plutonium 238 in 2006 on board a space probe called NEW HORIZONS.  STOP 
THEM!:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/index.htm

NO NUKES IN SPACE: (FLASH animation):
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.swf
or try:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/mx/nasa/columbia/index.html

Internet Glossary of Nuclear Terminology / "The Demon Hot Atom":
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/hotwords/index.htm

List of every nuclear power plant in America, with history, activist orgs, 
specs, etc.:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/nukelist.htm

List of ~300 books and videos about nuclear issues in my collection 
(donations welcome!):
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/mybooks.htm

Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm

=======================================================






*************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** P.O. Box 1936, Carlsbad CA 92018-1936
** (800) 551-2726
** (760) 720-7261
** Fax: (760) 720-7394
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com
*************************************************

IF YOU RECEIVED THIS EMAIL IN ERROR AND/OR DO NOT WISH TO RECEIVE ANY MORE 
EMAILS FROM US FOR ANY REASON, PLEASE CONTACT RUSSELL HOFFMAN AT:

rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com

MailTo:rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com?Subject=Unsubscribe-me-please .
Please be sure that "Unsubscribe-me-please" appears in the subject line.


</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 18 IPS-English UKRAINE: Another SOS From Chernobyl Victims, 19

Date: Thu, 05 May 2005 15:08:30 -0700 ROMAIPS EU HE HD IP

UKRAINE: Another SOS From Chernobyl Victims, 19 Years Later 

By Zoltán Dujisin 

CHERNOBYL, Ukraine, May 5 (IPS) - Ukraine is planning new 
measures to contain the fallout of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster 
19 years ago. Victims of the most devastating nuclear accident 
ever gathered in capital Kiev on the 19th anniversary of the 
accident Apr. 26 to demand more state support. The government is 
also confronting the need to take further precautionary steps at 
the nuclear plant. President Viktor Yushchenko promised on the 
anniversary that within 30 days his government would choose a 
project to build a new structure to cover the present one. The 
move has so far been delayed by the prohibitive 1.1 billion 
dollar cost of the project. 

The present structure was built shortly after the explosion. 
United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has said the 
international community must also ”provide the necessary 
financial support” to victims. Protesters in Kiev demanded 
increased financial compensation, but Annan intends to direct aid 
towards programmes designed to ”assist communities traumatised by 
Chernobyl to regain self-sufficiency.” In line with UN 
recommendations, parliamentary hearings on Apr. 12 indicated a 
shift in Ukraine's Chernobyl social policy.

Available resources will target those more seriously hit by the 
accident, while self-initiative projects are likely to replace 
monetary assistance in cases considered less serious. The highest 
number of victims were among the so-called ”liquidators” who 
attempted to control the fire and cover the wreckage in the days 
and weeks following the explosion. They came in contact with 
highly radioactive material. Their efforts helped prevent what 
could have been an even more catastrophic outcome - a nuclear 
explosion that could have made a large part of Europe 
uninhabitable. About 500,000 liquidators worked at the site of 
the explosion. Cancer rates among them are higher than average, 
according to several medical studies. Gathered from military 
units around the former Soviet Union, these men were mostly 
ill-equipped, and unaware of the risks they were undertaking.

Medical records describing the level of radiation they were 
exposed to were eliminated by Soviet authorities, leaving them 
with no knowledge of just how seriously they have been affected.

”They didn't see anything very frightening in Chernobyl,” Yuri 
Sayenko, scientific director of the Sociology Institute of the 
Ukrainian Academy of Sciences told IPS. But the health of many 
rapidly worsened and ”they experienced a series of social and 
psychological shifts with time.” Some have managed to live a 
normal life, and continued to work at the plant after it was 
reactivated in November 1986. But others are convinced they will 
suffer the rest of their lives and that radiation will eventually 
kill them or their children. 

Another face of the tragedy is the hundreds of thousands forced 
out of homes located too close to the plant. The government 
divided the contaminated land into three zones. The first zone is 
only illegally inhabited, while in the other two many still live 
legally. Those in the third zone were only advised to relocate, 
but residents in the second zone should have been moved. This was 
never done due to lack of funds. 

Second and third zone residents are the main targets of a UN 
self-sufficiency programme that kicked off two years ago. ”They 
live a dying life,” Sayenko said. ”Nothing happens there, there 
is no perspective, no development.” 

Many victims here believe they live on dangerous land, and that 
the state should meet their needs. Recent surveys have suggested 
that they lack interest in developing social, educational and 
business infrastructure. ”What is especially bad is having youth 
and children growing up in an atmosphere of hopelessness,” 
Sayenko said. ”

There is no interest in development, only in sustaining what they 
have.” About 130,000 people who were resettled around the country 
ran into different problems. The Soviet Union distributed houses 
and land to them, and guaranteed them financial and health 
assistance. But it failed to give them jobs, complicating their 
integration in the new communities. The tensions were exacerbated 
by the previous regime's strategy of concealing information on 
Chernobyl and its aftermath. ”Locals didn't understand why they 
received all this help. 

They looked like normal people, like themselves,” Sayenko said. 
”Even their children couldn't socialise in schools.” The younger 
settlers eventually managed to adapt, but many among the older 
generation did not accept the new accommodation as home, and 
longed to return to earlier homes, often within the first zone. 
About 1,000 farmers either never left, or returned immediately 
after the accident. The 450 who survive do not seem to fear 
radiation -- but other Ukrainians fear them. Each of them travels 
about 50 times a year to Kiev and other big cities to sell 
vegetables that some fear could be contaminated. 

The government has set several controls to assess the safety of 
products, but villagers often manage to bypass them. The town of 
Chernobyl is located about 175km north of capital Kiev. Selling 
their groceries is one of the few opportunities they have of 
communicating with the outside world. Up to 1998 these 
'self-settlers' where considered ghosts, living without medical 
inspections, shops or electricity, and helped only by a few 
charitable officials on duty in the zone. 

Since then the situation has improved; the state provides them 
electricity and medical check-ups, and has offered them mobile 
shops. But living in an exclusion zone inevitably implies little 
contact with relatives, or any visitors at all. 

Paryshiv, a village located a few kilometres from the nuclear 
plant, originally housed 500 people. It now has a population of 
14. Tree branches stretch through windows into abandoned 
households. 

Paths are indistinguishable from vegetation, and many courtyards 
have joined the surrounding forest. The rare villager is the 
single indication of human life. Like Maria, an energetic, 
76-year-old who opens her home to anyone willing to chat, and 
forces home-made vodka on her guests in strict adherence with 
Ukrainian hospitality. Her son, who fought the fire in Chernobyl 
died last year of a liver disease. ”It's not easy to live without 
neighbours,” she told IPS. ”But I would be just as lonely in 
Kiev.”

(END/IPS/EU/HE/HD/IP/ZD/SS/05) = 05050916 ORP003 NNNN 
*****************************************************************
 19 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Comanche Peak Nuclear Plant
 
News Release - Region IV - 2005-01
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV
  No. IV-05-016           May 6, 2005   
  CONTACT:     Victor Dricks
Phone: 817-860-8128
     E-mail:   
  

representatives of TXU Power on May 10 to discuss the results of
the agencys 2004 assessment of safety performance at the
Comanche Peak nuclear plant, located near Glen Rose, Texas. 

The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at the Somervell County Expo
Center, 202 Bo Gibbs Blvd., Glen Rose. 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.
 
Each year the NRC staff evaluates the performance of each of the
nations commercial nuclear plants, said Region IV Administrator
Bruce S. Mallett. This meeting gives us a chance to discuss our
assessment with the company, local officials and residents near
the plant. We want to make this information available to the
public and answer any questions people may have about the plant. 

Overall, Comanche Peak operated safely during 2004 and will
receive baseline inspections during 2005. Baseline inspections
are performed by the NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the
plant and by inspection specialists from the Region IV office
and the agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas,
to plant officials will serve as the basis for the meeting. It
is available on the NRC web site at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/cp_2004q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] . 

Current information for Comanche Peak Unit 1 is available on the
NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CP1/cp1_chart.html.
 Information for Unit 2 is available at:
 http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/CP2/cp2_chart.html.   



  


 	Last revised Friday, May 06, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 20 The State: SCANA warms to nuclear energy
 
 05/06/2
 
Rising fuel costs, states growing demand for electricity mean
utility might need to look beyond coal and natural gas to
provide power

 By BEN WERNER

 Staff Writer

Nuclear energy  long a radioactive bugaboo among institutional
lenders  is now a power source that is getting another look,
said William B. Timmerman, SCANA Corp. chairman and chief
executive. 

Answering an investors question during SCANAs annual meeting
Thursday in Columbia, Timmerman said that given the current
energy environment, nuclear energy has to be on the table when
making plans to meet the states growing power demands. 

If you asked me that two years ago, Id say not on my watch,
Timmerman said. 

For two decades, financial markets wanted nothing to do with
nuclear energy, he said. 

Demand for nuclear power plants disappeared after the Three Mile
Island and Chernobyl disasters. No new nuclear plant has been
ordered since 1978. 

Large lenders feared putting hundreds of millions of dollars
into capital projects that require lengthy permitting and
construction processes and potentially ugly fights with
community and environmental groups. 

It would have been financially suicidal to announce plans for
more nuclear plants, Timmerman said. 

Two other power companies with an S.C. presence  Duke Power of
Charlotte and Progress Energy of Raleigh  also have said they
are considering using nuclear power to meet needs. 

SCANAs South Carolina Electric &Gas Co. subsidiary operates a
nuclear plant in Fairfield County. SCANA owns two-thirds of the
plant; state-owned Santee Cooper owns a third. The V.C. Summer
plant opened in 1982, making it among the newest plants in
operation. 

The question about nuclear power was the only one from investors
at Thursdays meeting. Joseph Bouknight, SCANAs senior vice
president for human resources, said that suggests investors are
happy with managers. 

Thats why there were not a lot of investor questions, he
said. 

SCANAs stock price rose 15 percent during 2004, closing at
$39.40 on Dec. 31, 2004. The company declared a $1.46 dividend
for 2004. In February, it raised its quarterly dividend to 39
cents a share, a half-cent above its peak dividend before a 1999
cut. 

The company raised base power rates earlier this year, and it
has sought permission to raise natural gas rates in the state by
November. 

A combination of pressures facing South Carolinas largest
publicly traded company makes the nuclear option worth
mentioning, Timmerman said. 

Specifically, SCANA is dealing with: 

• Increasing costs of other fuel sources such as coal and
natural gas 

• Environmental concerns and costs of cleanup associated with
using those fuels 

• An ever-growing demand for power. 

For the next decade, Timmerman said SCANA can address
anticipated power demands in South Carolina. After that, though,
adding nuclear plants could be an option, especially if coal and
natural gas prices remain high. 

With higher fuel costs, passing it along to customers is not a
long-term strategy, Timmerman said. That just takes money away
from their disposable income. 

Its stock closed Thursday at $39.11, up 9 cents. Its 12-month
high is $40.04, reached in February. 

The Associated Press contributed to this story. Reach Werner at
(803) 771-8509 or bwerner@thestate.com.   




      
<IMG
SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/thestate.news/local;kw=bottom;c
2=local;c3=local_homepage;pos=bottom;group=234x60;ord=11154416843
14?" BORDER="0" >    


TheStateOnline
*****************************************************************
 21 ArabicNews.Com: Nuclear energy becoming a must to Morocco
 
 Morocco, Economics, 5/6/2005 

Morocco is now forced to walk the nuclear energy path, though
the nuclear option "remains open for the time being, for there
is no political decision, yet" on the matter, said Khalid El
Mediouri.
 
El Mediouri, Managing Director of the National Center for energy
and nuclear science and techniques (CNESTEN), told
"L'Economiste" daily the center is preparing "for a political
decision that is favorable to the use of nuclear power" and
conducted studies on a site to host a future nuclear power plant
and chose a location for the site.
 
This energy technology is turning into a must due to oil high
prices, the Kyoto Protocol constraints and growing development
needs, El Mediouri said stressing the center abides in its
activities by international regulations.
 
The State has substantially invested in the nuclear field by
namely outfitting the center with high-technology equipment, El
Mediouri said stressing the government will to enhance the legal
framework in this respect.
 
He, however, said the MAD 40 million government subsidy, around
4 million euros, to the CNESTEN is not enough, while
highlighting the importance of the center's human resources
numbering 220 officers, including 60 researchers. The center
ensures its operation spending through providing services to the
public and private sector, he went on to say. 

   Copyright © 1995-2003 Arabic News.com, All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
 22 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Grand Gulf Nuclear Plant
 
News Release - Region IV - 2005-01
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV
  No. IV-05-017           May 6, 2005   
  CONTACT:     Victor Dricks
Phone: 817-860-8128
     E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov  
  

representatives of Entergy Operations on May 12 to discuss the
results of the agencys assessment of safety performance for the
Grand Gulf nuclear plant near Port Gibson, Miss. 

The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at Port Gibson City Hall,
1005 College Street, in Port Gibson. 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. 

Each year the NRC staff evaluates the performance of each of the
nations commercial nuclear plants, said Region IV Administrator
Bruce S. Mallett. This meeting gives us a chance to discuss our
assessment with the company, local officials and residents near
the plant. We want to make this information available to the
public and answer any questions people may have about the plant. 

Overall, Grand Gulf operated safely during 2004 and will receive
baseline inspections during 2005. Baseline inspections are
performed by the NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant
and by inspection specialists from the Region IV office and the
agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas,
to plant officials will serve as the basis for the meeting. It
is available on the NRC web site at:
 http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/gg_2004q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] .
 
Current information for Grand Gulf is available on the NRC web
site at:
 http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/GG1/gg1_chart.html.   



  


 	Last revised Friday, May 06, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 23 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessment for Fort Calhoun Nuclear Plant
 
News Release - Region IV - 2005-01
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region IV
  No. IV-05-018           May 6, 2005   
  CONTACT:     Victor Dricks
Phone: 817-860-8128
     E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov  
  


The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with
representatives of the Omaha Public Power District on May 10 to
discuss the results of the agencys assessment of safety
performance at the Fort Calhoun nuclear plant during 2004. The
plant is located north of Omaha, Neb. 

The meeting will be held at 6 p.m. at the Omaha Marriott, 10220
Regency Circle in Omaha. 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. 

Each year the NRC staff evaluates the performance of each of the
nations commercial nuclear plants, said Region IV Administrator
Bruce S. Mallett. This meeting gives us a chance to discuss our
assessment with the company, local officials and residents near
the plant. We want to make this information available to the
public and answer any questions people may have about the plant. 

Overall, Fort Calhoun operated safely during 2004. The NRC uses
color-coded inspection findings and performance indicators to
assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start with green
and increase to white, yellow, and red, according to the safety
significance of the issues involved. 

Fort Calhoun will receive the baseline, or normal level of
inspections during 2005. The plant had one white inspection
finding and one white performance indicator because an emergency
diesel generator was unavailable for 28 days during the third
quarter of 2004. As a result, in addition to baseline
inspections which are conducted at every plant, the NRC plans to
conduct a supplemental inspection to provide assurance that
corrective actions have been taken to prevent recurrence 

Baseline inspections are performed by the NRC Resident
Inspectors assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists
from the Region IV office and the agencys headquarters in
Rockville, Md. 

A letter sent from the NRC Region IV Office in Arlington, Texas,
to plant officials will serve as the basis for the meeting. It
is available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/fcs_2004q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] . 

Current information for Ft. Calhoun is available on the NRC web
site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/FCS/fcs_chart.html.   



  


 	Last revised Friday, May 06, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 24 NRC: Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 
 
                         FR Doc E5-2206 
[Federal Register: May 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 87)] [Notices] 
[Page 24124-24126] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06my05-128]                         
 
Related to Exemption of Material in Accordance With 10 CFR 
20.2002 for Proposed Disposal Procedures for the Yankee Atomic 
Electric Company; License DPR-003, Rowe, MA AGENCY: Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant 
impact.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Hickman, Division of Waste 
Management and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Mail Stop T7E18, Washington, DC 20555-0001. 
Telephone: (301) 415-3017; e-mail .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is considering a request dated 
December 22, 2004, as supplemented on February 7, 2005, by the 
Yankee Atomic Electric Company (YAEC or Licensee), to dispose of 
demolition debris from decommissioning of the Yankee Nuclear 
Power Station (YNPS) in Rowe, Massachusetts. The request for 
approval is submitted pursuant to section 20.2002 of title 10 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 20.2002), ``Method of 
Obtaining Approval of Proposed Disposal Procedures.'' The 
licensee's request states that the material is acceptable for 
burial at a subtitle C Resources Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA) hazardous waste disposal facility. The intended disposal 
location, Waste Control Specialists (WCS) located in Andrews, 
Texas has a RCRA permit issued by, and is regulated by, the State 
of Texas, Texas Commission of Environmental Quality (TECQ), and 
any disposal must comply with State requirements. This action, if 
approved, would also exempt the slightly contaminated material 
from further Atomic Energy Act and NRC licensing requirements. 
The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support 
of this proposed action in accordance with the requirements of 10 
CFR part 51.
 
Based on the EA, the NRC has determined that a Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate.
 
II. Environmental Assessment Background YNPS is a deactivated 
pressurized-water nuclear reactor situated on a small portion of 
a 2,200-acre site. The site is located in northwestern 
Massachusetts in Franklin County, near the southern Vermont 
border. The plant and most of the 2,200-acre site are owned by 
the YAEC. A small portion on the west side of the site (along the 
east bank of the Sherman Reservoir) is owned by USGen New 
England, Inc. The YNPS plant was constructed between 1958 and 
1960 and operated commercially at 185 megawatts electric (after a 
1963 upgrade) until 1992. In 1992, YAEC determined that closing 
of the plant would be in the best economic interest of its 
customers. In December 1993, NRC amended the YNPS operating 
license to retain a ``possession-only'' status. YAEC began 
dismantling and decommissioning activities at that time. On 
November 24, 2003, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82, YAEC 
submitted a License Termination Plan (LTP) for NRC approval. The 
LTP is still under review by the NRC.
 
