***************************************************************** 05/17/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.113 ***************************************************************** 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 Irna: Straw to consult Rice ahead of EU-Iran emergency talks - 2 Xinhua: Contacts underway for nuclear talks between Europe, Iran 3 Asia Times: Iran nuclear talks: It's time to shut up 4 MSNBC.com: Few good options in Iran nuclear debate - 5 Korea Herald: Seoul pitches incentives to N.K. 6 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N. Korea Invites Rice for Bilateral Nucle 7 Xinhua: China denies arranging Rice visit to Pyongyang 8 Las Vegas SUN: Papers Show N. Korea Sought Nukes in 1960s 9 csmonitor.com: Stronger US push needed for N. Korea reform | 10 Guardian Unlimited: Koreas' Meeting Shows Signs of Souring 11 Guardian Unlimited: Rival Koreas Extend Talks to Thursday 12 US: 'Star Wars' Raises Questions on US Policy 13 US: Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Fighting base closings 14 US: Guardian Unlimited: Senators Begin Plowing Through Energy Bill 15 US: Albuquerque Tribune: N.M. senators agree in part on energy 16 Scienc eDaily: Global Wind Map May Provide Better Locations For Wind 17 Roanoke Times: A crippled response to nukes 18 Mos News: Russia Ready to Reduce Nuclear Arms Below Levels Agreed Wi 19 i-Newswire.com: REVIEW CONFERENCE ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREAT 20 The Telegraph: Nuclear gong, loud and clear NUCLEAR REACTORS 21 US: NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice 22 Helsingin Sanomat: Sosnovyi Bor - a closed city 23 Helsingin Sanomat: Two new nuclear plants planned for south shore of 24 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: Look ahead to Diablo's future, PUC told 25 Korea Herald: KNEF promotes benefits of nuclear energy 26 RIA Novosti: VIETNAM BOOSTS NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA 27 BBC: Town awaits nuclear 28 US: SignOnSanDiego.com: Energy secretary sees new nuclear power plan 29 US: NRC: Appointments to Performance Review Boards for Senior Execut 30 US: PRN: Nuclear Energy Industry Leaders Challenged to Meet Nation's NUCLEAR SECURITY 31 Haaretz: Nuclear ambiguity NUCLEAR SAFETY 32 US: Pacific Daily News: Radiation survivors testify 33 US: Hawk Eye: IAAP workers' hopes tested again NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 34 Las Vegas RJ: Senate urges dumping Yucca 35 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Ensign uses wrong tactic 36 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Now is not time to relax in fight against Yuc 37 Las Vegas SUN: Closer scrutiny of documents eyed 38 US: Rutland Herald: Dry cask vendor revises design 39 US: IEER Report: Transmutation - Nuclear Alchemy Gamble IEER 40 News & Star: Tell us the truth about Thorp 41 News & Star: Play your part in the nuclear waste debate PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 42 Tri-Valley Herald: UC picks Livermore lab director 43 Tri-Valley Herald: UC picks anastasio for lab fight 44 lamonitor.com: Authors put Oppenheimer in context 45 lamonitor.com: Livermore director to lead bid 46 i-Newswire.com: DOE's Office of Science Seeks Proposals for Expanded 47 PRN: UC and Bechtel Name Los Alamos National Laboratory Competition ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Irna: Straw to consult Rice ahead of EU-Iran emergency talks - London, May 17, IRNA UK Straw-US-Iran British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw travels to Washington Tuesday to meet his US counterpart Condoleezza Rice ahead of EU-Iran emergency talks that are expected to be held next week. The Foreign Office in London said that Straw would discuss "the full range of international issues" with Rice and other senior members of the US Administration and Congress. He was also due to make a speech outlining the UK's foreign policy priority at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, which is dedicated to providing world leaders with strategic insights on current and emerging global issues. Next week, the foreign ministers of Britain, France, and Germany and the EU Foreign Policy Chief Javier Solana are expected to hold talks to defuse the looming crisis with Iran's Supreme National Security Council Chairman Hassan Rowhani over the country's nuclear program. Although the US has not been a party to the EU3's negotiations to reach long-term arrangements with Iran, its position is seen as central in underwriting any prospective agreement. Questioned at a press conference in London on Monday, Straw said he was "cautiously hopeful" about breaking the impasse during five months of negotiations based upon last year's Paris Agreement that have so far failed to come up with a formula. "What we seek is a pathway by which Iran is able to do that to which it is entitled, namely to generate electricity by means of nuclear energy," he said when asked what he could offer to prevent Iran from resuming its fuel cycle program. The foreign secretary made no direct reference to previous EU demands for Iran to abandon the enrichment of uranium, but said the aim was for "very clear objective guarantees that Iran is not using its nuclear program as a cover to build a nuclear weapons program." "As for the outcome, I remain ever hopeful," he said during a joint press conference with the Foreign Minister of Afghanistan, Abdullah Abdullah. "There have been many predictions that these discussions might fail in the past, so far, despite the difficulties, which are as everybody understands made trickier by the impending presidential elections in Iran on June 17, I remain cautiously hopeful," he said. HC/2325/1432 ***************************************************************** 2 Xinhua: Contacts underway for nuclear talks between Europe, Iran www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-18 00:23:42 PARIS, May 17 (Xinhuanet) -- The French foreign ministry said Tuesday that contacts were underway to decide whether a ministerial meeting is to be held next week between Britain, France, Germany and Iran over the Iranian nuclear issue. "We're working on the organization of a ministerial-level meeting with the Iranians, which should take place at the beginning of next week," French Foreign Ministry's spokesman Jean-Baptiste Mattei said at a news conference, adding "for the time being, neither the date nor the place have been confirmed". To the question about the place where the meeting would be held, Mattei answered that there was no "competition" between Brussels and Paris and "some contacts were ongoing" on the subject. Iranian Foreign Minister Kamal Kharazi said on Monday that British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier and German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer would meet in a European capital with Iran's top nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani. Kharazi described the meeting as possibly the "last round of negotiations" with the EU. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 Asia Times: Iran nuclear talks: It's time to shut up By Kaveh L Afrasiabi BERLIN - The nuclear talks between Iran and the so-called European three (EU-3 - Britain, France, and Germany) are due to resume May 23 in a crisis atmosphere filled with accusations and counter-accusations, with each side blaming the other for not sticking to the terms of their agreement signed in Paris last November. Described as a "last ditch" effort to salvage the nearly two-year-old talks once characterized as a "landmark" in European diplomacy, Iran-EU-3 diplomacy has by all indications reached a critical threshold where it may actually be in the interests of both sides to discontinue it, at least within the present framework, or more accurately, lack of framework. Lest we forget, these talks began at the initiative of the foreign ministers of the EU-3, who took on themselves the arduous challenge of finding a diplomatic solution to the perceived growing crisis over Iran's nuclear program. Through a flurry of activities, including exchange of letters, visits to Tehran and several rounds of talks in various European capitals, the EU-3 hoped to achieve a breakthrough in the brewing crisis engulfing the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) beginning in 2002, after the disclosure of Iran's clandestine nuclear activities. Since early 2003, Iran has pursued two-track diplomacy, through the IAEA and with EU-3, with the latter acting as a timely catalyst to resolve the nuclear standoff at the IAEA sessions discussing Iran, culminating in the Paris Agreement whereby Iran agreed to temporarily halt its uranium enrichment and conversion activities as a "confidence-building measure" as requested by an IAEA resolution. However, the problem was, and remains, the absence of a proper framework for the Iran-EU-3 talks, in contrast to Iran-IAEA talks, which follow the parameters set by the non-proliferation regime. As a result, almost anything goes in Iran-EU-3 talks, and one can clearly see in the Paris Agreement the conflation of nuclear and non-nuclear issues, the rigidities of strong "linkage diplomacy" self-fettering into a boxed position, whereby today the EU-3 foreign ministers are forced to send an ultimatum to Tehran that they will seek UN Security Council action against Iran if it acts on its recent declarations that it will resume enrichment activities. Hence, if the upcoming round of talks fails to reach an agreement, such as postponing the talks until after Iran's June 17 presidential election, then the EU-3, and indeed the EU as a whole, may have no choice but to proceed with its ultimatum, without necessarily having thought through the consequences of such an action. A chronology of events may prove useful here: the EU-3 had no sooner signed the Paris Agreement when it began undermining it, first by inviting a leader of an opposition group, People's Mujahedin, to address the European parliament, despite the fact that in the Paris Agreement this group is explicitly referred to as a terrorist organization. The next big blow to the Paris Agreement came a little later when President George W Bush announced, on