The waste material (the demolition debris) intended for disposal 
includes structural steel, soils associated with foundation 
excavations and PCB remediation, and concrete and/or pavement or 
other similar solid materials. The waste material proposed for 
disposal at the WCS facility will originate from the demolition 
and removal of structures and paved surfaces at the YNPS plant 
site, after the structure/surface has been decontaminated to 
remove areas of contamination above the release limits.
 
The physical form of this demolition debris will be that of bulk 
material of various sizes ranging from the size of sand grains up 
to occasional monoliths with a volume of several cubic feet. 
YAEC, for the purpose of calculations, assumed the material to be 
a homogeneous mixture with a specific density of 1 gram per cubic 
centimeter during shipment and 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter 
after compaction in the disposal cell at WCS. The material will 
be dry solid waste containing no
 
[[Page 24125]] absorbents or chelating agents. It is estimated 
that the mass of demolition debris originating from the 
decommissioning of the YNPS will total approximately 60 million 
pounds. After compaction, the estimated volume of material to be 
disposed of is approximately 250,000 cubic feet.
 
Proposed Action The proposed action is to approve the removal of 
approximately 30,000 tons of demolition debris from the YNPS, in 
Rowe, Massachusetts, transportation of the debris and disposition 
at the WCS facility in Andrews, Texas. The proposed action would 
also exempt the low- contamination material from further Atomic 
Energy Act and NRC licensing requirements. The 30,000 tons of 
demolition debris will consist of Steel, Soil and Asphalt, 
Reactor Support Structure (RSS) Concrete, and other Concrete. The 
proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's application 
dated December 22, 2004, as supplemented on February 7, 2005, 
requesting approval.
 
Need for Proposed Action The licensee needs to dispose of 30,000 
tons of demolition debris since the YNPS site is currently 
conducting decontamination and decommissioning as allowed by 10 
CFR 50.82. The licensee proposes to dispose of 30,000 tons of 
demolition debris at the WCS facility in Andrews, Texas, which is 
a subtitle C RCRA hazardous waste disposal facility. This 
proposed action, would also require NRC to exempt the 
low-contaminated material authorized for disposal from further 
AEA and NRC licensing requirements.
 
Alternatives to the Proposed Action Alternatives to the proposed 
action include: (1) No action alternative, (2) decontamination of 
the buildings and structures before demolition, or of the debris 
until no contamination can be detected, (3) decontaminating and 
conducting final status surveys of the buildings, and (4) 
handling demolition debris as low-level radioactive waste and 
shipping them to a low-level waste facility. YAEC has determined 
that disposal for these demolition wastes in a Subtitle C RCRA 
hazardous waste disposal facility is less costly than 
alternatives 2, 3 and 4. Disposal of the demolition debris in the 
manner proposed is protective of the health and safety, and is 
the most cost-effective alternative.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has 
completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes 
there are no significant radiological environmental impacts 
associated with the disposal of 30,000 tons of demolition debris 
at WCS, a subtitle C Resources Conservation and Recovery Act 
(RCRA) hazardous waste disposal facility. This evaluation is for 
the disposal of the demolition debris at WCS irrespective of 
other materials disposed of at the facility. The licensee's 
analysis used conservative estimates of the average radionuclide 
concentrations based on ongoing site characterization. The 
licensee analyzed the dose to a transport driver, loader, 
disposal facility worker, and long-term impacts to a resident. 
Each of the analyses conservatively estimated the exposure to be 
less than 1.0 mrem total dose per year. The NRC has reviewed the 
licensee's analysis and agrees with the determination that the 
proposed action will not significantly increase occupational or 
public radiation exposures. The licensee's supplemental submittal 
provided an evaluation for an alternative transportation plan 
utilizing intermodal containers on a rail transport car. The 
licensee's analysis demonstrated that the exposure to workers 
involved in this shipment option was bounded by the analysis for 
truck shipment. The NRC has reviewed this analysis and agreed 
that the analysis for shipment by truck was bounding.
 
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the disposal 
of demolition debris does not affect non-radiological plant 
effluents. There may be a slight decrease in air quality and 
slight increase in noise impacts during the loading and 
transportation of the demolition debris. However, there are no 
expected adverse impacts to air quality as a result of the 
loading and transportation of the demolition debris. The disposal 
of demolition debris does not take place in the vicinity of any 
identified historic sites. Therefore, the proposed action does 
not have a potential to affect any historic sites.
 
YAEC initial submittal estimates that transportation of the 
demolition debris will require approximately 2,000 truck 
shipments. There is no anticipated overall impact from the 
alternate disposal as the shipping effort represents a small 
fraction of the national commercial freight activity. The total 
tonnage to be shipped represents http://www.nrc.gov (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 NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 
1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at .
 
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of April, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Daniel M. Gillen, Deputy Director, Division of Waste Management 
and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety 
and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E5-2206 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 25 NRC: Notice of Availability of Model Application Concerning Technical 
 
                         FR Doc E5-2208 
[Federal Register: May 6, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 87)] [Notices] 
[Page 24126-24127] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06my05-129]                         
 
Specification; Improvement To Modify Requirements Regarding Steam 
Generator Tube Integrity; Using the Consolidated Line Item 
Improvement Process AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of availability.
 
SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that the staff of the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) has prepared a model application 
related to the revision of technical specifications (TS) on steam 
generator tube integrity for pressurized water reactors (PWRs). 
The purpose of this model is to permit the NRC to efficiently 
process amendments that propose to revise TS for steam generator 
tube integrity.
 
Licensees of nuclear power reactors to which the model applies 
may request amendments utilizing the model application.
 
 
DATES: The NRC staff issued a Federal Register notice (70 FR 
10298, March 2, 2005) that provided a model safety evaluation 
(SE) and a model no significant hazards consideration (NSHC) 
determination relating to changing TS on steam generator tube 
integrity for PWRs. The NRC staff hereby announces that the model 
SE and NSHC determination may be referenced in plant-specific 
applications to adopt the changes.
 
The staff has posted a model application on the NRC Web site to 
assist licensees in using the consolidated line item improvement 
process (CLIIP) to revise the TS on steam generator tube 
integrity. The NRC
 
[[Page 24127]] staff can most efficiently consider applications 
based upon the model application if the application is submitted 
within a year of this Federal Register notice.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Reckley, Mail Stop: 
O7D1, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear 
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555- 0001, telephone 301-415-1323.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background Regulatory Issue Summary 
2000-06, ``Consolidated Line Item Improvement Process for 
Adopting Standard Technical Specification Changes for Power 
Reactors,'' was issued on March 20, 2000. The CLIIP is intended 
to improve the efficiency of NRC licensing processes. This is 
accomplished by processing proposed changes to the standard TS 
(STS) in a manner that supports subsequent license amendment 
applications. The CLIIP includes an opportunity for the public to 
comment on proposed changes to the STS following a preliminary 
assessment by the NRC staff and finding that the change will 
likely be offered for adoption by licensees. The CLIIP directs 
the NRC staff to evaluate any comments received for a proposed 
change to the STS and to either reconsider the change or to 
proceed with announcing the availability of the change for 
proposed adoption by licensees. Those licensees opting to apply 
for the subject change to TS are responsible for reviewing the 
staff's evaluation, referencing the applicable technical 
justifications, and providing any necessary plant-specific 
information. Each amendment application made in response to the 
notice of availability will be processed and noticed in 
accordance with applicable rules and NRC procedures.
 
This notice involves the revision of limiting conditions for 
operation and related administrative controls in TS addressing 
steam generator tube integrity at PWRs. This proposed change was 
proposed for incorporation into the STS by participants in the 
Technical Specification Task Force (TSTF) and is designated 
TSTF-449, Revision 4. TSTF-449 can be viewed on the NRC Web site 
(http://www.nrc.gov). Applicability This proposed change to 
revise the TS on steam generator tube integrity is applicable to 
licensees for PWRs who have adopted or will adopt, in conjunction 
with the proposed change, technical specification requirements 
for a Bases control program consistent with the TS Bases Control 
Program described in Section 5.5 of the applicable vendor's STS.
 
To efficiently process the incoming license amendment 
applications, the staff requests each licensee applying for the 
changes addressed by TSTF-449 using the CLIIP to provide the 
information identified in the model application posted on the NRC 
Web site.
 
Public Notices In a notice in the Federal Register dated March 2, 
2005 (70 FR 10298), the staff requested comment on the use of the 
CLIIP to process requests to revise the TS regarding steam 
generator tube integrity. In addition, there have been several 
plant-specific amendment requests to adopt changes similar to 
those described in TSTF-449 and notices have been published for 
these applications.
 
TSTF-449, as well as the NRC staff's safety evaluation and model 
application, may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the 
NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 
11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 
available records are accessible electronically from the ADAMS 
Public Library component on the NRC Web site (the Electronic 
Reading Room).
 
The staff received one response with comments following the 
notice published March 2, 2005 (70 FR 10298), soliciting comments 
on the model SE and NSHC determination related to TSTF-449, 
Revision 3. The comments were offered by the Nuclear Energy 
Institute (NEI) in a letter dated April 1, 2005. The NEI comments 
suggested clarifications and minor corrections to Revision 3 of 
TSTF-449 and related changes to the staff's model SE. In response 
to comments, the TSTF submitted Revision 4 to TSTF-449 in its 
letter dated April 14, 2005. The NRC staff has made only minor 
changes to the model SE to address editorial issues and to 
reflect the revision of TSTF-449. The staff finds that the 
previously published models remain appropriate references (as 
modified slightly to reflect Revision 4 of TSTF-449) and has 
chosen not to republish the model SE and model NSHC determination 
in this notice. As described in the model application prepared by 
the staff, licensees may reference in their plant-specific 
applications to adopt TSTF-449, the SE (as revised above), NSHC 
determination, and environmental assessment previously published 
in the Federal Register (70 FR 10298; March 2, 2005).
 
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of May 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Thomas H. Boyce, Section Chief, Technical Specifications Section, 
Operating Improvements Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement 
Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-2208 Filed 5-5-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 26 IPS: ENERGY: Japan's Nuclear Dream Could Be World's Nightmare
 
TOKYO, May 6 (IPS) - As Japan debates on how to meet its 
gargantuan energy needs in the 21st century, and whether nuclear 
power should be in the energy mix, plans to revive its 
controversial plutonium reprocessing plant at the remote village 
of Rokkasho-mura in Japan's northern Aomori prefecture has 
alarmed the global anti-nuclear movement.                                               

At the sidelines of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) 
review conference at the United Nations, a group of international 
academics, former officials and scientists, including four Nobel 
physics laureates, issued a statement calling on Japan to 
indefinitely postpone operating the plant.

 The declaration on Thursday warns that Japan's plan to separate 
and stockpile up to eight metric tons of plutonium annually, 
enough to make 1,000 nuclear bombs, calls into question Japan's 
commitment to strengthening the NPT.

 ''At a time when the non-proliferation regime is facing its 
greatest challenge, Japan should not proceed with its current 
plans for the start-up of the Rokkasho reprocessing plant,'' the 
statement said.

 Initial tests at Rokkasho using irradiated nuclear fuel are 
scheduled for December 2005, with full-scale operations slated 
for 2007, the U.S.-based Union of Concerned Scientists said in a 
report on its website.

 ''With Rokkasho operational, by 2020 Japan's domestic stock of 
plutonium could equal the U.S. stockpile of plutonium for 
weapons,'' said Frank von Hippel, physicist and professor at the 
Science and Global Security Programme at the U.S.-based Princeton 
University.

 Anti-nuclear lobbyists are worried that the safeguards at 
Rokkasho would be inadequate to prevent the deliberate diversion 
or theft of large quantities of plutonium.

 ‘’Separated plutonium poses a risk of theft, and such large
stocks would be destabilising,'' Von Hippel said in the report.

 There are valid concerns for such fears.

 Such a facility will not be operating in a political vacuum,
but rather in one of the most unstable regions in the world,
North-east Asia. All countries in the region - Japan, North and
South Korea, Taiwan and China, as well as Russia, and the U.S.
military presence, make this a region of high tension.

 ''All of them have nuclear programmes at various stages of
development from the on- going modernisation of U.S. and Chinese
nuclear weapons, to the opaque nuclear weapons programme in
North Korea, as well as the continuing interest in acquiring
plutonium by the nuclear establishments in Taiwan and South
Korea,'' said the environmental group Greenpeace.

 ''However, Japan is alone in the region in moving ahead with
the stockpiling of large quantities of plutonium for which it
has no practical, peaceful use,'' it warned.

 Nonetheless, at the heart of the matter is the continuing
debate over Japan's growing energy needs.

 Proponents of nuclear power have always argued that Japan is a
resource-poor country and if it continues to rely on fossil fuel
imports from the Middle East, it would mean attempting to secure
a finite resource from a politically unstable part of the world.

 They stress that nuclear power offers Japan a cheap,
inexpensive and reliable energy source. Also since the Kyoto
Protocol was signed in 1997, the pronuclear lobby has also
rushed to add that nuclear power is needed by Japan to meet its
commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions.

 In 2004, Japan had 53 nuclear power reactors (52 were in
operation), which made it third in terms of number of plants
after the United States (103) and France (57). 

Over the past quarter century, as many other nations attempt to
find alternate energy sources, nuclear power has gone from 17
percent of Japan's total electricity supply in 1990 to 34.6
percent of total supply in 2004. 

Five more nuclear power plants are currently being built, and
there are plans to increase the 34.6 figure to 40 percent by
2010.

 ''Following a series of harrowing accidents, nuclear power
development was in cold storage till recently. The changing
picture poses risks for both the environment and Japan's
pacifist leanings,'' said Yuko Fujita, a professor of
environmental science at Keio University.

 Fujita told IPS nuclear power reactors that operate and produce
dangerous radioactive fuel pose a serious threat to the health
of workers and an accident can result in thousands of fatalities.

 ''Apart from the risk of contamination to people and the
environment, high-level nuclear power development produces the
capabilities to produce nuclear weapons. The industry is
criminal offence,'' he argued.

 Since 1999 a spate of accidents, scandals and cover-ups have
shaken public confidence. On Sep. 30 that year, at Tokaimura
near Tokyo, two workers at a nuclear plant died when they
disregarded safety procedures and dumped a large quantity of
uranium into a settling basin. The uranium reached critical
mass, causing an explosion. Tens of thousands of people in the
area were quarantined and checked for radiation.

 Japan's worst nuclear accident occurred last August when five
workers were killed and six injured at the No. 3 nuclear reactor
at Kansai Electric's Mihima Nuclear Power Station in Fukui
Prefecture, central Japan, when hot steam leaked from a ruptured
secondary coolant water pipe.

 After the nuclear plant accident, Kansai Electric said in
October it had found 14 additional cases of falsified inspection
records on its thermal power plants, after revealing in June 87
cases of data falsification.

 Besides the Rokkasho reprocessing plant, of particular concern
also is Japan's determination to go ahead with a fast-breeder
reactor programme (FBR).

 '' FBR programmes were in operation in both the U.S. and Europe
in the 1970s, at a time when many experts predicted the world's
supply of uranium would soon be depleted,'' said Eric Johnston,
the author of 'Japan's Nuclear Nightmare; Power to the People?'

 ''But that proved not to be the case and this realisation,
combined with public unease over handling the world's most
dangerous substance, led the U.S. to abandon the FBR program by
the early 1980s. European countries began to follow shortly
afterwards,'' added Johnston.

 But not Japan.

 It is forging ahead with an experimental FBR called Monju in
Fukui Prefecture, and there seems to be mainstream support for
it.

 The 'Yomuiri Shimbun' newspaper, in an editorial this January,
argues that Monju has been developed at huge costs to the
taxpayer, and so ''must be respected as the next- generation
reactor that produces more nuclear fuel than it consumes''.

 ''It is a dream for Japan that lacks fossil fuel and uranium
resources,'' added the mass- circulation daily. (END/2005)

  + Union of Concerned Scientists
			 
Copyright © 2005 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 27 KTUU: Alaska News: In need of power, Galena may go nuclear | 

 by Sean Doogan - Thursday, May 5, 2005 

Galena, Alaska - Generating electricity in Bush Alaska has long
been a major concern for rural residents. Diesel generators are
becoming too expensive to operate and maintain. 

That's why the community of Galena, located about 550 miles
northwest of Anchorage, is considering employing a power source
of atomic proportions. 
  
Galena is not your average Bush Alaska town. It may be isolated,
but an Air Force base left over from the Cold War, and
resourceful people, have created opportunities and a way of
thinking seen nowhere else in the Last Frontier. 
  
“Galena's a place where we don't mind trying new things,” said
City Manager Marvin Yoder. “And they'll take a look at it and
we're not saying yes or no, but we're willing to take a look.” 
  
This town of about 700 on the Yukon River has a vision. It has a
unique education system with aviation and beauty schools. Now
Galena may be looking back to the future. 
  
“The diesel generators going to need to be replaced,” said
TygJules Skywatcher, resources director for the Louden Tribal
Council. “That comes at a high expense. The alternatives that we
have are very few, so the city has chosen to look at nuclear.” 
  
Nuclear power in Alaska? As with the town itself, Galena's
nuclear power plant would be anything but ordinary. 
  
“The idea is to get something small, get something that is
buried, something that has very little potential for any kind of
terrorism-type activity and that you could put around the
world,” said Yoder. 
  
What Galena found were plans for Toshiba's 4-S nuclear reactor.
Four-S stands for “super,” “safe,” “small” and “simple.” The
core would be tiny, about the size of an average garbage can.
And it would be sealed in concrete, placed about 70 feet
underground. 
  
The plant would produce 10 megawatts of power for 30 years --
enough to provide twice the electricity needed for all of
Galena. Designers say it's so small, it couldn't have a meltdown
and it would need no maintenance. Many in Galena believe the
concept is sound -- technologically, at least. 
  
But, Skywatcher said, “I have a greater concern with what do we
do when we extract that core 30 years down the road. Where is it
going to be sitting, and where is it going to be disposed?” 
  
Using the city diesel generators, current power costs for Galena
are almost 30 cents a kilowatt hour. That's about three times as
high as electric rates in Anchorage. 
  
“I've not heard people say, ‘Well, we can't do that. This isn't
possible.’ It's more or less, ‘How can we do it, and what do we
need, what resources do we need to do it?’” said Galena resident
Gwenn Davies Guy. 
  
Although a nuclear power plant hasn't been licensed in the
United States since the 1980s, heightened fears of global
warming are causing the technology to become “green” again. 
  
Toshiba might even kick in the $20 million it's going to take to
build the plant. So why would the Japanese manufacturing giant
be interested in building a test reactor in rural Alaska? 
  
“Their thoughts of coming to a remote area in Alaska had a lot
to do with getting NRC (Nuclear Regulatory
Commission).approval,” said Yoder. 
  
Cheap, reliable, safe power could change the lives of many in
rural Alaska. But none of the 4-S plants have yet been built.
That may be why more than 40 tribal organizations from the Yukon
River area have said they are against the idea. 
  
But the Louden Tribal Council, the local Galena Native
organization, is taking a wait-and-see approach. 
  
“I think they should be on the fence. The fence is a comfortable
position right now until you get information,” said Skywatcher. 
  
City officials say it will be at least five years before any
construction can take place on Alaska's first nuclear reactor.
And it's up to Toshiba to spend an expected $600 million to
develop and license the technology. 
  
But with diesel generators quickly becoming an expensive option
for electrical power generation, this unusual community in the
middle of the Alaska Bush is still holding out hope for the
nuclear option. 
  
A lot of things still have to happen before any nuclear plants
appear in the Bush. Nuclear regulatory licensing, site
permitting and environmental impact studies must be complete
before any construction can take place. That is still at least
five years away, probably more. 
  
If built, the 4S plant would come already fully assembled,
encased in concrete. With no roads to the area, Galena would
likely have it barged in from Nenana. And that’s another concern
for Yukon River residents -- How much of a danger would barging
nuclear material on the Yukon present? 
  
Of course, the village already barges in more than 700,000
gallons of diesel fuel a year, making for some, the nuclear
option even more attractive. 

KTUU 

        TV
*****************************************************************
 28 Newsday.com: Indian Point 3 shuts down automatically

New York City - AP New York
 
May 6, 2005, 5:49 PM EDT

BUCHANAN, N.Y. (AP) _ The Indian Point 3 nuclear power plant shut 
down automatically on Friday when the flow of water to a steam 
generator was interrupted, its owner said. 

There was no release of radioactivity and no danger to the 
public, Entergy Nuclear Northeast said in a press release. 

It said the problem arose when a valve closed inadvertently in a 
system that cleans water before returning it to the steam 
generators. At the time, workers were examining a related switch. 

When instruments detected the reduced water flow, the plant shut 
down as it was designed to do, Entergy said. The plant should be 
back in operation over the weekend, the company said. 

Indian Point 2, IP3's twin at the Entergy site in Buchanan, about 
35 miles north of midtown Manhattan, was unaffected. 

Copyright © 2005, The Associated Press     
*****************************************************************
 29 FOCUS: "Nuclear Earth Penetrators"
 
 May 06, 2005

By Martin Leatherman, Newsdesk.org 

The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty meetingat the U.N. this
month has spurred contentious debate about America's pursuit of
new, smaller nuclear weapons. 

The treaty was signed in 1968, and went into effect in 1970. 

President George H.W. Bush enacted a moratorium on nuclear
testing in 1992, but the current Bush presidency's 2002 Nuclear
Posture Reviewpaved the way for today's efforts to fund new
testing. 

The president's 2006 budgetasks for $8.5 million -- split
between the departments of Energy and Defense -- for research
into a nuclear bunker buster. 

Supporters say Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrators would be useful
in the war on terror against hardened targets such as bunkers or
underground chemical weapons arsenals. 

The intelligence community estimates that there are over 10,000
hardened bunkers worldwide. 

On March 15 Senator Feinstein (D-Calif.) gave a speech on the
Senate floor urging the administration to abandon RNEP
development. 

"Congress made a strong statement last year. We took out the
appropriations for these new nuclear weapons," Feinstein said,
according to her website. 

She expressed concern that smaller, so-called "battlefield
nukes," would make it easier for nuclear weapons to be used in
general. 

Critics say the development of these weapons undermines nuclear
nonproliferation efforts worldwide. 

Another contentious issue is whether earth-penetrating nuclear
weapons could be used without large amounts of radioactive
fallout. 

The National Academy of Science reported last week that evidence
shows smaller nuclear bombs cannot penetratedeep enough to limit
casualties and prevent fallout. 

The report found that the deeper the bunker, the bigger the bomb
required to destroy it -- and once a nuclear weapon is that
large is detonated, it would fill the air with deadly fallout. 

On May 1, ABC News reported that Defense Secretary Donald
Rumsfeld asked Congress to fund more studieson bunker-busting
nuclear bombs. 

He said they are necessary for getting at weapons of mass
destruction hidden underground. 

Knight Ridder newspapers reports that new bomb researchis linked
to upgrading existing nuclear weapons. 

The United States wants to simultaneously reduce its stockpiles,
while also updating old warheads for various reasons, including
safety. 

The average age of a U.S. nuclear warhead is twenty years old. 

According to the Economist, the United States is a target of
criticismat the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty negotiations
this week at U.N. headquarters in New York City. 

The magazine reported that China's chief delegate to the
conference, Zhang Yan, implicitly criticized the United States
for "lowering the threshold of using nuclear weapons, reach and
developing new types of nuclear weapons." 

On May 5, the Associated Press reported that the U.N. meeting
started without the parties agreeing on an agenda, which may
complicate progress. 

Non-nuclear countries are expected to raise concerns about the
U.S. developing new bombs while simultaneously asking other
countries to abandon their programs. 

According to the Newsday.com, the United States rejected a
requestby non-nuclear powers to include an agreement never to
use nuclear weapons in the treaty. 

Such nations say this would go a long way to stop proliferation. 

The U.S. disagreed, saying the threat of terrorism justifies the
American position that nuclear weapons are necessary. 

According to article, the American spokesman Richard Grenell
said, "We want to be creative with the tools we have at our
disposal." 

 - - - - - - - - - - 

Keyword search (nuclear earth penetrator): Google News, Yahoo
News
 Keyword search (nuclear nonproliferation): Google News, Yahoo
News 

"Treaty on the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons"
Signed in Washington, London & Moscow, 1968 

"2005 review conference of the parties to the treaty on the
non-proliferation of nuclear weapons"
United Nations, May 2-27, 2005 

"Bush's curious timing"
Defense News, January 22, 2002 

"U.S. Department of Energy 2006 Budget Request" (PDF)

"Budget of the United States of America"
White House Web site 

"Senator Feinstein urges Congress not to open door to new
nuclear development"
Senate Web site, March 16, 2005 

"Summary -- Effects of nuclear earth penetrator and other
weapons"
National Academies Press, 2005 

"Rumsfeld asks Congress to fund nuclear bomb study"
ABC News, May 1, 2005 

"Bush pushing bunker busters"
Knight Ridder Newspapers, April 10, 2005 

"A crisis of compliance"
The Economist, May 4 2005 

"U.S., others haggle over nuclear agenda"
Associated Press, May 5 2005
 
"U.S. rejects idea of ban on nuclear attacks"
Newsday, May 5 2005 

All contents copyright (c) 2004 by the authors and creators.

*****************************************************************
 30 Guardian UnlimitedU.N. Nuclear Chief Foresees Curbs on Fuel
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday May 6, 2005 9:16 PM

AP Photo NYR120 

By CHARLES J. HANLEY 

Associated Press Writer 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The U.N. nuclear chief said Friday he
expects to win global support to begin planning ways to bring
uranium and plutonium technology under stricter, possibly
international control, keeping nuclear bomb-making gear out of
more hands. 

Such a sweeping change, a reaction to the alarm over Iran's
nuclear program, would be ``fraught with political and economic
implications,'' Mohamed ElBaradei said in an interview. But ``we
cannot just sit still, stand still - because we are facing a
threat.'' 

``Everybody understands that if we continue in that fashion, in
the next 10, 20 years we'll have 20, 30 countries that I would
call virtual nuclear-weapons states, meaning countries that
could move within months into converting their civilian capacity
or capability into a weapons program,'' said ElBaradei,
director-general of the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy
Agency. 

ElBaradei met with The Associated Press on the fifth day of a
monthlong conference to review the workings of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. He has been consulting with treaty
members here about possible steps to restrict access to
sensitive nuclear-fuel technology. 

Iran's development of uranium-enrichment technology, centrifuges
that can produce fuel for either nuclear power plants or nuclear
bombs, is a major issue at the treaty review. Tehran says the
program is meant only for peaceful purposes of civilian energy;
Washington contends it is a cover for eventual bomb-building. 

Under the 1970 nonproliferation treaty, states like Iran without
nuclear weapons renounce them forever in exchange for a
commitment by nuclear-weapons states to move toward disarmament.
Access to peaceful technology is guaranteed under the treaty,
but ElBaradei said the spread of such capabilities is a
``serious problem.'' 

The tighter controls he envisions ``would be a real sea change
in the way we have been managing nuclear energy,'' the IAEA
chief said. 

He has asked the current treaty conference to consider several
possible approaches suggested by an IAEA expert group in
February. They range from simply tightening controls on current
commercial sales of such dual-use equipment, to turning all
enrichment and plutonium reprocessing operations - another
potential bomb-making process - over to multilateral control, by
region or continent. 

ElBaradei himself has proposed a five-year moratorium on new
nuclear fuel facilities anywhere while the world's nations
negotiate over new controls. Addressing the U.N. conference
Monday, he offered to investigate ways to guarantee
international supplies of fuel for those who need them. 

In subsequent consultations with treaty nations, he has found a
``mixed reaction'' to the moratorium idea, ElBaradei said, since
Iran is not the only country with plans for new
uranium-enrichment or plutonium-reprocessing facilities. 

But he said he hopes the IAEA will be formally mandated by the
treaty conference or his agency's member nations to explore
legal, institutional, financial and other aspects of possible
new controls. 

``I'm pretty confident that I will be asked by either the
nonproliferation treaty parties or our IAEA member states to
continue that work,'' he said. 

The Americans have demanded that Iran dismantle its enrichment
equipment. President Bush has proposed simply banning sales of
enrichment and reprocessing technology to nations other than the
dozen or so who already have it and ensuring that any who want
fuel can buy it ``at reasonable cost.'' 

Asked about this idea, ElBaradei said it ``has merit'' but also
has two problems. 

He said one is that many countries already can develop the
sensitive technology on their own, and the other is that it
raises questions of ``different standards'' - that is, double
standards for those allowed to have fuel technology and those
denied it.	 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 31 Guardian Unlimited: Spy photos spot signs of N Korea nuclear test site
 
Julian Borger in Washington and Jonathan Watts in Beijing

Saturday May 7, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
American officials believe that new satellite photographs of 
North Korea show intensive preparations for a possible nuclear 
weapons test, it was reported yesterday. 

The imagery is said to show tunnels being dug under a mountain in 
the north-east of the country and then rock and building 
materials being taken back in, possibly in an effort to contain 
an underground blast. 

The pictures also show what appears to be an observation stand a 
few miles away. 

Details of the satellite intelligence were reported by the New 
York Times yesterday, quoting Pentagon and White House officials, 
who pointed out that the apparent test preparations could be a 
ruse to pressure the United States into making concessions at the 
negotiating table. 

The prospect of a nuclear test by North Korea has alarmed its 
neighbours, who have spent the past two years trying to head off 
a confrontation between Pyongyang and Washington that could 
destabilise the region. 

But with six-nation regional talks stalled for almost a year, 
South Korea and China are increasingly worried that an 
underground test is a matter of when, not if. 

Since rumours began circulating about a possible test at the 
start of the year, Chinese officials have been visiting the US 
embassy in Beijing to request intelligence updates about the 
likely site and timing. South Korea's foreign minister, Ban 
Ki-moon, and his Chinese counterpart, Li Zhaoxing, warned 
Pyongyang yesterday that any further escalation of the 30-month 
nuclear standoff would backfire diplomatically. 

Meanwhile, Japan has threatened punitive actions unless North 
Korea returns to the six-party talks. "If there is no progress, 
we have to think of other options, such as taking this matter to 
the United Nations security council," said the Japanese foreign 
minister, Nobutaka Machimura. 

A US Defence Intelligence Agency official told the Guardian 
yesterday that the New York Times account was accurate. "There 
was nothing in that report that I would dispute," said the 
official. 

"There are different tricks of the trade the North Koreans could 
be doing, and there is so much you don't know about what they're 
thinking." 

Yesterday's report suggested, however, that there was 
disagreement within the US intelligence community over the 
significance of the photographs. It noted: "Officials at one 
American intelligence agency said they were unaware of the new 
activity." 

Officials at the CIA would not comment on the report yesterday. 
It would not be the first time the CIA has been more cautious 
over intelligence reports than the Pentagon and the White House. 

"I'm told the White House is obsessed with this. It might be an 
effort by the administration to get China to put more pressure on 
the North Koreans," said David Albright, director of the 
Washington-based Institute for Science and International 
Security, who has closely followed the North Korean nuclear 
programme. 

Mr Albright said he had not seen the satellite imagery in 
question, but felt that the evidence sounded less than 
conclusive. 

"You don't know for sure. Don't forget you're looking at 
something from 200 miles up," he said. "I didn't see anything in 
[the article] that would elevate it above a suspect site." 

Whatever the merit of the satellite images, Mr Albright argued, 
the alert should be used to make diplomatic preparations for a 
future North Korean test, so that the US and countries in the 
region can maintain a common front. 

"You don't want to be unprepared, because the region is so 
volatile," he said. 

North Korea's intentions remain unclear. It has boasted about its 
"nuclear deterrent", but has yet to demonstrate that it has the 
technology to explode a bomb. 

Until two years ago, the CIA estimated that North Korea might 
have enough plutonium for two bombs. Since then, however, 
Pyongyang has resumed operations at its Yongbyon nuclear plant, 
potentially producing enough material for eight weapons. 
	
 	
Timelines
12.02.2003: North Korea's nuclear programme
North Korea - 1991 to the present

[UP] 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 32 Mos News: U.S. Charges Former Russian Nuclear Boss Adamov With Diverting Funds 

- NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
 

Yevgeny Adamov speaks at a news conference in Moscow / Photo: AP 
 
Created: 06.05.2005 12:54 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 13:05 MSK 

Russia’s former atomic energy minister Yevgeny Adamov and U.S.
citizen Mark Kaushansky were charged with converting at least $9
million in funds earmarked for nuclear safety projects in Russia
into personal assets, the Reuters news agency reports. 

Yevgeny Adamov, 65, the former minister who was detained in
Switzerland at the Americans’ request on Monday, and Mark
Kaushansky —- a former Westinghouse Electric Corp nuclear power
plant engineer —- were charged in a 20-count indictment. 

The indictment, returned by a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh,
charged Adamov and Kaushansky with transferring stolen money and
securities, money laundering, tax evasion and conspiracy to
defraud the United States. 

Adamov, who was detained while in Switzerland for a court case
related to his daughter’s bank accounts, told a Swiss court on
Wednesday he planned to fight a U.S. request for his
extradition. 

The U.S. government must present a formal extradition request,
after which a Swiss court will decide what to do with him. 

Kaushansky, a Soviet-born, naturalised American, was due to
appear in federal court in Pittsburgh “in the near future,” the
U.S. attorney said. 

If convicted of the charges, which accuse the men of
conspiracies that occurred between 1993 to 2003, Kaushansky
faces a maximum of 180 years in prison and Adamov faces a
possible sentence of 60 years. 

The money the U.S. government accuses Adamov and Kaushansky of
stealing was meant to be used to boost security at dozens of
nuclear sites scattered across Russia. 

The indictment said Adamov and Kaushansky deposited more than
$15 million in funds provided by the United States and other
countries for the safety projects into the accounts of
corporations the men set up in Pittsburgh and in Delaware. 

It said Adamov and Kaushansky then converted at least $9 million
of the funds into personal assets, mainly using shell investment
companies —- Omeka Ltd. and Aglosky International —- which had
accounts in the United States, Monaco and France. 

The indictment seeks the forfeiture of proceeds held in bank
accounts in Monaco. 

Adamov’s lawyer in Washington, Lanny Breuer, said on Wednesday
that Adamov would fight the charges. He said Adamov admitted
depositing the money in personal accounts, but said his client
paid for the scientists and security programs from his own
accounts in Russia. 

Breuer said Adamov was only doing what was normal in Russia —-
he kept dollar accounts outside the country and spent money from
accounts inside to avoid “hypertaxation and problems with
organized crime”. 