his European trip, his explicit support for the European nuclear talks with Iran, to the point of even stating that "Europe is representing us" in these talks. On returning to the US, Bush went one step further and announced his official endorsement of the talks and offered "economic incentives" to Iran, including Iran's entry to the World Trade Organization, in exchange for Iran's willingness to scrap its enrichment program altogether, adding that if Iran refused to do so, he had the support of Europe to take the matter to the Security Council. For the first time in nearly three months, the EU-3, in their recent strongly-worded letter to Tehran, explicitly endorsed Bush's position, thus raising the ire of Iran's hardline politicians who, in turn, passed a parliamentary resolution mandating Iran's resumption of its enrichment program in tandem with its nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) rights and obligations. The question is, of course, why Europe agreed to the position of the US president when they had signed an agreement with Iran, ie, the Paris Agreement, which the US press, including the New York Times, had decried as "deeply flawed" since the agreement recognized Iran's NPT rights and the "implementation" of those rights, in contrast to the US's consistent opposition to the idea of a future resumption of Iran's enrichment program. After all, the Paris Agreement was a serious blow to the US's stance toward Iran, and, therefore, it was impossible for Europe to make common cause with the US on Iran without either the US changing its position, which it did not, or Europe revising itself, which it did by, for all practical purposes, burying the Paris Agreement the moment they agreed to Washington's recipe for Security Council action if Iran failed to heed their warnings. Who killed the Paris Agreement? Well, at the moment it is not quite dead, only a short step from its coffin, which is wrapped in virulent political rhetoric and the Europeans' duplicity of maintaining the facade of "let's save the Paris Agreement" while, in effect, doing everything possible to undermine it, and moreover, trumping it with newer developments sought after by Washington. This, in turn, might explain why the EU-3 has not given serious consideration so far to Iran's offer of an objective guarantee that it seeks only contained, low-grade enrichment for peaceful purposes under full IAEA monitoring. Instead, their new argument, in sharp contrast to the Paris Agreement, is that the only objective guarantee is the full and permanent suspension of Iran's enrichment program. In other words, Europe has exchanged sincere talks and honored agreement for diplomatic chicanery, as if such shenanigans that rekindle Old Europe's Middle East colonial game (eg, the Sykes-Picot agreement) can be somehow overlooked and deemed defensible from the prism of New World diplomacy. Too bad for Europe, even UN chief Kofi Annan has explicitly warned that the Security Council would be deadlocked if Iran's nuclear issue were raised there, implicitly sending the message that China, and perhaps Russia, would perhaps veto any sanctions on Iran in the absence of any smoking gun on Iran's alleged nuclear weapon program, and in the light of Iran's adoption of the IAEA's Additional Protocol allowing unfettered inspection of Iran's nuclear facilities by the IAEA. But, sadly, old habits are hard to kick, and one can see this in Tony Blair's upping the ante against Iran with his harsh statement that "all options are on the table", while in the same breath insisting that the idea of attacking Iran "is absurd". In the post-Iraq absurdist politics of Great Britain, whose government spokesman candidly admits that recent revelations about the US and Great Britain manufacturing evidence against Iraq in early 2002 "is nothing new", instead of admitting the horrendous failure of public trust reflected in such revelations, Blair may have learnt the wrong lesson from the Iraq fiasco - that Orwellian power politics work and one needs only to fine-tune them for the next gambit. Notwithstanding the European lack of consistency and their diplomatic zig-zags dumping their autonomous diplomacy firmly in the laps of Washington, one wonders about the protean value, if any, of Iran's continuous dialogue with Europe, which has adopted a more demanding posture vis-a-vis Iran than the governing board of the IAEA. The initial Iranian rationale for separate talks with Europe, namely, the need to have a power bloc as nuclear interlocutor and catalyst in the brewing crisis, may have run its course, and the advantages, for both sides, of discontinuing the talks may appear to be overwhelming the disadvantages, for the following reasons: First, the EU-3 have clearly negated the terms and spirit of the Paris Agreement and forfeited their independent atomic diplomacy by their united front with Washington. Second, if Iran drops its EU talks without at the same time resuming enrichment activities and, instead, focuses its diplomacy on the IAEA only, then the whole spectrum of Iran-EU trade and economic relations may have been saved from the potential backlash of the European nuclear reductionism discernible in the Paris Agreement's linkage diplomacy. Third, various European leaders, such as Blair, have thrown down the gauntlet with their thinly disguised threat of military action, thus depriving themselves of the validity basis of bilateral negotiations, namely, the ethics of civility and soft power diplomacy, showing instead the ugly teeth of Old Europe resurrecting its hard power mentality. Fourth, at this juncture, with the EU having publicly committed itself to sharply contrasting positions with the White House on one hand, and the Paris Agreement on the other, there may be no middle ground left for Europe. Hence, notwithstanding these and several other considerations, a damage-control approach by both sides may be none other than salvaging their relations by discontinuing their present talks. Kaveh L Afrasiabi, PhD, is the author of After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy (Westview Press) and "Iran's Foreign Policy Since 9/11", Brown's Journal of World Affairs, co-authored with former deputy foreign minister Abbas Maleki, No 2, 2003. He teaches political science at Tehran University. (Copyright 2005 Asia Times Online Ltd. All rights reserved. Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 ***************************************************************** 4 MSNBC.com: Few good options in Iran nuclear debate - European-led talks falter, U.S. studies the next move Vahid Salemi / AP file Iran's Uranium Conversion Facility just outside the city of Isfahan, about 200 miles south of Tehran, shown here in March.  By Michael MoranSenior correspondentMSNBC Updated: 4:58 p.m. ET May 17, 2005 Iran's threats to restart its nuclear development program and pull out of European-led talks is forcing the Bush administration to consider what to do next if diplomatic efforts collapse. The European Union and Iran scheduled what Tehran billed as "an emergency summit" for Monday to try and break the deadlock in the talks, which are aimed at convincing Iran to abandon efforts to restart the nuclear activities it suspended late last year. But the Bush administration, whose support for the EU's diplomatic approach was never more than lukewarm, is now struggling to decide where U.S. policy should go if Iran chooses, as it has threatened several times this week, to end its voluntary moratorium on uranium enrichment. Immediate options range from diplomatic moves like the pursuit of economic sanctions through the U.N. Security Council, to more aggressive tactics like funneling support to armed groups opposed to Iran’s clerical government, according to a State Department official who requested anonymity. But, the source said, "we're not sure where this issue would go in the Security Council, and so other things are also on the table." Diplomatic track The lack of solid, viable options is one reason the Bush administration had been so patient with the stalled European diplomatic initiative, which began with a November 2004 voluntary moratorium by Iran on uranium enrichment activities and was meant to lead to an agreement trading western aid and diplomatic concessions for a permanent, verifiable halt. At the U.N., for instance, it remains unclear whether the Europeans would support a call for economic sanctions against Tehran in the Security Council, or if Russia or China would block such a move. Russia has its own lucrative nuclear relationship with Tehran, legally supplying fuel for an Iranian reactor project monitored by the International Atomic Energy Agency.  Studying options Other diplomatic moves might include an increase in funds for U.S.-backed Persian language broadcasting, pressure on Iran through Iraq's U.S.-allied government or other friends of the United States in the region. Another approach, led by an administration ally in Congress, Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla., is contained in a bill that would tighten sanctions and prevent the U.S. from offering incentives to Iran, as it did recently by approving the sale of parts Iran wanted for its aging fleet of Boeing airliners. The House bill is largely symbolic at this point, but reflects unhappiness on the Republican Right with the Bush administration's willingness to let the EU talks drag on. More forceful options also exist. The United States could begin funneling support to armed groups opposed to Iran’s clerics like the controversial Mujahedin al-Khalq or MEK, which Ros-Lehtinen and other members of Congress support. The president could, of course, also order American air strikes on suspected Iranian nuclear facilities. According to military analyst William R. Arkin, plans for such a strike already exist. Dubbed “CONPLAN 8022,†and described in Arkin's book "Code Names: Deciphering U.S. Military Plans, Programs, and Operations in the 9/11 World," the military option calls for pin-point bombings of selected targets, along with destruction of key communications and energy facilities in the vicinity. "Iran's nuclear program has been dispersed and hidden over a period of decades, and there's simply no magic bullet with regard to military moves," says David Phillips, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who until recently was an advisor to the State Department on the region. "Senior military commanders say this often, though of course they plan for contingencies. But the fact is, the window of opportunity to halt Iran's program with pin-point strikes closed some time ago." The Israeli card “There is just no good military option of the kind Israel chose when it attacked and destroyed Iraq’s nuclear weapons program in 1981,†says Judith Yaphe, a senior fellow at the Pentagon’s National Defense Universitywho spent 20 as a CIA Middle Eastern analyst. “The Iranians learned from that and they’ve dispersed their facilities all over the country, in underground bunkers and in populated areas.