He said Adamov had urged U.S. investigators to visit Russia to
confirm that the money had been spent as expected. But they did
not go. 

Adamov was a minister under Russian President Boris Yeltsin but
was ousted by Vladimir Putin, who came to power in 2000 vowing
to fight corruption. Adamov was discharged from his position
after a probe into his ties to Russian businessmen. 
SEE ALSO
 
05.05.2005 15:31 MSK, MOSNEWS.COM 
Russians Suspect U.S. Wants to Get Nuke Secrets From Arrested
Ex-Minister
 
  Write us: <b>info@mosnews.com</b>
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 33 Arms Control Association: Replacement Nuclear Warheads? Buyer Beware

Arms Control Today: 


Soon after President George W. Bush took office, the Pentagon
proposed a controversial new plan for U.S. nuclear forces that
calls for new low-yield warheads and enhancements of existing
high-yield earth-penetrating weapons to expand U.S. nuclear
attack options against future adversaries. 

For two years, Congress grudgingly went along with the
administration's new weapons research proposals. But last year,
in a refreshing blast of common sense, a bipartisan coalition
blocked funding for new design concepts and modi.cations of
existing warheads to create a new Robust Nuclear Earth
Penetrator (RNEP). Lawmakers rightly concluded that the pursuit
of such weapons undermines vital efforts to convince other
states to exercise nuclear restraint as well as the credibility
of U.S. disarmament commitments in the context of the nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. 

Unfortunately, at the Pentagon's urging, the administration did
not cut its losses on RNEP. Instead it has proposed that
Congress spend another $22.5 million over the next two years to
finish the research phase. The proposal is as flawed as before
and should be rejected again. 

Recognizing the lack of political support for new weapons, the
National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is now trying to
market a nuclear weapons product: new "reliable replacement
warheads to sustain existing military capabilities" at lower
cost and without nuclear test explosions. Last month, NNSA
Administrator Linton Brooks told Congress the goal of the effort
should be to develop and produce a "small build" of the new
warheads by 2012-2015. 

Reliable replacement warheads may sound more attractive, but in
reality, the proposal is problematic. The rationale for the
program is dubious, the scope is vague, and the potential
effects far-reaching and dangerous. Congress must carefully
define the scope and direction of the program, and it should not
write a blank check. 

First, new replacement warheads are not necessary to preserve
existing U.S. nuclear-weapon capabilities. Each year, a
representative sample of the existing arsenal is inspected to
check for signs of deterioration, and limited-life components
are replaced if necessary. Even the warhead's nuclear core can
be remanufactured according to previously tested specifications. 

As Brooks correctly notes, existing warhead designs are
sophisticated and were designed to minimize size and weight and
maximize yield, making them sensitive to significant changes and
upgrades, especially to the nuclear components. But the
reliability of existing warheads can be maintained if the
weapons labs avoid unnecessary alterations to the existing
weapons during refurbishment. In addition, the reliability of
existing warheads can be improved without new designs or testing
by adding more boost gas to increase the explosive energy of the
primary stage of the weapon well above the minimum needed to
ignite the secondary, or main, stage of the warhead. 

The bottom line is that the existing Stockpile Stewardship
Program is working. At best, the Reliable Replacement Warhead
(RRW) program is a solution in search of a problem. Worse still,
the RRW program could, if not carefully circumscribed, become a
back door for the administration to circumvent congressional
opposition to new warhead designs for new and destabilizing
nuclear strike missions. 

For now, Brooks and others claim that the RRW program is
intended solely to provide "comparable military capabilities as
existing warheads in the stockpile." Yet, Department of Defense
officials and Brooks continue to cite the need for new
loweryield nuclear weapons that can knock out shallow bunkers
and defeat biological and chemical munitions and "are geared for
small-scale strikes." 

Yet, if weapons scientists get the green light to build more
rugged nuclear weapons, the Bush administration may be able to
achieve their controversial new nuclear weapons ambitions
without getting approval from Capitol Hill. In a revealing
comment to The Oakland Tribune, outgoing NNSA deputy
administrator Everet Beckner said, "[T]hat's not the primary
objective, but [it] would be a fortuitous associated event." 

Finally, replacing existing, well-proven nuclear warhead designs
with "new" and "improved" replacement warheads or warhead
components could, if carelessly pursued, increase pressure to
conduct nuclear explosive proof tests. Like a car buyer looking
at a first-model-year car, key political or military officials
may insist on taking a test drive before buying a new set of
untested nuclear bomb designs. 

So long as the United States maintains a nuclear arsenal,
stockpile maintenance efforts should focus on preserving the
reliability of existing warheads using methods validated by past
experience. The role of the arsenal should be limited to
deterring a nuclear attack by another nuclear-weapon state.
Otherwise, the "reliable replacement warheads" may introduce,
not reduce, stockpile reliability concerns and open the way to
the counterproductive new nuclear weapons program voided by
Congress last year. 

© 2005 Arms Control Association,
 1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 620
 Washington, DC 20036
 Tel: (202) 463-8270 | Fax: (202) 463-8273
*****************************************************************
 34 Mos News: U.S. Report Says Russian Nuclear Weapons Not Secure From Terrorists 

- NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM

A nuclear submarine, already stripped bare / Photo: AFP 
 
Created: 06.05.2005 13:06 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 13:06 MSK 

MosNews
 
Efforts by Washington and Moscow to prevent Russian nuclear
materials from falling into the hands of terrorists are being
hindered by bureaucratic red tape and a lack of urgency, The
Washington Post reported Friday citing a document released by a
research group affiliated with Harvard University.

In the fiscal year 2004, U.S.-funded work to secure and account
for Russian material that could be used in nuclear weapons was
completed for only 4 percent of it, according to the Nuclear
Threat Initiative, which was founded by Ted Turner and former
senator Sam Nunn and is sponsored by Harvard’s Belfer Center for
Science and International Affairs. That raised the total secured
to 26 percent, the group said.

Despite some heightened security procedures, many Russian
nuclear research sites still frequently have doors propped open
for convenience, intrusion sensors turned off because of false
alarms and guards patrolling with unloaded weapons, the report
said.

Many terrorism experts say al Qaeda and other terrorist groups
have focused for years on lightly secured nuclear facilities in
Russia and other states in the former Soviet Union as potential
sources for equipment and material needed to assemble an atomic
weapon. The commission that investigated the Sept. 11, 2001,
attacks recommended that U.S. officials undertake a “maximum
effort” to place Russian nuclear equipment off-limits to
terrorists.

The threat initiative study noted, however, that starting with
President Vladimir Putin, many Russian leaders now see the
extraordinary danger posed by inadequately secured nuclear
materials and weapons.

But serious problems persist, according to the report. In March,
the commander of the Interior Ministry troops for Moscow said
that seven key facilities there had functioning security
equipment, while 39 had “serious shortcomings”. He added that
half the perimeters of these restricted sites lacked fences, the
report said.

It also said that Russian security agencies must redouble
security at nuclear sites in light of the ferocity of some
recent terrorist attacks in Russia, such as the assault on a
school in Beslan, North Ossetia that killed at least 330 people,
many of them children. The 32 Chechen attackers had obtained
their weapons in an earlier attack on an Interior Ministry arms
depot that involved 200 assailants dressed in military uniforms.
A few months later, 47 men seized control of a non-nuclear
military site north of Moscow filled with secret documents
before troops expelled them.

The study released yesterday was the latest of the group’s
examinations of global efforts to keep nuclear weapons and
materials out of the hands of terrorists and criminal groups.
The initiative recently cited official U.S. government data to
show that Russian nuclear security upgrades in the two years
before the Sept. 11 attacks were about the same as in the two
years afterward.

The Bush administration is proposing to spend $982 million to
secure nuclear materials around the world, a 22 percent increase
over the previous year’s budget.
     
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 35 Yemen Observer: Environment - Yemen to study improvement of radioactive security 

Vol.VIII Issue 18

By Observer Staff 

May 6, 2005 - Vol.VIII Issue 18

ADEN - Yemen intends to improve its security against radioactive 
sources. Last week Prime Minister Abdul-Qader Ba-Jammal called on 
the National Committee for Atomic Energy and concerned ministries 
to work together in enhancing radioactive security. 

During a visit to the NCAE, he spoke highly of International 
Atomic Energy Agency support to Yemen to safeguard it against the 
hazards of radioactive substances. The chairman of the NCAE gave 
Ba-Jammal an account of how the committee functions in its 
cooperation with governmental bodies in radiation treatment and 
protection as well as in radiation treatment techniques. 

Meanwhile a regional forum will be held in Aden on 24-26 May to
study improvements in dealing with transborder radioactive
materials in order to achieve average international standards.
The forum will be held in by the National Committee for Atomic
Energy and the International Atomic Energy Agency. 

Committee chairman Mustafa Bahran expected 40 regional and IAEA
experts to attend and the forum. “Selecting Yemen for the
conference shows that the country is a regional pioneer in
protecting man and the environment from the hazards of
radioactive substances,” he said.



  Copyright (c) 2003 - 2005, Yemen Observer. All right Reserved
*****************************************************************
 36 [FOODIRRADIATIONCA] Model School Wellness Policy
 
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 00:40:06 -0500 (CDT)

 
Friends and fellow school lunch activists:

Public Citizen has created language for a Model Wellness Policy on the
issue of irradiated food in school meals.  Please forward this to folks
who may be interested in this topic.  It will also be available on our
website www.safelunch.org

If you have questions or would like more information, please follow up
with Audrey Hill.

-Tracy Lerman

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Tracy Lerman
Senior Organizer
Public Citizen, California Office
1615 Broadway, 9th Floor
Oakland, CA 94612
ph: 510-663-0888 x 103  f: 510-663-8569
tlerman@citizen.org
http://www.citizen.org/california

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>> Audrey Hill 04/29/05 02:27PM >>>
Hello Healthy Lunch Activists!

The Reauthorization of the Child Nutrition Act in 2004 requires every
school district that participates in federal school meals programs to
pass a Local Wellness Policy (LWP) by the beginning of the 2006-2007
school year (Public Law 108-265 Section 204). The Local Wellness Policy
is a significant development in education and health policy because it
requires schools to address nutrition and physical activity, as well as
creates an opportunity for greater public input into health in the
school environment.  The Local Wellness Policy is an excellent
opportunity to address the issue of serving irradiated food in school
meals. Attached is a document with some information on the Local
Wellness Policy and  ideas in regards to irradiated food, as well as
resources for broader policies.

Sincerely,
Audrey Hill

***
Audrey Hill
Organizer
Public Citizen
215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE
www.safelunch.org
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 454-5185

**********
If you do not wish to recieve these emails in the future, please send a email to tlerman@citizen.org with "unsubscribe foodirradiationca" in the subject line.

[demime 0.98e removed an attachment of type application/msword which had a name of Model Local Wellness Policy- FINAL.doc]
*****************************************************************
 37 Bradenton Herald: Beryllium tests yield conflicting results

| 05/06/2005 | 

  BRIAN BLANCO-The Herald   

  Beverly Bradley, who works part-time at the Tallevast
Community Center, has experienced numerous health problems which
she believes are a result of living directly across the street
from the former American Beryllium Co. plant.  

New testing set for some former Tallevast plant workers

 DONNA WRIGHT

 Herald Staff Writer

The latest batch of beryllium test results have some former
Loral American Beryllium Co. employees scratching their heads. 

So far, 81 workers have been tested twice and their blood
samples have been sent to different labs. 

But nine of the workers got both abnormal and normal answers
from two different labs. The discrepancy has left workers
wondering whether they are sick, said Raymond Stephens of
Sarasota, a former union negotiator at American Beryllium. He
was one of the former employees who had conflicting test
results. 

Lung specialists say it is not uncommon for results to vary from
lab to lab because of differences in how the tests are
performed. 

Dr. Lisa Maier of the National Jewish Medical and Research
Center in Denver emphasized that only one test result of
abnormal is needed to qualify for a federal compensation program
available through the U.S. Department of Labor. 

The specialized blood test determines whether a person has
developed a sensitivity to beryllium that can lead to a serious
and potentially fatal lung disease if not treated. Stephens was
among hundreds of workers who machined and tooled the exotic
metal at the Tallevast plant for Department of Energy projects. 

The U.S. Department of Energy funds the free blood tests. 

All workers had their blood screened at National Jewish. For the
second batch of testing, some workers' samples were processed at
the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education in Tennessee
and the others were sent to Specialty Labs in Santa Monica,
Calif. 

Of the 81 workers tested so far, 64 had normal findings at two
labs and four had abnormal findings at two of the labs. But six
had a normal finding at one lab and an abnormal finding at a
second lab, and three had borderline findings at one lab but not
the other. Four had a normal finding at one lab but not enough
blood was drawn for a second test. 

Workers who have conflicting test results or borderline results
will be offered another free test, said Dr. Donna Cragle, who
works at Oak Ridge. 

Cragle attributed the inconsistent readings between labs to
different serum batches used to grow cells from the blood
samples. Lab workers must calibrate each batch of serum to
determine how fast cells will grow, Cragle said. So one lab may
have a different growth rate than another. 

In the serum used at Oak Ridge, the cells were considered
positive if they grew 2.9 times faster in beryllium-laced serum
than in the control batch. 

Maier said the serum used at National Jewish was calibrated at a
2.5 times growth rate. 

What counts, said Maier, is not rate of growth, but whether the
test is abnormal or not. 

Both Cragle and Maier agreed that having nine with conflicting
test results out of 81 is common. 

Cragle and her team were at the U.S. Healthworks Clinic in
Bradenton from April 4-6 to offer the free tests to workers. 

Cragle will return to Bradenton in May for another round of
tests at the same clinic. 

Testing information 

Former American Beryllium Co. workers who want to sign up for
the beryllium sensitivity testing or who have questions about
test results should call (866) 219-3442.   

*****************************************************************
 38 Vermont Guardian Following the fallout: Vermont health impacts of nuke tests hard to track

By Kathryn Casa | Vermont Guardian 

Vermonters who drank unprocessed milk from the family farm in
the 1950s and early 60s could be at greater risk of cancer
caused by nuclear weapons tests conducted thousands of miles
away. As such, they should be eligible for federal compensation,
a panel of the nations top scientists has recommended. 

More radioactive fallout rained from the skies over Vermont than
any other New England state as a result of 100 above ground
nuclear weapons tests conducted in Nevada between 1951 and 1963,
according to the National Cancer Institute. 

Millions of people nationwide received significant doses of
radioactive iodine, and hot spots occurred thousands of miles
from the test sites, the NCI found. The fallout in Vermont was
the highest in any state west of Ohio. 

According to the NCIs research, Addison County milk drinkers
were exposed to the highest level in the state, at an average of
4.7 rads of iodine-131. Internationally accepted background
levels of iodine-131 are 0.1 rads per year, according to Andre
Bouville, NCI senior radiation physicist. 

Grand Isle Countys rate was second highest, at an average of 4.5
rads; Bennington and Chittenden were third highest, with 4.4
rads, and Lamoile fourth with 4.1. 

Some of the highest rates in the nation were recorded in Idaho
and Montana, where the level of iodine-131 in milk surpassed an
average of 10.1 rads, and went as high as 13 rads in some
counties, the NCI data show. 

But eligibility for the federal Radiation Exposure Compensation
Act for those suffering from cancer connected to the tests is
limited to people living in parts of Nevada, southern Utah, and
Arizona who were downwind of the blasts and to workers who
handled uranium directly. 

The National Academy of Sciences National Research Council said
in a study released April 28 that eligibility should not be
limited to geographic boundaries. The panel calls on Congress to
establish a new process for reviewing individual claims, based
on probability of causation, or assigned share (PC/AS). 

PC/AS is a formula used in the courts and other radiation
compensation programs to determine whether radiation exposure is
likely the cause of an individuals cancer. If the estimated
assigned share for that individual meets or exceeds criteria
established by Congress, then compensation is awarded. 

Establishing those criteria is a public policy decision that
should be addressed by Congress, which needs to take into
account scientific issues and uncertainties, the National
Academies panel said. And since it may seem unfair, because of
the uncertainties involved, for a person not to get compensation
when the PC/AS is just below the threshold, Congress may decide
that a range of compensation amounts is more appropriate. 

The council recommended that the costs of screening, follow-up,
diagnosis, and treatment for compensable diseases be covered. 

In 1997, the National Cancer Institute determined fallout from
the atomic bomb tests was carried thousands of miles. The
fallout contained several hundred radioactive isotopes,
including iodine-131, cesium-137, and strontium-90, which have
largely dissipated. 

Iodine-131, which is known to cause thyroid illness and cancer,
loses half of its radioactivity every seven days. But during the
testing, the radioisotope collected on pastures and grasses
where it was consumed by cows and goats and collected in the
animals milk, according to the NCI. 

Those considered most susceptible to the iodine-131 were
children younger than 15 between 1951 and 1963 who drank milk
from backyard or farm cows and goats. That milk contained more
iodine-31 than store-bought products. Those children today would
be between 42 and 68 years old. 

Its estimated that a person exposed to radiation may develop
thyroid cancer between four and 40 years after exposure, with
most cases occurring 10-20 years following exposure, according
to the state epidemiologist, Dr. Court Loaff. 

He said Vermont didnt begin formally collecting cancer
statistics until 1995. We dont necessarily have good data going
back to the 50s to say whether the number of cases jumped up,
Loaff said. 

The data that is available for illnesses reported between
1995-99 shows that Vermont is at or slightly below the national
average for thyroid cancers, Loaff said. During that period,
there were 8.9 cases of thyroid cancer among women per 100,000
population. The national average was 10 cases. During the same
period, there were 3.7 cases among Vermont men, compared to a
national rate of 3.8 per 100,000. 

Groups concerned about the health effects of radioactive fallout
welcomed the NAS report. The National Cancer Institute has shown
that there were hot spot areas all over the country where milk
was contaminated. People with a high risk of thyroid cancer
should be compensated without delay wherever they lived without
having to jump through hoops, Arjun Makhijani, president of the
Washington-based Institute for Energy and Environmental
Research, said in a prepared statement. 

Makhijani also called for studies to determine the risks from
fallout other than thyroid cancer. The available science on
other cancer risks from testing is inadequate because scientists
have not talked to the downwinders carefully enough to determine
all the pathways by which they were exposed, he said. For
example, radioactive ash deposited after test blasts on laundry
as it dried outside could have led to higher exposures than what
has been accounted for. 

The issue is complicated by the fact that Vermont, particularly
the ridge lines, took a heavy hit from the fallout generated by
the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster in 1986, said Raymond
Shadis, technical advisor to the Brattleboro-based New England
Coalition on Nuclear Pollution. All of this looms as background
for our concerns about the risk of accidental radiological
releases entailed in the proposed reactor power boost and
continued dense pack nuclear waste storage at Entergys Vermont
Yankee Nuclear Power Station. 

Kimberly Roberts of Physicians for Social Responsibility in
Washington said Congress should include physician education and
outreach as part of any new legislation.
 The Radiation Exposure Compensation Act  passed by Congress in
1990 and amended in 2000  marked the first time Washington
publicly acknowledged that those downwind of the nuclear testing
and uranium workers had been hurt and deserved compensation. 
Send us your news tips, a letter to the editor or general
comments.
 
Saturday, May. 07, 2005 

  | | Northern Vermont: PO Box 335, Winooski, VT 05404
 Southern Vermont: 139 Main Street, Suite 702, Brattleboro, VT
05301
 Contact: 802.861.4880 (ph) | 802.861.6388 (fax) | 877.231.5382
(toll-free)

 ©2005 Vermont Guardian | 
*****************************************************************
 39 AU ABC: Guam residents may be compensated for US nuclear testing
 
Guam
In Depth 

The United States has for the first time acknowledged that Guam
received measurable radioactive fallout from US nuclear tests at
the Bikini and Enewetak atolls in the Marshall Islands.

Nuclear tests were carried out in the Marshall Islands between
1946 and 1962.

A US research study has confirmed the exposure after assessing
new scientific information.

The US National Research Council has presented its report to
Congress and is now recommending that residents of Guam be
compensated.

The Pacific Association of Radiation Survivors in Guam has
welcomed the report.

The association's president, Robert Celestial, says he has been
lobbying for this result for over four years. 

*****************************************************************
 40 Rocky Mountain News: - Not-so-natural gas? Texas firm seeks OK to 
drill in area that nukes left radioactive - 

Gargi Chakrabarty

Hal Stoelzle © News © 2002

Natural vegetation reclaims the formerly denuded area around a
natural gas well site on Morrisania Mesa east of Parachute. The
state will consider a request to drill near Rifle, prompting
concerns over the gas being radioactive.

                                                
Courtesy Department Of Energy © 1969

Workers with the Atomic Energy Commission place a nuclear device
into a shaft drilled on Doghead Mountain on Sept. 10, 1969, as
part of the government's attempt to find peaceful uses for
nuclear explosions. This effort sought to extract natural gas
from the Rulison Field near Rifle. The gas that came out,
however, was radioactive and could not be sold.
 					   				 				 				
Not-so-natural gas?

Texas firm seeks OK to drill in area that nukes left radioactive

By Gargi Chakrabarty, Rocky Mountain News
May 6, 2005

The state will consider a proposal to drill for natural gas in
an area where an underground nuclear test in 1969 left much of
the gas radioactive. 

The nonmilitary explosion by the government in Rulison Field,
eight miles southwest of Rifle in Garfield County, was intended
to break shale and release natural gas trapped in the rock. 

 Until last year, oil and gas companies did not drill within a
half-mile radius of Rulison Field, mostly for economic reasons. 

That radius was formalized as a buffer by state regulators in
February 2004 after local residents protested against drilling
because of safety concerns. 

But that could soon change. On June 6, state regulators will
hear a compromise worked out by the commission staff, Presco
Inc. and Garfield County. The plan allows Presco, a Texas oil
company that owns the mineral rights in the area, to drill a
well on the surface inside the buffer zone but keep the well
bottom, about 9,000 feet deep, outside the zone. 

The plan would have to address some issues before the commission
hears it, said Brian Macke, the Colorado Oil and Gas
Conservation Commission's director. 

"Presco would need to provide evidence and testimony to show the
way it plans to drill the well and where the well's bottom hole
location would be," Macke said. "They would have to agree to
conditions that would be applied to the drilling permit to
ensure the protection of public health, safety and environment." 

Most parties agree there's no conclusion about whether it's safe
or unsafe to drill inside the half-mile radius. Soon after the
nuclear explosion in 1969, the Department of Energy cordoned off
a 40-acre parcel, prohibiting the removal of material at least
6,500 feet or more below the surface. Since then, the department
has studied the safety of drilling within the zone, but a report
won't be ready until 2007. 

Meanwhile, Macke prepared a report for the commission in 1998,
agreeing that any drilling outside the 40-acre parcel would pose
minimum risk. Still, the commission increased the safety buffer
to that half-mile radius last year after public protests. 

Headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas, Presco said it had
applied to drill wells in Rulison Field last year based on
government reports that showed it was safe to do so. But the
commission squashed its plans by imposing the buffer. 

Kim Bennetts, Presco's vice president of exploration and
production, said the company would respect the buffer by keeping
the well bottom outside of it. Also, Presco would test the gas
from the well for radioactivity. 

"The reason we want to drill within the buffer zone is because
of the steep mountain topography," Bennetts said. "If we access
the gas from outside, we'd have to cut a large scar in the side
of the mountain, and no one wanted us to do that." 

"Our application is based on what is best for the environment
and the view-shed over there," Bennetts added. "I suppose the
county also realized how expensive and difficult it would be (to
protest the application) and reconsidered their position." 

Garfield County Commissioner John Martin said the county had
wanted to wait until 2007 for the detailed DOE study before
approving any drilling within the buffer zone. Presco didn't
want to wait. 

And the county didn't want to spend money in litigation, had the
company asked it to prove that drilling in the buffer zone was
unsafe. So the county agreed to the compromise. 

"If Presco launched a lawsuit against Garfield County and
required us to prove that drilling there was unsafe, we would
have spent a fortune, and we can't do that," Martin said. "So we
decided to sit down with Presco, the attorneys, the COGCC, and
consider the best alternative." 

Martin said the county still was discussing conditions under
which Presco would be permitted to drill within the buffer zone. 

"I hope and believe we can arrive at an acceptable solution
before the June 6 hearing," Martin said. 

Duke Cox, who lives about 20 miles southwest of Rulison Field
and heads a grass-roots alliance of local residents, said many
people living near Rulison Field oppose Presco's drilling plans. 

"We think they need to consider the community's request for
safety and forgo some of their profit," Cox said. "We understand
the price of natural gas is high, and they want to drill when
the going is good. I suppose their profit and our safety don't
equate." 

chakrabartyg@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-2976  

SITE MAP PHOTO REPRINTS CORRECTIONS    2005 © The E.W. Scripps
*****************************************************************
 41 Brattleboro Reformer: State, VY near deal on dry cask storage

May 06, 2005 Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
 			 			 			
By CAROLYN LORIÉ 
Reformer Staff

BRATTLEBORO -- Despite weeks of doubt, local lawmakers now
believe that a final bill on dry cask storage at Vermont Yankee
could be ironed out within the next two weeks.

 The change, said Rep. Steve Darrow, D-Putney, is Entergy's
sudden willingness to negotiate.

 According to Darrow, a memorandum of understanding between the
corporation and the state is being worked out. Some of the
conditions include specifying where on the plant grounds the
casks will be placed, encasing them with a special protective
layer and spacing them in such a manner that they are all easily
accessible.

 The memorandum also stipulates that the company must return to
the Legislature before renewing the plant's license, which
expires in 2012 and the radiation monitor must be hardwired
directly from the casks to the Vermont Department of Health. 

Also being negotiated is a yearly fee Entergy will pay to the
state that will go into a renewable energy fund. A charge on the
casks has been a major stumbling block, not only between the
company and the Legislature, but also between legislators.

 The House Committee on Natural Resources and Energy has been
working on a bill for weeks, but at least two Republican members
said they would not pass a bill that included a yearly charge.

 Though there were enough votes in the committee to pass the
bill, Chairman Robert Dostis, D-Waterbury, didn't want the
decision made along party lines. He delayed action in the hopes
that a compromise could be reached, which he said would be
possible if Entergy agreed to pay a fee.

 Until very recently, however, Entergy has been unwilling to
negotiate, said Darrow. He speculated that Entergy was prompted
to come to the bargaining table to insure that a bill was pass
before the end of the legislative session.

 In addition to legislative approval, the company must get a
certificate of public good from the state from the Vermont
Public Service Board. It cannot file with the board, however,
until the general assembly passes a bill.

 According to Entergy officials, the large pool where spent fuel
is currently stored will be filled to capacity in 2008 or 2007
if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approves their bid to
increase power production by 20 percent.

 The casks are meant to be temporary measures until Yucca
Mountain or another national repository begins taking fuel from
the 103 nuclear power plants in the country.

 Vermont Yankee is among the first in the queue to ship to Yucca
Mountain, but no one is sure when, or if, it will ever open.

 According to the anti-nuclear group Nuclear Information and
Resource Service, the Nevada site is designed to hold up to
63,000 tons of high-level waste. The group estimates that by
2011, the nation's plants will have generated at least that much
waste, meaning that anything produced beyond that will require
another solution.

 In the meantime, Entergy Nuclear, along with seven other
nuclear companies, formed a corporation called Private Fuel
Storage. That company has contracted with the Goshute Indian
Reservation in Utah to store 40,000 tons of high-level nuclear
waste there. In February, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
approved a license for the project. No date has been set as to
when shipments to the site may begin.

 The lack of a national repository has made many state officials
cautious about approving dry cask storage for Vermont Yankee, as
it is unknown how long it will remain on the plant grounds.

 Included in the agreement currently being worked out is a limit
on only the number of casks necessary to allow the plant to
operate until 2012. 		   	 	
 		   			 		   	 	
       Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., 
*****************************************************************
 42 Nevada Appeal:  Money committees hold first meeting to resolve budget differences - 

Geoff Dornan
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
May 6, 2005     				 				
 					     				 			
 The Assembly and Senate money committees agreed Friday to cut
the governor's proposed budget for the nuclear protection fund
in half.

Assembly Ways and Means members voted to go with the Senate plan
reducing the fund which supports the state's legal battle
against Yucca Mountain nuclear dump from $2 million to $1
million.

The money will be transferred to the Nuclear Projects Agency
headed by Bob Loux.

The decision was one of several designed to resolve differences
in the budget created by actions of the two committees.

Other decisions on the list included continuing the Ombudsman
for Domestic Violence in the Attorney General's office as a
federal grant-funded position. Members of the Assembly had
proposed moving the position to the general fund when they were
told the federal money might not materialize next year, but
staff has since found the federal funding is not in jeopardy.

They also added back some $75,000 to the Cultural Affairs
Department budget to support the educational program dealing
with the Holocaust.

Resolving differences between Senate and Assembly versions of
different budgets is the key to finishing the state budget for
the coming two years. The first resolution meeting usually deals
with small and relatively noncontroversial differences between
the houses.

Most of the budget accounts in the more than 220 state agencies
are closed with no disagreement. Staff analysts told members of
the money committees Friday nearly two-thirds of the state
budget has been resolved that way so far this session.

The total state general fund budget is more than $5.75 billion
for the biennium. When federal funds, highway funds and other
revenue sources are counted, the total is $15.8 billion.

Contact reporter Geoff Dornan at gdornan@nevadaappeal.comor
687-8750.

All contents © Copyright 2005 nevadaappeal.com
Nevada Appeal - 580 Mallory Way - Carson City, NV 89701                         
*****************************************************************
 43 Bradenton Herald: Pollution fouls road expansion project

| 05/06/2005 | 

SCOTT RADWAY

 Herald Staff Writer

TALLEVAST - A county project to widen Tallevast Road will need
an alternate plan for drainage as contamination from the old
Loral American Beryllium Co. plant has slithered under a site
proposed for a retention pond. 

Karen Collins-Fleming, director of Manatee environmental
management, said the plume of groundwater contamination was
found under the abandoned factory that abuts 15th Street East on
Tallevast Road and the old American Beryllium site. 

The county had originally investigated the site for
contamination because old monitoring wells were found there
during an inspection. The theory then was the site was a second
source of contamination in Tallevast. 

But Collins-Fleming said it appears the contamination now found
under the site spread from the old plant. The latest assessment
from Lockheed Martin, which is responsible for cleaning up the
contamination, is that the plume covers 131 acres. 

That raised liability and environmental issues, Collins-Fleming
said, adding that the county has requested a meeting with
Lockheed Martin and the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection. 

Manatee County Commissioner Donna Hayes said the road project is
now on hold. 

"This is a concern to the county and we want Lockheed Martin to
conduct more testing," Hayes said. 

That news came after Hayes held one of her periodic constituent
meetings. Tallevast is in her district and residents raised
concerns Thursday about the road project, which could exacerbate
what they describe as bad traffic conditions by making the road
more heavily used. 

Residents are pushing for a speed limit reduction, "Children at
Play" signs and sidewalks. It appears they may only get
sidewalks on the road that connects U.S. 301 with 15th Street
East. 

"We have had kids jump in ditches to avoid cars," said Wanda
Washington, vice president of Tallevast community group Family
Oriented Community United & Strong, describing the condition of
the road. 

Hayes said she brought the speed limit request before the
commission but no other member backed her. The road runs 25 mph
in some sections and 40 mph in another. Residents wanted it 25
mph throughout. 

Manatee transportation director Larry Mau said the 25 mph
designation is already low for a connector road and the 40 mph
is in an area of primarily farmland. But he said he will study
whether there should be a reduction to help address concerns
that people are not slowing down to obey the speed limit. 

Mau said the county no longer posts "Children at Play" signs
because those violate national standards established roughly a
decade ago. Mau said the signs were likely discontinued because
they gave children a false sense of safety and created liability
issues. 

Washington said residents feel like the county has turned a deaf
ear to the community and is failing to address what is a crisis
situation. 

"What are they waiting for? If the contamination doesn't kill
us, maybe the traffic will," Washington said. 

Scott Radway, environmental reporter, can be reached at 708-7919
or at sradway@HeraldToday.com.   

*****************************************************************
 44 Las Vegas RJ: NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE: Trade group says Yucca still viable 
 
Friday, May 06, 2005
 

Letter breaks silence regarding e-mails about falsified quality
control documents By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
 
WASHINGTON -- Breaking more than a month of public silence, the
nuclear industry's trade association says the possibility that
quality control documents might have been falsified shouldn't be
enough to sink the Yucca Mountain Project.
 
 The accumulation of detailed engineering and research that has
gone into the proposed nuclear waste repository "is not
dependent on any one scientist's work," said Marvin Fertel,
senior vice president of the Nuclear Energy Institute.
 
 "The recent disclosure of quality assurance non-compliance
issues by three U.S. Geological Survey scientists, while
egregious on its face, is not a basis for questioning the
long-term viability of the Yucca Mountain site," Fertel said.
 
 The NEI executive offered the association's view in an April 29
letter to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman in which he urged
continued pursuit of nuclear waste burial at the Yucca site, 100
miles northwest of Las Vegas.
 
 The letter was reported Thursday by Platts Nuclear
Publications, an energy newsletter group. NEI subsequently made
it available.
 
 Fertel was not available for comment Thursday. Spokesman Mitch
Singer said he did not know why the trade group chose to speak
out at this point.
 
 Bodman and USGS Director Charles Groat disclosed the
controversial e-mails on March 16. While two or three NEI
staffers have commented individually in recent weeks, Fertel's
letter marks the association's first formal reaction. 
The association has championed the repository as a key to
allowing nuclear power generation to expand in the United
States. Critics say the industry has pushed Yucca Mountain in
the face of evidence that the site might not be suitable.
 
 The NEI letter to Bodman "is insulting and at the same time
hypocritical," said Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev. "It talks about the
magnitude of the problem but that they should ignore it and move
forward."
 
 Porter is chairman of a House subcommittee investigating e-mail
messages written between 1998 and 2000 that discuss document
falsification. Inspectors general at the Energy Department and
the Department of Interior also are investigating, while the
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, which manages
the Yucca project, is reviewing work performed by three
hydrologists tied to the messages.
 
 "NEI's only concern is to protect the healthy profits of the
nuclear industry, not the health and safety of those who live in
Nevada or along the routes where nuclear waste would be
transported," Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said in a prepared
statement.
 
 In the letter, Fertel said the nuclear energy industry found
the charges of falsified documents "particularly troubling" and
applauded the government's response. He said DOE has improved
its quality assurance in the past three years.
 
 "Nonetheless the reviews should validate that measures are in
place to protect against such egregious behavior in the future,"
he wrote.
 
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 45 BBC: Australia miner pleads guilty
 
Last Updated: Friday, 6 May, 2005
 
[Ranger mine, courtesy ERA (archive photo)]                             

The Ranger mine is in a World Heritage-listed park                                                          

An Australian mining company has pleaded guilty to charges 
relating to a water contamination incident in the Northern 
Territory. 

Energy Resources Australia (ERA) has pleaded guilty to three 
charges, and faces fines of A$300,000 (US$230,000). 

Twenty-eight workers fell sick last year after drinking and 
showering in water allegedly containing 400 times the allowable 
limit of uranium. 

The incident happened in the World Heritage-listed Kakadu 
National Park. 

ERA is owned by global mining firm Rio Tinto, and is the world's 
third largest uranium miner. 

On 23 March 2004, a tube carrying water used in the processing of 
uranium was mistakenly connected to a drinking supply at the 
Ranger mine, Darwin Magistrates Court was told on Friday. 

The error was not discovered until a supervisor drank the water 
and suspected it had been contaminated, according to prosecutor 
Jon Tippett. 

A short time later, 28 miners complained of symptoms such as 
stomach cramps, nausea, headaches and skin rashes after drinking 
or washing in the affected water. 

The plant was immediately closed down, while an investigation was 
launched. 

Mr Tippett insisted the incident could easily have been avoided. 

He said the water system at the mine was in poor condition, and 
there was a "serious contamination just waiting to happen". 

But ERA's lawyer Ross Ray said the contamination was the result 
of human error and not an equipment problem, and he added that 
the company had now implemented a number of safety procedures. 

He also said the workers would not suffer any long-term health 
effects. 

ERA pleaded guilty to two charges in relation to the water 
contamination, and a further charge related to contaminated 
vehicles leaving the mine site. 

Even before the contamination scare, there were concerns about 
placing a uranium plant in Kakadu national park. 

Some members of the aboriginal community living on the land had 
repeatedly objected to the presence of the mine. 

The area has a stunning collection of aboriginal rock art and a 
dazzling array of native flora and fauna, including Magpie geese 
and crocodiles.                                                          



*****************************************************************
 46 Las Vegas SUN: Lawmakers slash Yucca fight funds

Today: May 06, 2005 at 11:28:57 PDT 

Guinn's $2 million allocation cut in half

 By Cy Ryan <cy@lasvegassun.com> SUN CAPITAL BUREAU

 CARSON CITY -- Gov. Kenny Guinn's allocation of $2 million for
the legal fight against Yucca Mountain was slashed by a joint
meeting of Senate and Assembly budget committees this morning.

 In the first meeting this session, the Senate Finance Committee
and the Assembly Ways and Means Committee agreed to spend $1
million over the next two years rather than the $2 million.

 Guinn had recommended $1 million each year in the coming
biennium to hire lawyers to push Nevada's case against the
nuclear dump site.

 The two committees meet jointly to iron out their differences.
In this case the Finance Committee had recommended the reduction
of $1 million and the Assembly Ways and Means agreed.

 But the two committees agreed to spend $75,000 more for support
of the Governor's Advisory Council on Education on the
Holocaust. Guinn had proposed $75,000 but the two committees
agreed it should be $150,000.

 In this case the Assembly Ways and Means Committee wanted the
higher figure and the Senate committee agreed.

 The committees of the Senate and Assembly must get together to
has out the two houses' differences regarding the 2005-2007
state budget.

 Meanwhile a Senate-Assembly budget subcommittee on human
resoures later deadlocked whether to provide more money for the
growing number of patients with AIDS.

 There are currently 881 AIDS infected persons receiving money
for their medication. The state is now spending an estimated
$845 per client per month.

 The state Health Division had estimated that the number of
people eligible for state aid will grow by 9 percent in each of
the next two years. It asked for an additional $1.7 million over
the next two years to provide drugs for these patients and to
make sure there was no waiting list.

 The Assembly members of the subcommittee endorsed a modified
increase of $742,332 above what the governor recommended. That
would allow the division to serve an additional 38 clients next
year and 65 the following year.

 But the Senate balked at that proposal. Senate Majority Leader
Bill Raggio, R-Reno, said the health division should be allowed
to come back to the Interim Finance Committee for more money if
these increases occur above the budget.

 Raggio and Sen. Barbara Cegavske, R-Reno, agreed. The two
Senate Democrats on the subcommittee -- Dina Titus of Las Vegas
and Bernice Mathews of Reno -- agreed that the extra $746,332 be
provided for the program over the next two years.

 Guinn's budget calls for $12.4 million each year to pay for the
medication of those with AIDS. Of that $10.8 million comes from
the federal government. State funding for the program under the
governor's budget was $1.5 million for each year.

 Since the Senate and Assembly disagreed, this will have to be
resolved when the two full Senate and Assembly committees meet.

 
 
*****************************************************************
 47 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Cruel with a capital 'C'

Today: May 06, 2005 at 10:06:50 PDT 

 LAS VEGAS SUN

 State Sen. Bob Beers, R-Las Vegas, and his echo chamber in the
local right-wing media have been pounding away at what they
claim is a bloated state government. On Wednesday they -- and
the rest of us -- had a chance to see just how much outrage
exists over state government spending. The Senate Finance
Committee held a hearing to find out what suggestions that
legislators, lobbyists and, most importantly, members of the
general public had for cutting the state budget.

 A good deal of publicity was given in advance to the hearing,
and it was held at 5:30 p.m., making it easier for those who
work during the day to attend. Additionally, the meeting was
videoconferenced to Las Vegas from Carson City. So how many
members of the general public showed up in Las Vegas for the
hearing? Only three -- and not one of them offered to testify in
favor of any specific kinds of cuts that should be made. And no
one from the general public testified in Carson City, either,
although some lobbyists representing business interests pitched
their plans for reducing government.

 The hearing really belonged to Beers and his proposals to cut
government services -- and some of his ideas are dangerous. He
would dramatically cut spending on Medicaid, the joint
federal-state partnership in which the poor and those who are
disabled receive medical care. Beers would like to eliminate
some of those programs that the federal government deems
"optional" -- such as dental care and hospice care -- that most
compassionate people would see as essential. He also, at a time
when the state is doing well in trying to stop a nuclear waste
dump from being built in Nevada, would wave the white flag of
surrender by eliminating funding for the state office providing
independent oversight of the Yucca Mountain project. Beers also
wants to make Draconian cuts to the state's Millennium
Scholarship program, which has been highly successful and
popular with N evadans.

 Economic calamity was predicted by the right-wing media and
extremist legislators two years ago when the Legislature
increased taxes to help pay for essential services, including
education. But Nevada's economy, particularly in Las Vegas, has
been doing much better than before taxes were raised. Further,
there was no public backlash, as every state legislator who
voted for higher taxes won re-election. Link all of that with
the lack of a turnout at this week's budget hearing to consider
more ways to cut the budget, and it's clear that the people of
Nevada aren't buying the tired, heartless view of government
being peddled by Beers and Company. 
 
*****************************************************************
 48 Las Vegas SUN: Nuke industry says falsified data should not kill Yucca
 
By Suzanne Struglinski <suzanne@lasvegassun.com> SUN WASHINGTON 
BUREAU

 WASHINGTON -- Allegations that falsified scientific data was
used to support the creation of a nuclear dump at Yucca Mountain
should not kill the project, the Nuclear Energy Institute says.

 The reaction from the nuclear industry trade group to the
documentation controversy came in an April 29 letter to Energy
Secretary Samuel Bodman. It is the group's first public
statement on the matter since the Energy Department announced
March 16 that it had discovered e-mails by U.S. Geological
Survey employees that suggest they altered scientific data while
working on the proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca, 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas.

 In the letter, Marvin Fertel, senior vice president of the
Nuclear Energy Institute, a major supporter of the Yucca
repository, said the department should handle the problems but
also continue to prepare the project's license application.

 "The recent disclosure of quality assurance non-compliance
issues by three U. S. Geological Survey scientists, while
egregious on their face, is not a basis for questioning the
long-term viability of the Yucca Mountain site," Fertel wrote in
the letter.

 Fertel wrote that more than 3,000 scientists from five national
laboratories, 12 universities, two federal agencies and two
local governments did the work necessary to keep the project
going while protecting the public and the environment.

 "This extensive body of scientific and engineering work was
specifically designed to ensure that the site suitability
determination at Yucca Mountain is not dependent on any one
scientist's work," Fertel wrote.

 Ongoing investigations continue into the possibly falsified
data. The Interior and Energy department's Inspector General
Offices, the U.S. Attorney's Office and the FBI are looking at
whether crimes were committed, and the Energy Department is to
review the scientific work involved.

 Nevada has called for an independent investigation into the
matter and Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., who is chairman of the House
Federal Workforce and Agency Organization Subcommittee, is
hiring a full-time investigator to work with the subcommittee's
staff.

 Porter said the institute's letter "is insulting and
hypocritical. For example, the letter states that the Yucca
Mountain Project was based on science from thousands of
scientists and should not be dependent on one scientist's work.
However, as any scientist knows, a chain is only as strong as
its weakest link. It's obvious that the nuclear industry
realizes the severity of the issues plaguing the Yucca Mountain
Project."

 
 
*****************************************************************
 49 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Nuclear dump proponents use politics, deceit
 
Nevadans and Americans who have fought against a proposed,
politically motivated nuclear waste repository at Yucca
Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, have reason to be
proud. It has taken 18 years to finally prove that science has
taken a back seat to raw politics and deceit on the part of the
Energy Department.

 The proof was in the federal court ruling last summer that
struck down the Energy Department's standard for protection
against radiation -- which had been 10,000 years, when the
National Academy of Sciences had recommended a much longer
period.

 The Nevada Legislature has called upon President Bush and
Congress to abandon plans for turning Yucca Mountain into a
permanent repository for storing nuclear waste. They cite
reasons of safety, security and unscientific studies.

 Our U.S. senators, Democrat Harry Reid and Republican John
Ensign, have collaborated on legislation to have the Energy
Department take possession of the nuclear waste right where it
is stored now, on the site of the nuclear power plants. They
support using the nuclear waste fund, built up through fees on
consumers' power bills, to finance this on-site storage. Their
legislation makes perfect sense economically and scientifically.
Upon passage of this legislation, the nuclear power industry
would no longer have a reason for pressuring the government to
open Yucca Mountain.

 The fight against Yucca Mountain is not about NIMBY (not in my
back yard). It is, rather, a fight against an oppressive federal
government that is using power politics against a politically
weak state. 

FRANK PERNA

 
 
*****************************************************************
 50 Herald-Tribune: 'Tallevast' bill just the beginning, Galvano says
 	 	 	 	 	

05/06/2005
 						 	 	 	 	 	 
By JEREMY WALLACE

TALLAHASSEE -- A bill that passed through the Legislature on
Thursday is meant to make sure the state understands it has a
responsibility to the public, its sponsor said.

And similar bills aimed at holding state regulators accountable
will be coming in the future, said State Rep. Bill Galvano,
R-Bradenton.

The state Department of Environmental Protection knew about
massive contamination near the former American Beryllium Co.
plant in Manatee County's Tallevast neighborhood, but took three
years to tell people who live near the site. The new legislation
requires the DEP to notify neighboring property owners within 30
days of a potential contamination problem. It still must be
signed by the governor.

It's been clear from the way they've handled the case, Galvano
said, that the DEP doesn't recognize that part of its role is to
make sure the public knows about environmental and health risks
nearby.

It wasn't that they were being malicious, he said; they just
didn't get it. The bureaucrats in the agency didn't fully
understand where public notice fit into their responsibilities.

So now Galvano plans to create more legislation to force the DEP
to be responsive to the community. The passage of Thursday's
notification bill is just the start of an effort to change DEP's
culture, he said.

"We need to establish a culture of knowledge there," Galvano
said. "Knowledge in the hands of county leaders is vital."

That will likely mean more legislation and more oversight in
general by state lawmakers, Galvano said.

"I'm not going to shy away from this now just because the bill
passed," Galvano said.

Rep. Ron Reagan, R-Bradenton, whose district office is near the
contamination site, said he also wants to see more activity from
the Legislature to correct the mistakes that were made around
Tallevast.

Like Galvano, Reagan said he doesn't know what the next step
will be, but believes Tallevast will become a statewide case for
what can go wrong when regulators keep residents in the dark
about pollution in their neighborhood.

Tallevast residents had mixed reactions to news of the bills'
passage.

"We're happy that Tallevast was instrumental in helping other
people, but the bill is too late for us. It does nothing for
Tallevast," said Wanda Washington, a lifelong resident. "Now
that the pollution is here, we're focusing on our health."

Galvano's bill passed the House on Monday, but struggled to get 
on the Senate's voting schedule until Galvano began to call in 
favors to get it through. It wasn't that anyone opposed the 
legislation, it was just having trouble working its way through 
the hundreds of other bills struggling to be heard in the Senate, 
Galvano said.

Galvano expanded the legislation to include procedures 
instructing the DEP how to handle public notification when a 
school is near a potentially contaminated site. That measure was 
included to specifically address contamination at a school in 
Calhoun County in the Panhandle.

Although the DEP had been investigating petroleum contamination 
at a high school there, the parents and teacher were never 
notified.

Galvano cited that situation as another example of the DEP having 
to be prodded to notify the people most affected by the potential 
contamination. He said in Florida, where open government is so 
revered, it's important to make sure the DEP is playing by the 
same rules to keep the public informed.

Galvano has a good relationship with DEP officials and isn't out 
to make them look bad, he said. But Galvano said he intends to 
keep the pressure on them to make sure they don't repeat their 
mistakes.

Before he introduces more legislation, Galvano plans to make sure 
the new notification requirements work, he said.

Washington said she would like to see legislation to make it 
easier for residents affected by pollution to sue the companies 
responsible. Lockheed Martin bought the former American Beryllium 
plant in 1996 and is responsible for the cleanup there. 
Washington and other residents have hired a group of attorneys to 
sue Lockheed over the pollution, which they say is responsible 
for higher-than-normal rates of cancers and other ailments in the 
community.

With Lockheed's deep pockets, and the burden of proof on 
residents to prove their sicknesses were caused by the plant's 
pollution, winning compensation will be an uphill battle, 
Washington said.

"We know the source of the pollution, and we know what those 
chemicals do to people. But in order to have the industry 
compensate me, I have to sue them and prove they did it," 
Washington said. "I don't understand that. It doesn't seem 
right."

Laws making it easier to sue polluters would help people who have 
gotten ill from such pollution get compensated, and make the 
polluting industries more responsible, Washington said.


Last modified: May 06. 2005 4:57AM 	 	 		 		 		 

heraldtribune.com | Advertise With Us | Jobs With Us | Join
Sarasota Herald-Tribune. All rights reserved. Starting first
*****************************************************************
 51 heraldtribune.com: Tallevast Road work delayed over pollution

05/06/2005
 						 	 	 	 	 	 
By ROBYN JONES

STAFF WRITERS
 robyn.jones@heraldtribune.com

TALLEVAST -- Residents here who have been waiting years for
improvements to a stretch of road in their community found out
Thursday that the project has been postponed yet again.

This time, the improvements to the section of Tallevast Road
between 15th Street East and U.S. 301 are being delayed because
of concerns over pollution caused by a former weapons
manufacturing plant.

The American Beryllium Co. plant on Tallevast Road leaked a stew
of dangerous chemicals, including beryllium, lead, arsenic,
trichloroethylene and dioxane into the soil and ground water in
the area. The plant operated for nearly 40 years before closing
in 1996.

County transportation officials said Thursday that any road work
done in the area might stir up some of the chemicals, and put
residents at risk. The revelation came at a community meeting
sponsored by County Commissioner Donna Hayes, whose district
includes Tallevast.

Manatee County Health Department spokesman Charles Henry said in
an interview after the meeting that the pollution poses no
health risk to residents as long as they don't ingest the
chemicals.

But residents, who blame the chemicals on what they say are
higher-than-normal levels of cancer and other illnesses in the
community of about 85 homes, said the county should have told
them earlier.

Tallevast resident Wanda Washington said that when residents
learned about the contamination, they started asking county
officials about the Tallevast Road project.

"They kept putting it on hold," Washington said. "This is the
first time they've admitted they're having a problem."

Washington and other residents have been asking county officials
to improve the stretch of Tallevast Road for years.

Residents had high hopes when the road improvement project went
before the County Commission in 1999, but it was voted down. It
was finally approved in 2003.

The county completed the first half of the $4.7 million project
by widening the two-lane road between U.S. 301 and Prospect Road
to four lanes. Plans for the section between U.S. 301 and 15th
Street East, which covers less than a mile, include widening and
repaving the street and putting in sidewalks, streetlights and
medians.

Since the road's expansion on the east, residents said they've
had more traffic, and speeders come through their neighborhood.
They talked about speeders swerving into their driveways because
of the drastic decrease in speed limits, from 40 mph to 25 mph.

Residents said schoolchildren have had to jump into ditches to 
avoid being hit by cars.

"They're not even realizing how fast they're going," said 
longtime resident Peggie Ward. "There's got to be something else 
to impede traffic off U.S. 301."

County Transportation Director Larry Mau said he didn't know how 
long it would be before work on Tallevast Road could commence.

The county has also put on hold plans to buy the property at 15th 
Street East and Tallevast Road, which it had hoped to use for a 
retention pond and small park. The property, which is polluted, 
was occupied by American Beryllium in the 1950s until it moved 
next door and later, a boat manufacturing business.

The county does plan to begin installing permanent water lines to 
Tallevast residents next week. The predominantly black community 
is one of the last in the county to be hooked up to public water. 
Nearly two dozen wells in the area tested positive for 
cancer-causing chemicals last year, prompting county officials to 
install temporary water lines to those residents.

Installing the permanent lines will close Tallevast Road east of 
15th Street East from Tuesday through Friday. 

Last modified: May 06. 2005 4:58AM 	 	 		 		 		 
*****************************************************************
 52 AU ABC: ERA pleads guilty over Ranger contamination. 

06/05/2005. ABC News Online 

"Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online"> 

Operators of the Northern Territory's Ranger uranium mine have 
pleaded guilty to a series of contamination incidents in 2003 
and 2004. 

Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) is facing charges in the 
Darwin Magistrates Court relating to breaches of the Mining 
Management Act. 

In March 2004, 28 workers fell ill after drinking or showering 
in water containing 400 times the legal limit of uranium. 

Ten of the workers drank more than two litres of contaminated 
water. 

The court heard the workers reported symptoms including gastric 
upsets, headaches and rashes. 

Earlier that year and in late 2003, vehicles also left the mine 
site contaminated with uranium ore. 

In one incident, a bob cat left the mine to be repaired at the 
nearby town of Jabiru. 
While a clearance certificate was issued, investigations found 
the bob cat had not been cleaned properly and more than a 
hundred litres of uranium ore fell from the machine. 
Three children played with the material and made sandcastles. It 
later was considered to be of low radioactivity. 

The case continues. 
*****************************************************************
 53 AU ABC: ERA apologises for uranium leak. 

06/05/2005. ABC News Online 

Apologetic: ERA will be sentenced later this month. (ABC TV) 

Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) has apologised for a uranium 
leak at its Ranger mine in the Northern Territory. 

ERA pleaded guilty in the Darwin Magistrates Court today to 
breaching the Mining Management Act. 
The breach resulted in 28 workers at the Ranger mine drinking or 
showering in water containing 400 times the legal limit of 
uranium. 
Outside court, ERA's managing director Harry Kenyon Slaney said 
the company had accepted responsibility for the incident. 
"A very regrettable incident for everybody concerned," he said. 

"We've apologised fulsomely for these incidents." 

ERA could face a maximum penalty of $300,000, but Gary Scott 
from the Territory Environment Centre says it is not enough. 
"Fines for companies that breach environmental requirements are 
fairly low in the Northern Territory and we would like to see 
them strengthened," Mr Scott said. 

ERA is expected to be sentenced later this month. 
*****************************************************************
 54 Business Day: Nuclear waste falls between cracks in absence of policyÂ 

  Posted to the web on: 06 May 2005
								
Karima Brown Political Correspondent

 SA DOES not have any government policy to guide the management
of nuclear waste, an official of the Nuclear Energy Corporation
of SA said yesterday. 

In the absence of proper policy from the cabinet to chart the
final destination of such waste, all the corporation can do is
store it pending a final decision, said Piet Bredell, who is
responsible for waste management at the corporation. 

We do not have a final plan, Bredell said. 

He said standards at the Thabana trenches, where high-level
waste from the Safari 1 reactor is stored, were not up to
international standards. 

Thabana, which means little hill in Sesotho, was previously
known as radiation hill, a name the corporation wants to get
rid of, according to Bredell. 

Bredell made the comments during a visit by media and community
groups to the corporations nuclear facility at Pelindaba. 

The visit was prompted by lobby group Earthlife Africas
warnings last week about high levels of radiation at the nuclear
facility outside Pretoria, warnings that drew government ire. 

The corporation stores 45000 drums of low-level nuclear waste at
its Pelstore facility in Pelindaba. 

Some of the drums date back to 1965 when the plant began
operations. The low-level waste is stored in the former uranium
enrichment plant that was shut down in 1995. 

Earthlife Africa says the absence of a disposal policy is cause
for concern, especially in the light of governments support for
the proposed pebble-bed modular reactor. 

The Cape High Court in January overturned an environmental
impact assessment conducted by the environmental affairs and
tourism department that cleared the way for construction of the
reactor. 

If the (reactor) goes ahead it is going to produce more waste
than Koeberg, and this is really a problem because the waste
will be around for thousands of years, Earthlife Africa
spokeswoman Olivia Andrews said yesterday. 

It will be very difficult to find a site to store it, she
said. 

The corporation allowed media into the Safari reactor site on
condition that no cameras were used. Cameras were allowed in
other areas. 

Legislation designates Safari as a sensitive area. 

Copyright Â© 2005 BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd. All Rights
*****************************************************************
 55 Salt Lake Tribune: U.S. should acknowledge treaty cuts both ways 

Do as we say 

Opinion 

Article Last Updated: 05/06/2005 12:00:51 AM 

NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION: 

The United States accuses Iran and North Korea of violating 
the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. But the United States isn't 
keeping its part of the bargain, either. Until it does, it will 
be harder to convince other nations to forgo nuclear weapons. 

The central bargain of the NPT is simple. The world's 
acknowledged nuclear weapons powers (United States, Russia, 
Britain, France, China) agree not to help the non-weapons 
nations acquire the bomb. (Israel, India and Pakistan, which 
have nuclear weapons, are not parties to the treaty.) The 
non-weapons nations agree to give up efforts to build one. But 
in exchange, the weapons nations are supposed to work toward 
eliminating their own nuclear arsenals. 

The non-weapons nations retain the right to use the atom for 
peaceful purposes. The International Atomic Energy Agency is 
supposed to conduct inspections to make sure the non-weapons 
states aren't using nuclear technology to build weapons. 

That's where things get dicey. Iran claims that its nuclear 
program is only enriching uranium to use in reactors to 
generate electricity. However, if uranium is enriched further, 
it can be used in a bomb. The United States claims that is 
Iran's intent, and it demands that Iran give up uranium 
enrichment. However, under the treaty, Iran is not required to. 

North Korea is a slightly different case. It has extracted 
plutonium for weapons from spent fuel from its reactors. As it 
was doing that, it withdrew from the NPT, which it was allowed to
do with 90 days notice. The United States doesn't want something 
similar to happen in Iran, and it wants North Korea to give up 
its weapons. 

Meanwhile, the United States continues to maintain about 
10,000 nuclear warheads. It has agreed with Russia to reduce 
that number to 2,200 deployed weapons by 2012, but reserves the 
right to keep thousands of others in storage. That's a far cry 
from the nuclear disarmament envisioned by the NPT. While we 
believe that the United States should retain a nuclear 
deterrent, a few hundred warheads would be enough. 

Because Iran sees the U.S. Army on two of its borders, in 
Iraq and Afghanistan, it is not surprising that it would pursue 
nuclear weapons as a deterrent to American invasion. It also is 
locked in a proxy war with Israel, a clandestine nuclear weapons 
power with hundreds of nukes. 

President Bush is right to work with other nations in 
diplomatic efforts to prevent Iran from getting the bomb and to 
persuade North Korea to give its up. But the United States might 
get farther if it acknowledged that the NPT cuts both ways and 
acted accordingly. 

Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 56 Guardian Unlimited: Idaho Nuclear Lab Can't Explain Lost Items
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

	Saturday May 7, 2005 12:31 AM

IDAHO FALLS, Idaho - A nuclear reactor research lab in Idaho
cannot account for more than 200 missing computers and disk
drives that may have contained sensitive information, the Energy
Department's inspector general says. 

The computers were among 998 items costing $2.2 million dollars
that came up missing over the past three years at the federal
Idaho National Laboratory, according to a new report. 

Lab officials told investigators that none of the 269 missing
computers and disk drives had been authorized to process
classified information. But they acknowledged there was a
possibility the devices contained ``export controlled''
information - data about nuclear technologies applicable to both
civilian and military use that federal laws prohibit being
released to foreign nationals. 

The audit of property control procedures for sensitive equipment
at the nuclear research compound near Idaho Falls is one of a
series of internal investigations being conducted by the Energy
Department following high-profile security lapses at nuclear
weapons labs. Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico was
shut down from July 2004 to February 2005 following reports that
two computer disks containing top-secret information had
disappeared. A subsequent investigation determined the disks
never existed. 

Since 2003, the Department of Energy's internal auditors have
issued reports scrutinizing security procedures used to access
and dispose of computer equipment at Los Alamos and Sandia
national laboratories in New Mexico, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory in California and the Savannah River complex in South
Carolina. 

The Idaho nuclear complex, which is the size of Rhode Island,
has eight major research facilities and has been used for
nuclear reactor research, reprocessing irradiated reactor fuel,
naval nuclear and weapons development and storage of radioactive
waste from nuclear weapons production. 

Jeremy Maxand, executive director of the Boise-based nuclear
watchdog group the Snake River Alliance, said it is difficult to
draw conclusions on how serious the security lapses are at the
lab based on the report. 

``It's hard to assess if this is an institutional problem or
just a screw-up,'' he said Friday. ``INL employees generally do
a pretty good job but this is an issue that goes to complex-wide
cultural problems within DOE.'' 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 57 Guardian Unlimited: Los Alamos National Lab Director to Quit
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Friday May 6, 2005 6:16 PM

By HEATHER CLARK 

Associated Press Writer 

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - The director of Los Alamos National
Laboratory, who led it through two years of turmoil but irked
some workers with his brash style, is resigning. 

Pete Nanos will be replaced May 16 by an interim director who
will oversee the federal nuclear lab until the University of
California's management contract expires in September, the
school announced Friday. 

When Nanos took over in January 2003, he inherited problems
ranging from credit card fraud, allegations of weak fiscal
oversight, equipment theft and the firing of two investigators
who pressed the issues with management. 

On the first day of the job, he told workers: ``We are not a
bunch of crooks. The trouble is I can't prove it.'' He vowed to
``drain the swamp'' and restore public confidence in UC. 

Nanos replaced top managers, instituted new purchasing rules and
took inventory of lab property - moves that garnered high marks
from the state's congressional delegation and Gov. Bill
Richardson. 

But problems dogged Nanos, too, most notably last summer, when
two classified disks allegedly vanished. 

The discovery prompted Nanos to shut down all classified work at
the lab in the hills of northern New Mexico. Months later, it
was determined that the disks were not missing at all and an
inventory error was to blame. 

The seven-month suspension of work cost up to $367 million, the
Energy Department estimates, though lab officials put the loss
figure much lower. 

Commenting on his tenure Friday in a news release from the
university, Nanos said: ``While there have been many challenges,
I believe there have been many more successes, not so much
because of what I may have done, but because of the men and
women who care so much about this great institution.'' 

Criticism of Nanos grew after the lab shutdown last July. His
management style upset some scientists, leading them to post
comments to a Web blog called ``LANL: The Real Story.'' The
blog's operator, Doug Roberts, has said he believes the blog's
anti-Nanos sentiments are reflected in the hallways of the lab. 

Yet throughout the turmoil, the lab continued to capture awards
for scientific research. 

The new interim director, Robert Kuckuck, has been with Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory in California for 35 years. He was
not immediately available to comment. 

Los Alamos has been operated by the University of California
System since it was established in 1943. The federal Department
of Energy opened bidding on the contract after the spate of
security and money management problems at the lab. 

UC has not decided whether to submit a bid to keep operating the
lab. Among other potential bidders are Lockheed Martin Corp.,
which runs Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, and
defense contractor Northrop Grumman. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 58 ABQjournal: Rep.: Why Not Close LANL? 

the Albuquerque Journal newspaper. 

Friday, May 6, 2005 

Albuquerque Journal--> Michael Coleman--> By Michael Coleman 
Journal Washington Bureau 

WASHINGTON— Exasperated U.S. House members on Thursday 
condemned a "culture of non-compliance" at Los Alamos National 
Laboratory, and one congressman suggested closing the famous 
nuclear weapons lab for good. 

"We have a lab here that is a constant problem," Rep. Bart 
Stupak, D-Michigan, said during a Capitol Hill hearing. "Why do 
we need this one? Is there any really unique science that can 
only be done there? Why do we need Los Alamos?" 

The laboratory— plagued in recent years by security lapses, 
safety incidents, theft and general mismanagement— came under a 
hot congressional glare Thursday for the fourth time since 2003. 

Members of a House Subcommittee on Oversight and 
Investigations repeatedly asked top officials from the 
Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security 
Administration what could be done to improve operations at the 
beleaguered institution. 

Stupak, the top Democrat on the subcommittee, suggested 
closing the lab and transferring its work to other national 
nuclear facilities. 

Lab defenders quickly rejected Stupak's proposal as 
exorbitantly expensive and impractical. But at the same time, 
they could not immediately pinpoint a single scientific function 
that could not be carried out at one of America's other nuclear 
facilities. 

"There is some unique infrastructure that would be very 
difficult and expensive to move," said Jerry Paul, principal 
deputy administrator at the NNSA. 

Paul said having multiple labs allows for "peer review" 
among scientists at different facilities, which improves the 
quality of science. He also said LANL's operational controls are 
improving, but the changes can't happen overnight. 

"It is not as simple as blaming a single person," Paul 
said. "It is difficult and it does take time." 

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., New Mexico's senior senator and 
an influential supporter of Los Alamos and Sandia national 
laboratories, said Thursday's hearing in the House might have 
been "one-sided." 

"I'm quite certain that if there was a high-level 
Department of Energy effort to explain the significance of Los 
Alamos and how these problems are being addressed, the matter 
would have turned out differently," said Domenici, who was in 
Albuquerque on Thursday. 

Domenici also said the Internet "carping" by LANL employees 
presents a very one-sided view of the atmosphere at the lab. 

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., the top Democrat on the Senate 
Energy and Natural Resources Committee, also defended LANL and 
its mission. 

"Since its inception LANL has filled a unique and 
incredibly significant role in our country's national security," 
Bingaman said. "Anyone who would question the lab's importance 
clearly does not have an understanding of all that this lab has 
done and continues to do for the country." 

Thursday's hearing came less than a week before the federal 
government opens its first competition for a new contract to run 
the 62-year-old weapons lab. The University of California is the 
only institution to ever hold the contract. 

To date, only Northrop Grumman and Lockheed Martin have 
announced a plan to bid on the management job. University of 
California officials have said they are awaiting the 
government's request for proposal— due in mid-May— before 
deciding whether to bid. 

At least one member of the House panel said he was glad 
that other institutions would be given a shot at winning the 
contract. 

"I'm delighted a new RFP for this facility is being 
issued," said Rep. Ed Whitfield, a Kentucky Republican who 
chairs the subcommittee. 

Edwin L. Wilmot, manager of the Los Alamos Site Office, 
said the many lab employees, especially those in high-end 
nuclear operations, have realized that cultural changes must 
occur. 

"I see a small light at the end of the tunnel," Wilmot 
said, noting that similar institutional changes took five to 
seven years at the Savannah River nuclear site. "It will take a 
considerable amount of time." 

Several committee members said they were frustrated that 
high-profile, embarrassing incidents— most recently the 
permanent injury of a college intern's eye by a Los Alamos 
laser— keep happening at LANL, despite promises of improvement. 

"Since last summer we've seen problem after problem after 
problem," said Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo. "We're tired of 
having these hearings." 

Committee members also ridiculed a recent Internet blog 
circulated among lab employees. The blog contains vehement and 
often highly personal attacks on Pete Nanos, the lab's director, 
according to members of the committee. 

DeGette said the attacks were mostly juvenile and reveal an 
"arrogance" among lab employees. 

"There is obviously a big group (of LANL employees) that 
just doesn't get it," she said. "The level of these complaints 
are like high-school-level complaints." 

Wilmot said the lab, long home to some of the world's top 
scientific minds, has historically not worked well as a cohesive 
institution. But that is beginning to change in the aftermath of 
a recent shutdown of the entire lab operation related to 
security concerns, he said. 

"Since February, I've seen an institution struggling to 
come together," he said. 

Copyright Albuquerque Journal 

Steve@abqjournal.com 
*****************************************************************
 59 ABQJOURNAL: Reaction mixed to Los Alamos lab director's resignation

the Albuquerque Journal newspaper. 

Friday, May 06, 2005 

Reaction mixed to Los Alamos lab director's resignation 

Albuquerque Journal--> Heather Clark 
Associated Press 

Some scientists drank beer at a packed Los Alamos eatery 
to celebrate the departure of Los Alamos National Laboratory 
Director Pete Nanos, but officials praised him for dealing with 
security and financial issues he inherited. 

John Horne, a 22-year veteran of the lab, said the 
atmosphere at its DX division was ecstatic Friday after news of 
Nanos' departure spread. 

"People are just walking on air. Everybody is smiling. 
Everybody is happy. It just feels like an air of oppression has 
lifted,'' said Horne, who was placed on administrative leave for 
10 days after classified computer disks were reported missing 
last summer. 

Nanos announced Friday that he would resign from the 
northern New Mexico lab to join the federal Defense Threat 
Reduction Agency. 

He will be replaced May 16 by interim director Robert 
Kuckuck, a nuclear physicist who was deputy director of Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory in California for seven years. 

Some scientists were upset with Nanos' tough management 
style when he shut down the lab last summer after the computer 
disk security scandal broke. They bristled when he told 
employees the "cowboy'' culture of breaking security rules had 
to stop. 

Doug Roberts, a 20-year lab veteran who started a Web blog 
called "LANL: The Real Story'' that has been critical of Nanos, 
was celebrating at Trinity Brewing Company in Los Alamos with 
other lab employees. 

"Judging by the traffic to the blog this morning, I would 
have to characterize the mood as relief and happiness that the 
director has resigned, but it's been tempered by the realization 
that he left a lot of problems behind,'' Roberts said. 

Los Alamos spokesmen, on the other hand, described the mood 
at the lab as one of contemplation. 

"This is a transition period and we've been through 
transition periods before,'' spokesman Kevin Roark said. "Onward 
and upward.'' 

State and federal officials acknowledged Nanos came to the 
lab at a difficult time in its history. They praised his efforts 
to resolve the issues. 

Nanos inherited a host of problems, including credit card 
fraud, allegations of weak fiscal oversight, security lapses, 
equipment theft and the firing of two investigators who pressed 
the issues with management. 

DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman said Nanos "instituted a number 
of sound business practices that have helped Los Alamos remain 
one of the premier labs in the world.'' 

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said he believed Nanos' 
departure was his decision. 

"He took over under very difficult circumstances,'' Domenici 
said. "He took some very difficult and dramatic actions. It 
didn't suit a lot of people. It caused a lot of contention.'' 

He offered some advice for the incoming interim director. 

"Dr. Kuckuck will need to have a steady hand as reforms are 
implemented to ensure that LANL continues to be a world class 
laboratory,'' Domenici said. 

Gov. Bill Richardson, a former Energy Department secretary, 
urged the DOE to finish completing its evaluation of the federal 
management contract for the lab, expected to be finalized this 
month. The University of California's contract expires Sept. 30. 

"What the lab needs more than anything now is stability,'' 
Richardson said. 

Richardson also welcomed Kuckuck, a nuclear physicist who 
has worked at Lawrence Livermore lab in California for 35 years, 
to Los Alamos lab. 

"I know Dr. Kuckuck can and will provide the leadership the 
lab will need to get through the coming competition in good 
shape for the future,'' he said. 

Copyright Albuquerque Journal 

Steve@abqjournal.com 
*****************************************************************
 60 lamonitor.com: Kuckuck named director 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor

Ending months of speculation, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Director G. Peter Nanos announced today that he would resign. 
In an all-hands memo to LANL employees, Nanos wrote, "I believe
it is now time for my path and the laboratory's path to diverge.
Effective May 15, 2005, I will be stepping down as the
laboratory's director to pursue a new opportunity with the
Department of Defense in Washington, D.C."

UC president Robert Dynes confirmed the message when he
announced he would appoint Robert W. Kuckuck as interim
director. 

"Bob Kuckuck has the knowledge and expertise to provide strong
leadership for Los Alamos," Dynes said in a prepared statement.
"His depth of familiarity with the laboratory, the university,
and the missions of both institutions, as well as the National
Nuclear Security Administration and the Department of Energy,
makes him an excellent choice for this position."

The announcement noted that Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman had
approved the appointment, along with representatives of the UC
Board of Regents. 
"I am both honored and pleased to serve as director of Los
Alamos National Laboratory," Kuckuck said in the statement.

He is a veteran manager, who retired as Deputy Director of
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 2001, and then spent
two years as principal deputy administrator of the newly
established NNSA. He began working at the UC Office of the
President as a senior advisor on laboratory oversight issues in
December 2003. 
"He will be an excellent asset to Los Alamos," wrote Dynes to
LANL employees today, "and I know you will give him a warm
welcome when he arrives."

Nanos has led the laboratory through two stormy years for Los
Alamos, replacing his predecessor John Brown at the beginning of
2003.

Nanos promised to "drain the swamp" at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, following a period of financial management
revelations that triggered federal audits, investigations and
congressional hearings and led to the decision by former Energy
Secretary Spencer Abraham to put into competition the University
of California's contract to manage the laboratory for the first
time since it was founded as a part of the Manhattan Project in
1943.

That competition is reaching a critical moment with the request
for proposal due to be issued imminently.

Nanos' first year was devoted to fixing the business problems he
had inherited.

"I was brought into my current position by the University of
California to be an agent of change within the organization, and
I have fulfilled that tasking," Nanos told the lab workforce.

"We are now considered to be a Laboratory with both great
science, as well as strong business and operations
capabilities," Nanos wrote. "In many cases we are now leaders in
the Department of Energy complex."

Rising safety and security concerns began to appear later in
2003, reaching a crisis in July 2004, which compelled Nanos on
July 16 to call for a total suspension of activities at the lab,
until a complete revalidation program was completed.

The shutdown was endorsed by DOE and top political officials of
the state, but it was controversial within the laboratory and
caused new political concerns in Washington.

Although much of the lab's work resumed within a couple of
months, some high-risk areas involving nuclear weapons and
materials, did not start up for seven months.

A House oversight committee began looking yesterday at an
auditor's determination that UC should repay the government $14
million for non-reimbursable costs as a result of the shutdown.

Official estimates of the cost of the shutdown have placed it in
the range of $119 million to $367 million.

The congressional panel also discussed a plutonium exposure at
TA-55 in March, a serious safety incident that occurred shortly
after the laboratory's operations resumed.

Nanos is expected to take a position with the Defense Threat
Reduction Agency.

Kuckuck will assume the director's post on May 16. He is
expected to serve through the remainder of the university's
current contract, which expires on Sept. 30.   


  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 61 lamonitor.com: Domenici blasts LANL remarks 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
CAROL A. CLARK and ROGER SNODGRASS, lanews@lamonitor.com,
Monitor Staff Writer

Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., blasted Rep. Bart Stupak,
D-Michigan, for being out of touch with the history and value of
the Los Alamos National Laboratory during a telephone
conversation this morning. 

"Why do we have to have this lab?" Stupak asked Jerry Paul,
Principal Deputy Administrator of the National Nuclear Security
Administration during a House investigative hearing Thursday.

"How are you going to fix it?" he asked again later. "What is
going to change with the new manager?" 

Domenici said comments that Los Alamos should be closed because
of problems were made by someone who doesn't know about what Los
Alamos does.

While the laboratory has had some problems, Domenici said, "the
problems are on the way to getting taken care of. 
"The laboratory is the United States of America's science
security blanket. While this lab does many things in the
interest of national security, it is also our security against
science breakthroughs that might adversely affect our people."

Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., who sits on the Senate Energy and
Natural Resources Committee, said Thursday that Los Alamos has
filled a significant role in national security since its
creation as a top-secret World War II project to develop the
atomic bomb. 
"Anyone who would question the lab's importance clearly does not
have an understanding of all that this lab has done and
continues to do for the country," Bingaman said.

Domenici was also unhappy with the answers about the lab
provided by the NNSA deputy administrator.

In answer to the question of how to fix the lab, Paul referred
to an unfinished study that has been cited by NNSA Ambassador
Brooks to justify a possible $3 billion cut in the weapons
laboratory budget over a number of years.

"What is so special at LANL?" Stupak continued. "Why do we need
Los Alamos? What can't be transferred some place else?"

Paul said an outside group was examining that question
concerning the entire complex and its critical missions.

"Where do they need to be done and what are the critical
missions that are needed?," he asked.

The study, commissioned by Rep. David Hobson, R-Ill., chair of
the subcommittee that holds the pursestrings for the energy
department, was due at the end of April, but Paul said it is now
expected at the end of May.

Sen. Pete Domenici objected recently to funding assumptions
based on a study whose conclusions had not been adopted.

"I was very disturbed by the quality of the representation by
the NNSA (DOE). The gentleman who appeared seemed to me to be
poorly equipped and grossly uninformed about the laboratory,"
Domenici said.

"How he could do such a terrible job of describing the value of
the lab is beyond my understanding, and I will complain directly
about that to DOE Secretary Samuel Bodman and NNSA Administrator
Linton Brooks."   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 62 lamonitor.com: LANL's Emergency Operations Office has new website 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 
CAROL A. CLARK, lanews@lamonitor.com, Monitor Staff Writer

Last fall, in a reorganization of the former Operations
Directorate, the Los Alamos National Laboratory's emergency
response organizations were brought together in a new Emergency
Operations Office (EOO). 

Deputy Director Linn Tytler of LANL's Office of Public Affairs,
Communications and External Relations Division has been working
with the EOO to address a variety of issues, including the
Department of Energy's expectation that information about how
the EOO responds to emergency events is provided to the public.

That effort has included posting a fact sheet to their media kit
page in March, and developing both internal and external
websites that were published in April. 

"We want the general public to know there are numbers they can
call to obtain information in the event of an emergency at the
lab," Tytler said. "In fact, this newest web page will be used
to post news, information and updates in the event of an
emergency. And for the news media we've provided our process to
release information in an emergency situation, as well as
contact information for a Joint Information Center if one is
established."

The new web page can be found at lanl.gov/emergency online or
from the lab's external home page through a drop-down menu under
"About LANL." 

The new page is in addition to a new internal web page for LANL
workers, Tytler said.

"The new site provides contact telephone numbers as well as
links to useful information, such as the fact sheet 'Managing
Emergencies at LANL', and to sites that describe how to shelter
in place by the Red Cross and Los Alamos County Emergency
Management," said Beverly Ramsey, acting EOO leader. 
Ramsey encourages Los Alamos County residents to become familiar
with the latter site because it explains how county government
and Los Alamos Public Schools will address the need to shelter
in place.

"There also is a link from the external page to the Department
of Homeland Security's emergency preparedness guide, which
everyone can use to make personal emergency plans and
preparations," Ramsey said.

The mission of the LANL's Emergency Operations Office is to
ensure prompt, professional response to all laboratory emergency
situations that will protect the laboratory's employees,
property and mission as well as ensure the safety of surrounding
communities, Tytler said.

The lab's emergency management process is designed to ensure
that emergencies are mitigated in the most effective manner and
that proper protection is afforded to laboratory employees,
contractors, the public and the environment, she said.

"The Emergency Management Plan allows the laboratory to plan
for, respond to and mitigate the potential consequences of an
emergency," Tytler explained. "This plan, coupled with the
building emergency planning program and site-specific emergency
procedures, presents the requirements, procedures and
information needed to ensure that any emergency experienced at
the laboratory is mitigated in the most expeditious and
effective manner."

During emergency situations, the Emergency Management and
Response Group will exercise the command and control of
emergency response elements through the incident commander on
scene and the emergency director in the Emergency Operations
Center if activated; these individuals are in charge of
resolving emergencies that occur on DOE property.

This authority includes the utilization of any laboratory
resource necessary for the mitigation of an emergency.

Laboratory line management is required to plan for emergencies;
provide the necessary emergency training to ensure that
employees, the public and the environment are protected; and
take the emergency actions necessary to mitigate any incident
that may occur until relieved by authorized personnel, said
Tytler.

"The laboratory's Emergency Management Plan is designed to be
compatible with emergency plans developed by local, state,
tribal and federal agencies by establishing communications
channels with these agencies and by setting criteria for
notifying each agency when warranted by an emergency," she said.

LANL encourages employees to assess and report occurrences to
ensure that management is kept informed of events that may:


+  Affect or endanger the health and safety of employees or the
public;


+  Seriously impact the intended purpose of the laboratory's
facilities or programs;


+  Have a significant adverse effect on the environment.

Tytler explained that operational emergencies are unplanned
significant events or conditions that require time-urgent
response from outside the immediate area of the incident.

"The public affairs office will issue information the public
needs to know to protect its health and safety in an operational
emergency," she said. "Incidents that can be controlled by
employees or maintenance personnel in the immediate affected
site, facility or area are not operational emergencies."

Incidents that do not pose a significant hazard to safety,
health, and or the environment and that do not require a
time-urgent response are not operational emergencies.

Events that involve the release of hazardous materials require
further classification, Tytler said.

The three classes of hazardous material operational emergencies,
in order of increasing severity include the following:


+  Alert - An "alert" is an incident that represents a
substantial actual or potential degradation in the level of
safety. The incident may have created or could lead to a release
to the environment of radioactive or other hazardous material.
Such a release is not expected to affect the public or require
protective actions.

Extensive training in real-world conditions ensures that
laboratory emergency response teams are prepared for any
eventuality.


+  Site Area Emergency - This is an incident that has created
actual or potential major failures of systems or functions
needed for protection of workers, the public or the environment.
Such an emergency could result in releases beyond the facility
boundary that exceed the Department of Energy's protective
action criteria for radiological releases or emergency response
guidelines for toxic materials release. However, the release is
not expected to travel beyond the institutional boundary and
therefore is not expected to directly affect the general public.


+  General Emergency - A "general emergency" is an event or
condition with actual or imminent catastrophic reduction of
safety systems with the potential or actual loss of hazardous
material in sufficient quantity to exceed protective action
criteria beyond the boundaries of the laboratory. For such
conditions, it is necessary to mobilize available on-site and
off-site resources to deal with the event and its consequences.

"The DOE Los Alamos Site Office/Los Alamos National Laboratory
Emergency Public Information Plan provides a framework for
coordinated, accurate and timely release of information to
laboratory employees, news media, the public and other
stakeholders," Tytler said. "Procedures are in place to ensure
the release of accurate information to employees and the news
media and to other state and local organizations, and for the
coordination of this information with the DOE."

Offices of local, state and federal elected officials, the
general public and special interest groups will have an interest
in any emergency situation at the laboratory and may need to be
advised to undertake protective actions, she said.

LANL's Community Relations and Government Relations office
leaders and designated staff from their respective offices will
communicate, normally by e-mail and telephone, with these
audiences using approved information from the EOC.

The Community Relations Office is responsible for establishing
and managing the rumor control line for the public in the event
of an emergency, Tytler said.

The public can call 665-4400 or 1-888-841-8256 for additional
help or information.

"Members of the community relations staff will answer questions
with approved information or will research an answer, as needed,
through the EOC," Tytler said. "When a Joint Information Center
is activated to provide coordinated information response from
the laboratory as well as from local or state agencies,
community relations will transfer its public response staff to
that location and will forward the rumor control line to the JIC
telephone number: 505-606-0169."

The Community Alert Network, as well as a radio link with KRSN
radio, and the ability to enlist the local cable television
network enable LANL to notify Los Alamos County and surrounding
area residents in a timely manner. These functions are
coordinated through the Emergency Management and Response Group.

An initial news release will be made as soon as possible and may
be issued either verbally or in written format once information
verification and approval has been completed.

The laboratory will adhere to the standards of other federal
agencies and private industry by releasing information within
one hour of the event, if at all possible, she said.

Tytler explained that operational requirements associated with
some emergencies may dictate a delay in issuing a news release -
for example, in a hostage situation it may not be desirable to
initiate an immediate notification to media because such
notification may compromise security and response activities in
progress.

"The laboratory will issue a statement to the news media in as
prompt a fashion as possible given the circumstances of the
individual incident," she said. "Subsequent releases will be
prepared and distributed as soon as additional information is
available. News releases will have the time and date recorded on
them and will be numbered for easy reference."

The emergency public information staff will be accessible,
prompt, courteous and forthcoming in dealing with the media
prior to, during and after emergency events, Tytler said, adding
the credibility is imperative and every effort will be made to
promote a positive media interface.

The only information withheld will be that considered
classified, confidential, proprietary or of potential damage to
national security; in addition, as noted above, information
release may be delayed if it will jeopardize security and
response activities in progress, she said.   


  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 63 PRN: NuStart Signs DOE Agreement in Support of Advanced Nuclear
Plants 

[PR Newswire - A United Business Media Company] 	 

WASHINGTON, May 6 /PRNewswire/ -- NuStart Energy Development LLC, 
the consortium of nine nuclear power companies operating 58 
percent of the nation's nuclear power plants and two reactor 
vendors, has signed a Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. 
Department of Energy to demonstrate the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) licensing process and to complete the designs 
for the first advanced nuclear power reactors in the U.S. in 30 
years. 

"America needs nuclear power because it is safe, clean and 
domestic energy. This Agreement is the next step on the road to a 
new generation of nuclear energy plants," said Marilyn Kray, 
president of NuStart and a vice president of Exelon. 

The agreement authorizes the NuStart consortium to participate in 
a 50-50 cost sharing program with the government to complete the 
detailed engineering work for two advanced reactor technologies 
-- the Westinghouse Advanced Passive 1000 Reactor and the General 
Electric Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor. 

NuStart will select two potential nuclear plant sites by October 
of this year, one for each design. 

"We need the energy price stability and fuel diversity that new 
nuclear plants can provide," Ms. Kray said. "Our quality of life 
and that of our children depend on a new generation of nuclear 
power that does not emit greenhouse gases or other air 
pollutants." 

The design analyses will be integrated with the characteristics 
of the selected sites to develop comprehensive applications for a 
Combined Operating License to be submitted to the NRC. Submittal 
of the applications is expected in 2008. 

After a comprehensive review by the NRC, the two construction and 
operating licenses could be issued as early as 2010. At that 
time, the construction and operating licenses could be 
transferred to a NuStart member company or group of companies who 
decide to build the new nuclear plant designs. 

A decision to build would be based on several factors late this 
decade, including power market conditions and projections in the 
area of the proposed plant, competing fuel prices, the regulatory 
environment at the time, the status of permanent used fuel 
storage and the ability of nuclear operating companies to obtain 
financing from Wall Street without adversely affecting their 
financial credit ratings. 

Since construction is expected to take four years, the first new 
nuclear plants would not begin operation until 2014. 

The generic, first-of-a-kind activities to be completed through 
NuStart will address some of the uncertainties associated with a 
nuclear investment, and will significantly reduce the time to 
market for a new nuclear plant. These activities will position 
the nuclear industry to respond to the anticipated need for more 
nuclear generation. 

The agreement was signed under the DOE's Nuclear Power 2010 
program, designed to encourage new nuclear plant investment. The 
current cost of the NuStart project is $520 million with the 
NuStart consortium and the DOE each paying $260 million. 

Members of NuStart Energy consortium are: 

- Constellation Energy, Baltimore 

- Duke Energy, Charlotte 

- EDF International North America, Washington, D.C., the U.S. 
subsidiary 

of the large French electric utility 

- Entergy Nuclear, Jackson, Miss. 

- Exelon Generation, Philadelphia 

- Florida Power & Light Company, Juno Beach, Fla. 

- Progress Energy, Raleigh, N.C. 

- Southern Company, Atlanta 

- Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, Tenn. 

- GE Energy, Atlanta 

- Westinghouse Electric Co., Pittsburgh SOURCE NuStart Energy 
Development LLC 

	Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights 
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************