†For that same reason, Yaphe says, talk of “letting the Israelis do it†is misguided. “Some Israelis will tell you, ‘It doesn’t matter if we don’t get everything, all we have to do is delay Iran until we think of something else,’†Yaphe says. “But they certainly don’t want to be in a position where they feel they have to act.†In recent days, Iran’s conduct has been the subject of front page headlines in Israel, where across the political spectrum there is broad agreement that a nuclear-armed Iran is something that Israel could not take lying down. “By its very existence, the Iranian threat justifies Israeli preparations to frustrate it,†an editorial in the normally dovish Ha'aretz daily said Monday. “As far as tactics are concerned, the government's approach is correct -- not to lead the global efforts to thwart the Iranian threat. Charges of deception The crux of the issue is Iran's insistence that it has every right to enrich uranium for use in electricity generating nuclear power plants. Indeed, such activity is legal under the terms of the nuclear proliferation treaty, and many nations not part of the "nuclear weapons club" regularly do so to provide power for light water reactors. Iran claims that its nuclear activity is strictly aimed at producing nuclear energy for its domestic market. But the outside world is doubtful. Uranium enriched at low levels is the key component for producing energy at certain kinds of nuclear power plants, but highly enriched uranium is suitable for a nuclear weapon. The International Nuclear Energy Agency, which conducts inspections of facilities in countries that are signatories to the nuclear treaty -- like Iran -- found in 2003 disparities in what Tehran claimed it was doing and what was really going on. Some American officials, including Stephen G. Rademaker, assistant secretary of state for arms control, have been more frank in their assessment: "Iran has made clear its determination to retain the nuclear infrastructure it secretly built in violation of its NPT safeguards obligations," Rademaker said when the nuclear review conference opened earlier this month. He also said that Iran "is continuing to develop its nuclear capabilities around the margins of the suspension it agreed to last November, for example, by continuing construction of the heavy water reactor at Arak, along with supporting infrastructure." To-and-fro Specific allegations like that, usually from the United States but also from Israel and Iranian dissident groups, are features of the Iran nuclear debate. In 2003, for instance, intelligence on the Arak site and another nuclear facility at Natanz were presented to the IAEA and subsequent inspections confirmed that Iran was doing work it had expressly denied in the past. Since then, the EU-led effort to win Iran over with economic inducements has staggered along with little to show in the way of progress. The current NPT conference has been typical. The conference opened with pledges of cooperation. But in the past week Iranian statements have veered from "let's make a deal" to outright hostility. Last week, for instance, Tehran confirmed for the first time it had converted 37 tons of raw uranium into gas, a key step ahead of enrichment. At mid-week, Iran said a deal was still possible, but on Sunday its foreign minister, Hamid-Reza Asefi, said: "The coming days will be the last chance for the Europeans. With or without an agreement, we will restart our activities." Iran's perspective Some of this inconsistency could be blamed on the fact that Iran is in the final weeks of a presidential election being conducted in a highly charged atmosphere of Iranian nationalism. But Yaphe and others suggest that the West underestimates the extent to which average Iranians, even those who would like to see the country open up and liberalize, understand that Iran may be a country under threat if it foregoes nuclear weapons development. With nuclear-armed India and Pakistan to the west, large American troop deployments on its borders with Afghanistan and Iraq, and a key American ally in Turkey to the north, Iran feels isolated and threatened. "Iran wants intangible things - respectability, recognition, legitimacy," says Yaphe. And in a world where the United States openly enshrined "preemptive" force as its national security doctrine, "they do see nuclear weapons, I think, as fitting into their defensive strategy." Ali Akbar Salehi, Iran's former ambassador to the U.N's nuclear agency, argues that Iran's experience during the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980s explains its secretive and self-reliant approach to nuclear issues. For much of that war, Iraq under Saddam Hussein was a western ally, with access to a broad range of technology. At the same time Iran was under tight sanctions, dubbed an international pariah for its 1979 takeover of the U.S. embassy. "It is because of the sanctions, the international sanctions," Salehi told the BBC earlier this month. "I mean engage with Iran and see how Iran behaves." c 2005 MSNBC Interactive ***************************************************************** 5 Korea Herald: Seoul pitches incentives to N.K. (smjoo@heraldm.com) By Joo Sang-min and Joint press corps 2005.05.18 Possible Chung visit to Pyongyang mooted for summit's fifth anniversary GAESEONG, North Korea - The two Koreas yesterday struggled to strike deals on how to stabilize their strained relations amid repeated promises by the South of "important" incentives if the North returns to the stalled six-party talks on its nuclear weapons program. South Korea saw the talks as an opportunity to bring the North back to the stalled international talks, but the North was reluctant to go beyond the economic aid offered from the South, shunning discussion on the nuclear issue, South Korean officials said. "The North talked about its position, while we did ours. Though we are trying hard, the distance is not being easily bridged," said a member of the three-man South Korean delegation on the second and final day of the first inter-Korean talks in 10 months at Janamsan Hotel. "This meeting is distant from the nuclear issue," a North Korean negotiating member was quoted as saying. The two sides tried to iron out differences over other issues, including resuming minister-level Cabinet talks in Seoul in June, another round of separated family reunions and how much free fertilizer the North will get from the South. The North suspended the ministerial discussions last summer after 14 rounds to reflect its anger over decisions by the South to accept a large group of defectors and ban a group of South Koreans from a ceremony marking the 10th death anniversary of the North's founder, Kim Il-sung. Both Koreas had agreed on Monday that a South Korean delegation would visit Pyongyang to celebrate the fifth anniversary of the historic first inter-Korean summit on June 15 between former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. But the North was not amenable to a proposal by the South's delegation, led by Vice Unification Minister Rhee Bong-jo, that Unification Minister Chung Dong-young attend the ceremony. If Chung should visit Pyongyang, there is speculation he might meet Kim Jong-il. The Gaeseong meeting took place amid signs that the United States is losing patience over the North's nuclear ambitions. Pyongyang has been raising the stakes in the last few months. On Feb. 10 it announced it possesses nuclear weapons and will boycott the six-party talks indefinitely. Media reports speculated that the North may be preparing for its first nuclear weapons test and Pyongyang has also announced it unloaded 8,000 spent fuel rods from its Yongbyon nuclear power plant, a move that will help it increase its supply of weapons-grade plutonium. At Gaeseong, Seoul strongly urged the North to abandon its nuclear weapons program, and urged North Korea to uphold a 1992 inter-Korean pledge to make the peninsula free of nuclear weapons, warning that Pyongyang may lose momentum for inter-Korean economic cooperation. But the North's delegation, headed by Kim Man-gil, remained silent, saying merely it would pass the South Korean concern to its foreign authorities. Kim demanded that the South first cancel annual joint training exercises with U.S. troops and repeal its draconian National Security Law, which specifies the North as an anti-state entity and bans unapproved contacts with the North. Seoul tried to use the South's provision of fertilizer aid to the impoverished North as leverage in the negotiations. South Korea is considering providing the North with 200,000 tons of fertilizer aid via recently reconnected rail and road links. In January, the North requested 500,000 tons for its spring farming season, and Seoul negotiators said the remaining amount of aid should be discussed in subsequent talks. South Korea also reiterated its pledge that it will spell out newer "important proposals" if the North returns to the six-party talks, stalled since last June because of the indefinite boycott by Pyongyang. At the third and last round of the six-way talks last June, South Korea proposed food and energy aid to the North if it dismantles its nuclear weapons program - an initiative not opposed by the United States. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said at his latest daily news briefing in Washington that the administration supported efforts to convince North Korea to come back to the table. "We've certainly supported their (South Korean) efforts to convince North Korea to come back to the table. We welcome the fact that even in those bilateral discussions that concentrate mainly on fertilizer, that they are indeed raising these issues of the importance of getting back to the six-party talks, the importance of North Korea coming seriously back to those talks and eliminating its nuclear weapons programs," said Boucher, according to a transcript posted on its department's Web site. "It's not unusual to find people doing slightly different things, but all pushing in the same direction, all pushing in the same direction of getting North Korea to come back seriously to the talks and eliminate its nuclear weapon program," he said. Boucher denied Seoul consulted with Washington on the proposals, saying, "We're not involved in any new proposal at this point." But the main opposition Grand National Party opposed the government using incentives as tools to sustain inter-Korean and international meetings, saying the government should obtain parliamentary approval before making any serious proposals to North Korea. "(The government) says it is willing to present an important proposal for the North if it returns to the six-party talks... There must first be public consensus on what the proposal may be," said party floor leader Rep. Kang Jae-sup. ***************************************************************** 6 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N. Korea Invites Rice for Bilateral Nuclear Talks Home> National/Politics Updated May.17,2005 14:22 KST Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to visit his country for bilateral negotiations aimed at resolving the communist country's nuclear ambitions. According to the Nihon Keizai Shimbun, citing multiple unnamed diplomatic sources, North Korea is expressing its willingness to return to the stalled six-party talks, while at the same time wanting to hold bilateral talks with the United States. The Japanese daily also reports Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing conveyed the North's request to Rice when the two spoke over the phone on Friday. The newspaper notes that China is in favor of holding U.S.-North Korea talks and is serving as an intermediary on behalf of Pyongyang. Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department was not able to verify the content of the phone conversation between Li and Rice, saying it was not aware of what message if any from North Korea the Chinese official conveyed. Last Friday, during a regular press briefing, U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher made an exceptional revelation of a conversation between Secretary Rice and Chinese Foreign Minister Li held that morning. Boucher said the two senior officials agreed to continue cooperating to encourage North Korea to come back to the multilateral disarmament talks. Arirang TV ***************************************************************** 7 Xinhua: China denies arranging Rice visit to Pyongyang www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-17 20:33:00 BEIJING, May 17 (Xinhuanet) -- China Tuesday denied a report saying that the country is arranging a visit by US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Pyongyang and voiced objections to "five-party talks" that will exclude the Democratic People's Republic ofKorea (DPRK). A Japanese newspaper, the Nihon Keizai Shimbun, reported Tuesday that the DPRK asked China to arrange a visit by Rice to Pyongyang in a bid to reach a breakthrough on nuclear and missile issues. "This report has a lot of imagination, but no truth at all," China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan told a regular press conference. Kong also expressed opposition to the proposal of so-called "five-party talks," saying that he doesn't think it's a good idea, because "facts have proven that six-party talks are a realistic and effective way to peacefully resolve the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula." Recently both the DPRK and the United States made some positivesignals, and China hopes the two sides can show more goodwill and release more positive signals to create favorable conditions for restarting talks, he said. "We hope the DPRK and the United States can make contact to enhance mutual trust and understanding," he said. "We'll welcome and encourage such contact, no matter when and where it takes place." Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 8 Las Vegas SUN: Papers Show N. Korea Sought Nukes in 1960s Today: May 17, 2005 at 4:41:33 PDT By WILLIAM C. MANN ASSOCIATED PRESS WASHINGTON (AP) - North Korea began nagging its communist allies as early as the 1960s to obtain a nuclear reactor with the intent of launching a hidden weapons program, according to former Soviet bloc documents released Tuesday. Over the next two decades, responses generally were negative, sometimes to the point of hostility. Having largely failed during the Cold War, North Korea in the years since then as put together a nuclear program that the Bush administration considers the equal of Iran's as a potential problem for the United States. Just this week, the United States said a North Korean nuclear test, which some U.S. analysts say may be a prospect, would be considered an act of defiance and would be punished. The newly released documents, mined from the archives of the Russian Foreign Ministry and the Hungarian government, lay out a sequence of appeals, rejections and threats involving the North Koreans. A memorandum from the Hungarian Foreign Ministry dated Feb. 16, 1976, quoted O Song Gwon, a third secretary of the North Korean Embassy in Budapest, and Yi Un gi, that embassy's deputy military attache. "In their opinion," the memo said, "Korea cannot be unified in a peaceful way. They are prepared for war. If a war comes in Korea, it will be waged by nuclear weapons, rather than by conventional ones." Then, it goes on: "By now the DPRK also has nuclear warheads and carrier missiles, which are targeted on the big cities of South Korea and Japan, such as Seoul, Tokyo and Nagasaki, as well as on the local military bases, such as Okinawa." The official name of North Korea is the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The memorandum, signed by Istvan Garajszki, goes on to say: "When I asked whether the Korean People's Army had received the nuclear warheads from China, they replied that they had developed them unaided through experimentation, and they manufactured them by themselves." "It was an idle boast. It's just curious," Kathryn Weathersby, senior associate at the Wilson International Center for Scholars, said Monday. "My reading of it is first of all, it shows how eager they were to be able to claim that. That claim was untrue, but they wanted it to be true." In the early 1960s, most of the world was trying to rebottle the nuclear genie released over Japan to end World War II. The United States and the Soviet Union established a teletype "hot line" between Washington and Moscow in 1963 to prevent accidental nuclear war. That same year, the first test-ban treaty was signed to outlaw nuclear weapons testing in the atmosphere, outer space and underwater. The signature Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was agreed in 1968. However, in 1963, the North Koreans not only suggested that the Russians give them nuclear missiles, but also sought the green light to obtain nuclear weapons technology abroad, according to documents citing conversations the Soviet ambassador to North Korea, Vasily Moskovsky, had with his fellow ambassadors from Czechoslovakia and East Germany regarding their dealings with the North Koreans. Through it all, the North Koreans kept petitioning their allies for nuclear reactors. Hungarian Ambassador Ferenc Szabo filed a report from Pyongyang, North Korea's capital, to the foreign ministry in Budapest in 1979 that gave a rundown on capitalist South Korea's nuclear successes. It said North Korea had been urging Czechoslovakia, the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, China and others for years "to provide it with equipment for nuclear power plants or even to build a nuclear power plant. "She tries to make up for her lag behind South Korea in this way, with the hidden intention that later she may become capable of producing an atomic bomb," Szabo said. The documents are being released by the Korea Initiative of the Washington-based Woodrow Wilson Center's Cold War International History Project. --- On the Net: Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars: http://wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?topic-id1409&fuseactiontopics.item& news-id2 8209 -- ***************************************************************** 9 csmonitor.com: Stronger US push needed for N. Korea reform | Commentary > Opinion from the May 17, 2005 edition By Michael O'Hanlon and Jack Pritchard WASHINGTON  As National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley's recent threatening words to North Korea over its nuclear program suggest, the future of negotiations to resolve this terrifying matter has never been bleaker. North Korea appears unwilling to return to the six-party process involving the US, China, Japan, Russia, and both Koreas. And it may test a nuclear weapon soon. The Bush administration has no particularly fresh ideas for wooing Pyongyang back, and in fact understandably rejects the very notion of trying to woo such a regime. And now, Chinese officials are publicly criticizing the US approach to the talks as insufficiently flexible and diplomatic. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, knowing that he can continue to trade and receive aid from both China and South Korea, and knowing that the US military is tied down elsewhere with no good options for using force against his country in any event, is unlikely to feel much pressure to change paths. This situation represents a major setback for American global interests. Whoever is to blame, clearly, the North Korean regime deserves the lion's share of criticism, given its extremist ways and proliferation behavior. But the fact is that an economically destitute regime with a history of exporting virtually anything it can to make money now has up to eight nuclear weapons and is threatening to make more - and we have no promising strategy for how to deal with it. What is needed to improve prospects here? A few guidelines are incontrovertible, as matters of either principle or of practical politics: First, President Bush is right that North Korea cannot be rewarded for breaking three treaties and destabilizing Northeast Asia in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Second, however, Mr. Bush is wrong to think that his current approach to the peninsula stands much of a chance of success. As long as China is openly criticizing US policy, and South Korea remains reluctant to get tough as well, the prospects for a diplomatic breakthrough are next to nil. Third, North Korea right now sees few incentives, positive or negative, to negotiate to give up its bombs. Fourth, while a North Korean nuclear arsenal might not be the end of the world, it is extremely dangerous. The fact that we are beginning to get used to its existence does not make it acceptable. Together, these observations require a new strategy. While we support direct US-North Korea negotiations to complement the six-party process, we agree with the Bush administration that such talks would not themselves amount to a new strategy. Smooth diplomacy can help in situations like this, but when dealing with a ruthless regime, one needs to get the strategic fundamentals right. What's needed is US leadership and a serious mix of carrots and sticks. But how to offer carrots when North Korean provocations should not be rewarded with appeasement? And how to muster sticks when threatening force is not credible, and when key countries are unwilling to consider economic sanctions? One approach, to take a page out of Donald Rumsfeld's playbook, is to recognize that when you have a seemingly unsolvable problem, you should enlarge it. The other important insight is to learn from the new US approach to Iran policy: Teaming with European allies is apparentlypersuading them to be willing to threaten sanctions if talks fail - provided the US shows sincere willingness to offer Iran benefits if the talks succeed. This is something that is noticeably missing in the approach to North Korea. The core US strategy must be to try to push North Korea toward broad political, economic, and military reform. It is impossible to pursue such a strategy without being fully engaged, and being seen as fully engaged. To the extent that North Korea verifiably and meaningfully reforms, as Vietnam and China have done even within communist systems, the US should promise to help it with its efforts. That requires not just denuclearization but conventional force reductions, more economic change, and progress on human rights. To the extent it does not, the US should have the agreement of Beijing and Seoul that tougher measures will ultimately be needed, and convince those countries to say so publicly. The premise behind Bush's "bold approach" of April 2002 - demand more, but be willing to give more - remains valid and would be supported by others in the region. That is why, in addition to offering major trade and aid benefits if Mr. Kim accepts this type of process, the US also needs to make credible the threat of multilateral sanctions if he does not. But any hope the US has of getting China and South Korea to agree to such a strategy that forces North Korea to a stark choice over its future requires showing flexibility and a willingness to be helpful and generous if Pyongyang will play ball. America's stated strategy and actions must be viewed as serious and sustained by all parties. The Bush administration is executing a badly failing policy on North Korea. But there are ways to take the president's strong principled views on the subject and use them to help construct a new strategy with much better prospects of success. " Michael O'Hanlon and Jack Pritchard are scholars at the Brookings Institution. Mr. Pritchard negotiated with the North Koreans on behalf of the US in the Clinton and Bush administrations. www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Guardian Unlimited: Koreas' Meeting Shows Signs of Souring From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday May 17, 2005 12:31 PM AP Photo SEL802 By PAUL ALEXANDER Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - Reconciliation talks between the two Koreas showed signs of souring Tuesday when delegates canceled a joint luncheon and the South reported no progress in its push to get the North back into nuclear disarmament negotiations. The first face-to-face talks between the two Koreas in 10 months came during elevated concern over the North's nuclear ambition. It said last week that it removed fuel rods from a reactor, a step toward extracting weapons-grade plutonium. The two sides were scheduled to have a working lunch before wrapping up their second and final day of talks in the afternoon in the border town of Kaesong, but suddenly announced that the two delegations would eat separately. The head of South Korea's delegation, Vice Unification Minister Rhee Bong-jo, told reporters that officials agreed on the South sending officials to the North's capital in June for the fifth anniversary of a North-South summit. But no progress was reported on other issues, including the nuclear dispute. Asked whether North Korea just listened to comments on the nuclear dispute, as it had on Monday, Rhee would only say that consultations were continuing. China on Tuesday, meanwhile, appealed to the United States and North Korea to have direct contacts in order to restart six-nation talks. ``China hopes these two countries can have contacts so they can build mutual trust and understanding,'' said Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan. ``Such contacts conducted anywhere and any time would receive our congratulations.'' South Korea on Monday promised a major new ``proposal'' if the reclusive communist nation returns to stalled disarmament talks involving the United States, China, Japan, Russia and the two Koreas. No details were released, but South Korean media speculated that Seoul would offer massive aid to its impoverished neighbor, which has been wracked by famine. South Korea provides fertilizer and other humanitarian aid to the North each year, but says any major economic aid should be preceded by North Korea's agreement to dismantle its nuclear weapons facilities. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher offered U.S. support for the South Korean initiative but said Washington believes aid for the North, ``including food or helping them grow food, shouldn't be conditioned or negotiated as part of the six-party talks.'' A Japanese report Tuesday said North Korea had forwarded an invitation to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice via China to visit the North for nuclear talks. However, a U.S. official in Washington denied the report in the Nihon Keizai business daily, saying no such invitation was received. He spoke on condition of anonymity. Washington has resisted direct talks with the North over its nuclear program. The inter-Korean dialogue was the first potentially positive development on the Korean Peninsula since February, when North Korea claimed it had nuclear weapons and said it would indefinitely boycott arms talks until Washington drops its ``hostile'' policy. U.S. officials reported last week that spy satellites spotted construction of a tunnel and a reviewing stand in North Korea- possible indications of a coming nuclear test. South Korean officials have dismissed such reports as lacking firm evidence. Still, the United States and Japan have in recent days warned the North against conducting a test, with Washington saying it would respond with unspecified action and Japan indicating it could seek U.N. sanctions against the North. The six-nation disarmament talks have been stalled since last June after three inconclusive rounds. North Korea refused to participate in the fourth set of talks, originally scheduled for last September. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: Rival Koreas Extend Talks to Thursday From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday May 18, 2005 12:46 AM AP Photo SEL804 By PAUL ALEXANDER Associated Press Writer SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - The two Koreas on Wednesday extended their first direct talks in 10 months for an extra day as South Korea tried to convince the communist North to return to the nuclear bargaining table. The talks had been scheduled to end Tuesday afternoon. But the delegations remained at the North Korean border village of Kaesong overnight, then held a half-hour meeting Wednesday morning and announced they would hold more talks on Thursday. The nuclear issue clearly was the hangup. The reclusive, impoverished North had sought additional fertilizer and food aid, but South Korea clearly linked that to Pyongyang rejoining six-nation talks on its worrisome nuclear weapons program. ``We have made it clear that we cannot accept North Korea's nuclear weapons, and if the principal of denuclearization on the Korean Peninsula is not followed, reconciliation and cooperation between the South and the North would be impossible,'' Vice Unification Minister Rhee Bong-jo, head of the South's delegation, told reporters. He said South Korea ``has fully delivered its position'' through various channels. Rhee earlier said the North had listened without comment to his push for Pyongyang to rejoin the nuclear negotiations, which it has boycotted since a third round ended last June. On Wednesday, he only would say they were still listening. The North has shunned direct talks with the South over its nuclear program, but has become dependent on food aid to ease widespread famine, and the spring planting season is looming. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 12 'Star Wars' Raises Questions on US Policy Date: Tue, 17 May 2005 14:12:58 -0500 (CDT) 'Star Wars' Raises Questions on US Policy http://metromix.chicagotribune.com/news/celebrity/sns-ap-cannes-star-wars,0,5 421504.story?coll=mmx-celebrity_heds Published on Tuesday, May 17, 2005 by the Associated Press 'Star Wars' Raises Questions on US Policy by David Germain Without Michael Moore and "Fahrenheit 9/11" at the Cannes Film Festival this time, it was left to George Lucas and "Star Wars" to pique European ire over the state of world relations and the United States' role in it. Lucas' themes of democracy on the skids and a ruler preaching war to preserve the peace predate "Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith" by almost 30 years. Yet viewers Sunday - and Lucas himself - noted similarities between the final chapter of his sci-fi saga and our own troubled times. Cannes audiences made blunt comparisons between "Revenge of the Sith" - the story of Anakin Skywalker's fall to the dark side and the rise of an emperor through warmongering - to President Bush's war on terrorism and the invasion of Iraq. Two lines from the movie especially resonated: "This is how liberty dies. With thunderous applause," bemoans Padme Amidala (Natalie Portman) as the galactic Senate cheers dictator-in-waiting Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid) while he announces a crusade against the Jedi. "If you're not with me, then you're my enemy," Hayden Christensen's Anakin - soon to become villain Darth Vader - tells former mentor Obi-Wan Kenobi (Ewan McGregor). The line echoes Bush's international ultimatum after the Sept. 11 attacks, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." "That quote is almost a perfect citation of Bush," said Liam Engle, a 23-year-old French-American aspiring filmmaker. "Plus, you've got a politician trying to increase his power to wage a phony war." Though the plot was written years ago, "the anti-Bush diatribe is clearly there," Engle said. The film opens Wednesday in parts of Europe and Thursday in the United States and many other countries. At the Cannes premiere Sunday night, actors in white stormtrooper costumes paraded up and down the red carpet as guests strolled in, while an orchestra played the "Star Wars" theme. Lucas said he patterned his story after historical transformations from freedom to fascism, never figuring when he started his prequel trilogy in the late 1990s that current events might parallel his space fantasy. "As you go through history, I didn't think it was going to get quite this close. So it's just one of those recurring things," Lucas said at a Cannes news conference. "I hope this doesn't come true in our country. "Maybe the film will waken people to the situation," Lucas joked. That comment echoes Moore's rhetoric at Cannes last year, when his anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the festival's top honor. Unlike Moore, whose Cannes visit came off like an anybody-but-Bush campaign stop, Lucas never mentioned the president by name but was eager to speak his mind on U.S. policy in Iraq, careful again to note that he created the story long before the Bush-led occupation there. "When I wrote it, Iraq didn't exist," Lucas said, laughing. "We were just funding Saddam Hussein and giving him weapons of mass destruction. We didn't think of him as an enemy at that time. We were going after Iran and using him as our surrogate, just as we were doing in Vietnam. .. The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable." The prequel trilogy is based on a back-story outline Lucas created in the mid-1970s for the original three "Star Wars" movies, so the themes percolated out of the Vietnam War and the Nixon-Watergate era, he said. Lucas began researching how democracies can turn into dictatorships with full consent of the electorate. In ancient Rome, "why did the senate after killing Caesar turn around and give the government to his nephew?" Lucas said. "Why did France after they got rid of the king and that whole system turn around and give it to Napoleon? It's the same thing with Germany and Hitler. "You sort of see these recurring themes where a democracy turns itself into a dictatorship, and it always seems to happen kind of in the same way, with the same kinds of issues, and threats from the outside, needing more control. A democratic body, a senate, not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling, there's corruption." ) 2005 The Associated Press ### ***************************************************************** 13 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Fighting base closings Today: May 17, 2005 at 9:15:07 PDT LAS VEGAS SUN Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld is recommending that 33 major domestic bases be shut down and hundreds more either be closed or consolidated. The Pentagon estimates that $48.8 billion would be saved over a 20-year period through the reduction of 26,000 military and civilian jobs and the consolidation of some activities. One of the major bases set for closure is 95 miles southeast of Reno -- the Hawthorne Army Depot, a munitions facility employing about 200 people. The Pentagon says the storage and demilitarization functions could be performed instead at Tooele Army Depot in Utah, saving $777 million over 20 years. Proposed changes at the Reno-Tahoe International Airport Air Guard Station would result in the loss of about 150 jobs, with eight C-130H aircraft being transferred to Little Rock Air Force Base in Arkansas and combat support units being moved to two stations in California. In contrast, Nellis Air Force Base in Las Vegas would gain about 1,400 military and civilian workers as other missions and jobs are transferred here. We are not surprised that the Pentagon wants to enlarge the role of Nellis Air Force Base, which not only has a 3 million-acre range, but also o ffers some of the most realistic training available for pilots. Across the nation, government officials and business leaders who stand to lose military bases in their cities and states have noted the devastating impact the loss of jobs could have on their local economy. Nevada's congressional delegation will try to persuade the base closing commission that will first review the recommendations -- one of its nine members is former Democratic Rep. Jim Bilbray of Nevada -- to preserve operations at Hawthorne and Reno, noting their value to the military. It's sad that Hawthorne, a patriotic town that for more than half a century has steadfastly supported the Army's mission there, may lose the base and so many jobs. Reversing cost-cutting proposals -- whether by the base closing commission, the president or Congress -- has been extraordinarily difficult in the past. And despite the economic hardship that base closures or co nsolidating operations may bring about, the Pentagon almost certainly will prevail if it can prove that these moves will im! prove national security. ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: Senators Begin Plowing Through Energy Bill From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday May 17, 2005 10:16 PM AP Photo VAPM103 By H. JOSEF HEBERT Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - Senators began plowing through an energy bill Tuesday that would include stronger conservation measures than already approved by the House and sidestep matters that could derail the measure - such as drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge. A string of provisions, from giving consumers rebates on energy efficient appliances to expanding the size of the government's emergency petroleum reserve, were to be taken up by the Energy and Natural Resources Committee this week, beginning with Tuesday's session. Most of these issues already have been worked out in discussions in recent weeks between GOP and Democratic committee members and were expected to be part of the legislation without significant changes, according to committee staffers. The panel in a two-hour meeting Tuesday focused on Indian energy issues, including actions that were aimed at making it easier for tribes to develop their energy resources. More contentious matters were expected to be taken up next week or put off until floor action this summer: sites for liquefied natural gas terminals, subsidies for the nuclear power industry, whether to allow states to petition the federal government to allow energy development in off-limits coastal waters, and whether to require all utilities to use a certain amount of renewable fuels to produce electricity. President Bush has called on Congress to produce a comprehensive energy bill by August. The House passed a bill last month, but its prospects in the Senate - where energy legislation died two years ago - remain uncertain. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., the energy panel's chairman, and Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., its ranking Democrat, agreed to leave out of the Senate bill any mention of oil development in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or protection for the makers of the gasoline additive MTBE from liability lawsuits. Both are part of a House-passed bill, but were viewed as likely to jeopardize Senate passage if including in the legislation. Domenici and Bingaman said they were hoping to advance legislation that can be widely supported by both Republicans and Democrats. Domenici, noting that Congress has tried for five years to enact energy legislation and failed, said he would like to see increases in automobile fuel economy or measures to curtail carbon emissions linked to climate change, but said the votes ``do not appear to be there ... especially in the House.'' A need to address climate change as part of energy legislation is certain to surface once the bill reaches the Senate floor, however. ``We can't afford an energy policy that does not take into account environmental and climate impact,'' said Bingaman. Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said Monday that Democrats will push for more tax breaks than GOP lawmakers have suggested, especially for renewable energy sources and technologies that reduce energy use. He called for $16 billion in energy-related tax incentives. The House-passed bill would provided about half that much, almost all toward traditional energy industries, and the White House has called even that amount too expensive. The Senate draft bill would have about $11 billion in tax incentives, according to GOP aides, although the Finance Committee, which is working on an energy tax package, has not yet provided details. Domenici said he expects the non-tax provisions to be forwarded by his panel to the full Senate before the Memorial Day congressional recess. Senators are considering incentives for biodiesel, which can be made from various sources like soybeans and discarded vegetable oil, as well as a requirement for refineries to use more corn-based ethanol in gasoline. Other provisions in the draft bill that have solid bipartisan support would: -Require that the president implement measures that would reduce the nation's demand for oil by 1 million barrels below currently expected 2015 levels. The House rejected such a proposal. -Expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to 1 billion barrels, from the current 700 million barrels. The House passed an identical requirement. -Authorize a rebate program, costing as much as $50 million over five years, for the purchase of energy efficient appliances and direct new efficiency standards for more than a dozen products from home ceiling fans to commercial refrigerator. -Impose mandatory reliability standards on operators of electricity grids, replacing the industry's self-regulation. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 15 Albuquerque Tribune: N.M. senators agree in part on energy National Government By James W. Brosnan Scripps Howard News Service May 17, 2005 WASHINGTON - New Mexico's senators head into another attempt this week to write a national energy policy, and while they're not exactly shoulder to shoulder, they're at least not in hand-to-hand combat. Albuquerque Republican Pete Domenici, chairman of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and Silver City's Jeff Bingaman, the committee's lead Democrat, say they have agreed on major portions of the energy bill in advance of the "markup" sessions scheduled to start today and continue through Wednesday and Thursday. Those portions include provisions to spur energy development on Indian reservations, wind and solar energy, a new generation of nuclear power plants, more hybrid-fueled cars, new terminals for imports of liquefied natural gas, ethanol production and a more reliable transmission system for electricity. But the biggest change is the effort by Domenici and Bingaman to work out problems in advance instead of leaving the bill's fate to partisan argument, which doomed the past two energy bills. "We both acknowledged that this was the year to try to work together and get as far as we could," Domenici said. Bingaman credited Domenici for the more open process. "We still have a lot of distance to go," he said, "but we started out the right way." With high gas prices, "everybody is going to want a bill this time," Domenici said. Among issues to be resolved are a higher fuel economy standard for cars and whether to mandate that utilities obtain a certain percentage of electricity from renewable resources like wind and solar power. Bingaman and Domenici are likely to be on opposite sides of those amendments. Domenici declared that two provisions in an energy bill passed by the House earlier this year will not be in his bill. One permits drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. That will be taken up later in a filibuster-proof tax bill, he said. The second protects manufacturers of the controversial fuel additive MTBE from lawsuits. Domenici also said the Senate bill won't have all the incentives in the House measure for oil and gas exploration. "The president doesn't want it that way, and he's right," Domenici said. When the Senate Finance Committee adds its portions, the bill is expected to cost $11 billion a year in tax subsidies and $2 billion a year in direct costs. Some environmental groups are wary of the bargains being made by Bingaman and Domenici's willingness to stick by them when the final measure is negotiated with the House. They're also waiting to see whether the final bill addresses global warming. "This is not a bill we can cheer about," said Anna Aurilio, legislative director for U.S. Public Interest Research Group. President Bush added his voice to the push for the bill in a visit Monday to a refinery in West Point, Va., that converts soybean oil to bio-diesel. "Four years ago, I laid out a comprehensive energy strategy to address our energy challenges. Yet Congress hasn't passed energy legislation," Bush said. "For the sake of American consumers, it is time to confront our problems now and not pass them on to future Congresses and future generations." ***************************************************************** 16 Scienc eDaily: Global Wind Map May Provide Better Locations For Wind Farms American Geophysical Union 2005-05-16 WASHINGTON - A new global wind power map has quantified global wind power and may help planners place turbines in locations that can maximize power from the winds and provide widely available low-cost energy. After analyzing more than 8,000 wind speed measurements in an effort to identify the world's wind power potential for the first time, Cristina Archer and Mark Jacobson of Stanford University suggest that wind captured at specific locations, if even partially harnessed, can generate more than enough power to satisfy the world's energy demands. Their report will be published in May in the Journal of Geophysical Research-Atmospheres, a publication of the American Geophysical Union. Wind Energy Not Limited By Technical Barriers (December 23, 2003) -- Dutch research has demonstrated that there are no technical barriers to wind energy generating a significant part of the electricity supply. With the appropriate technical measures, possible problems ... > full story Stable Power Supply Thanks To Wind Turbines (October 10, 2001) -- Wind turbines can help keep the voltage in the electricity network at a constant level. The power electronics in the turbines can effectively correct peaks and dips in the mains voltage. This is the ... > full story NASA To Test Wind Turbine In World's Largest Wind Tunnel (April 7, 2000) -- For the first time ever, engineers at NASA's Ames Research Center will begin testing a wind turbine this month in the world's largest wind tunnel to learn how to design and operate the ... > full story Renewable Energy A Smart Choice For Farmers And Ranchers (January 2, 2004) -- For many rural families, the cost of extending a power line to a home or other facility can be time consuming and costly. By using alternative energy sources such as solar, wind and biomass, farmers, ... > full story The researchers collected wind speed measurements from approximately 7,500 surface stations and another 500 balloon-launch stations to determine global wind speeds at 80 meters [300 feet] above the ground surface, which is the hub height of modern wind turbines. Using a new interpolation technique to estimate the wind speed at that elevation, the authors report that nearly 13 percent of the stations they reviewed experience winds with an average annual speed strong enough for power generation. They note that, based on their expectations of other global areas, an even greater percentage of locations would likely reach the 6.9 meters per second [15 miles per hour] wind speed considered strong enough to be economically feasible. Such wind speeds at 80 meters, referred to as wind power Class 3, were found in every region of the world, although North America was found to have the greatest wind power potential. The researchers also found that some of the strongest winds were observed in Northern Europe, along the North Sea, while the southern tip of South America and the Australian island of Tasmania also recorded significant and sustained strong winds at the turbine blade height. In North America, the most consistent winds were found in the Great Lakes region and from ocean breezes along the eastern, western and southern coasts. Overall, the researchers calculated winds at 80 meters [300 feet] traveled over the ocean at approximately 8.6 meters per second and at nearly 4.5 meters per second over land [20 and 10 miles per hour, respectively]. "The main implication of this study is that wind, for low-cost wind energy, is more widely available than was previously recognized," Archer said. "The methodology in the paper can be utilized for several applications, such as determining elevated wind speeds in remote areas or to evaluate the benefits of distributed wind power." The study also estimated the amount of global wind power that could be harvested at locations with suitably strong winds. The authors found that the locations with sustainable Class 3 winds could produce approximately 72 terawatts and that capturing even a fraction of that energy could provide the 1.6-1.8 terawatts that made up the world's electricity usage in the year 2000. A terawatt is 1 billion watts, a quantity of energy that would otherwise require more than 500 nuclear reactors or thousands of coal-burning plants. Converting as little as 20 percent of potential wind energy to electricity could satisfy the entirety of the world's energy demands, but the researchers caution that there are considerable practical barriers to reaping the wind's potential energy. Chief among those barriers is creating and maintaining a dense array of modern turbines that would be needed to harness the wind power. Some sources have suggested that millions of turbines would be needed to produce an acceptable level of energy and that alternative energy sources would still be necessary to produce power when the wind speeds fall below a certain threshold. Creating a large field of turbines could also be hazardous to birds and may produce unacceptable noise levels. The current research, however, indicates that several of those limitations can be overcome with better placement of wind turbines. The researchers report that their study can assist in locating wind farms in regions known for strong and consistent winds, which may help avoid some of the problems with intermittent winds. In addition, they suggest that the inland locations of many existing wind farms may explain their inefficiency. "It is our hope that this study will foster more research in areas that were not covered by our data, or economic analyses of the barriers to the implementation of a wind-based global energy scenario," Archer concluded. ### The research was supported by NASA and by Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP). Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here. American Geophysical Union. Contact: editor@sciencedaily.com ***************************************************************** 17 Roanoke Times: A crippled response to nukes Editorials Tuesday, May 17, 2005 America has few good options in dealing with North Korea's and Iran's nuclear ambitions. U.S. action against the non-existent nuclear threat in Iraq has crippled the ability to respond to burgeoning - and quite real - nuclear threats in Iran and North Korea. But, even beyond the overcommitment of the U.S. military and the evaporation of U.S. credibility on issues involving weapons of mass destruction, the Bush administration is hamstrung by its own resistance to the few remaining strategies that have much chance of turning those nations away from the nuclear path. Bush has refused direct talks with North Korea, for instance, stubbornly insisting on engaging only in multilateral negotiations with regional powers - negotiations that have led, mostly, nowhere. Irony-rich calls by the United States for U.N. sanctions against Iran could be thwarted by Russia and China, both of which have strong economic ties with Iran. And it would be a mistake to minimize the global ramifications of a trade embargo against one of the biggest oil-producing nations in the world, at a time when high oil prices are already dragging down the global economy. The United States is running out of sticks, and Bush seems loath even to consider the use of carrots. There are few good military options - even if the U.S. military weren't stretched so thin by the disastrous occupation of Iraq. Pre-emptive strikes against either Iranian or North Korean programs have no guarantee of success. Iran, especially, has gone to great lengths to hide and scatter the different components of its nuclear program. In addition to being ineffective, military action could provoke devastating confrontations, especially on the Korean peninsula. Millions of civilians in Seoul, South Korea, would be in range of North Korean artillery fire if that nation were provoked. Diplomacy - real diplomacy, not the name-calling obstructionism practiced by Bush's choice for ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton - is the only real hope for cooling such nuclear ambitions. And it's a thin hope at best. ***************************************************************** 18 Mos News: Russia Ready to Reduce Nuclear Arms Below Levels Agreed With U.S. — Officials - NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM R-7/SS-6 Intercontinental Missile / Photo from http://www.globalsecurity.org Created: 17.05.2005 11:59 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 12:38 MSK Russia is ready to reduce its strategic nuclear arsenal below 1,500 warheads, less than the level agreed with the United States, but Moscow is concerned about nuclear threats on its border, two senior Russian officials said. Anatoly Antonov, director of the Foreign Ministry’s department for security and disarmament, and Lt.-Gen. Vladimir Verhovtsev, deputy director of the Defense Ministry’s department of nuclear safety and security, were speaking Monday at a United Nations conference. According to an Associated Press report, in May 2002 the United Staes and Russia signed a treaty requiring each side to cut its deployed warheads by about two-thirds, to between 1,700 and 2,200 warheads by 2012. And Verhovtsev said the fulfillment of engagements will be the focus of Moscow’s efforts over the next decade. Tactical nuclear weapons, he reported, have already been reduced by 75 percent. “We stand ready to take further constructive steps,” he told a briefing on the sidelines of a UN conference to review the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, adding that Russia is “ready to reduce to 1,500 warheads or less.” Antonov stressed that Russia needs international peace and security and “a situation where there are no new nuclear threats on our border.” The United States and Russia are the only countries that have taken serious steps to limit their nuclear arsenals, but missiles and weapons are being developed on Russia’s borders, he said. However, he refused to identify any country by name. China is reportedly the main nuclear power on Russia’s border, but North Korea also claims to have nuclear weapons and is suspected of preparing for a nuclear test. At the opening of the treaty review conference earlier this month, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan called on Washington and Moscow “to commit themselves irreversibly to further cuts in their arsenals, so that warheads number in the hundreds, not the thousands.” Under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, nations without nuclear weapons pledge not to pursue them, in exchange for a commitment by five nuclear states the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China to negotiate toward disarmament. The treaty guarantees countries that renounce nuclear weapons access to nuclear technology for peaceful purposes. Some nuclear “have-nots” complain that the nuclear states are moving too slowly toward disarmament. But Antonov said the environment for disarmament “depends on all of us,” not just the United States and Russia. “We’re telling our partners we can’t close our eyes” to what’s happening on Russia’s borders and elsewhere in the world, he said. Russia is against new states acquiring nuclear weapons and backs an early diplomatic solution to the North Korean threat, preferably through a resumption of six-party talks that have included Moscow, Antonov said. Russia also supports European-led talks to resolve questions about Iran’s nuclear program and wants Tehran to provide clear assurances it is peaceful, he concluded. Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM ***************************************************************** 19 i-Newswire.com: REVIEW CONFERENCE ON NUCLEAR NON-PROLIFERATION TREATY HEARS INTRODUCTION OF WORKING PAPERS The Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), today halfway through its calendar and with substantive negotiations yet to start in its three Main Committees, heard the introduction of 14 working papers. i-Newswire, 2005-05-18 - States parties presented working papers on the following topics, among others: further measures to strengthen the NPT; the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty ( CTBT ); procedural arrangements for a successful Conference outcome; substantive issues for consideration by Main Committees I, II, and III; achieving permanent accountability; nuclear disarmament and reduction of the danger of nuclear war; non-proliferation of nuclear weapons; establishment of nuclear-weapon-free zones; and withdrawal from the NPT. Canada’s representative, introducing a working paper on the test-ban Treaty, said failure to bring the CTBT into force had given countries like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea a “blank cheque” for indigenous nuclear weapon development. The test-ban Treaty, with its robust verification capacity, was an effective bar to both horizontal and vertical nuclear proliferation. If nuclear-weapon States still harboured desires to keep the nuclear testing door open, let them beware that others might exploit that opening. On achieving permanent accountability, he said that the Conference should adopt outcomes designed to meet the full implementation of the NPT by modifying the way it did business and fostering improved transparency and accountability. States parties should meet annually to consider and decide on any Treaty-based issues. They should also report, on an annual basis, on implementation of article VI, on nuclear disarmament, and on paragraph 4 ( c ) of the 1999 Decision on Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. [Paragraph 4 c from 1995 concerns the determined pursuit by the nuclear-weapon States of systematic and progressive efforts to reduce nuclear weapons globally, with the ultimate goal of eliminating those weapons, and by all States of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective global control.] Presenting another working paper, Egypt’s representative said that the outcome of the 1995 and 2000 NPT reviews on the question of the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East represented a cumulative result, which should be part of the “culture of review” of the 2005 Conference. In order to motivate achievement of such a zone and bring Israel into the Treaty, the Conference should require that States take specific actions in that regard, including undertaking not to transfer nuclear-related material, technology and information to Israel, and deny Israeli scientists access to nuclear-related facilities and laboratories. China’s speaker explained that its first working paper on nuclear disarmament and the reduction of the danger of nuclear war, one of three he introduced today, had set out an approach based on multilateralism and regional cooperation. The paper also held that those States with the largest nuclear arsenals should bear the greatest responsibilities for disarmament and should disarm in a structured and verifiable way. The paper also urged that missile defence programmes not affect the global strategic balance and stability or impair regional and global peace. The country’s second paper, on nuclear non-proliferation, states that double standards on nuclear non-proliferation must be discarded, he noted. It was essential to ensure the fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory nature of the international nuclear non-proliferation regime. The nuclear-weapon-free zones paper urges the nuclear-weapon States to take effective measures to carry out their security assurances stipulated in all nuclear-weapon-free zones treaties and relevant protocols. On a point of order, Iran’s representative said that the emerging general debate was a manifestation of delegations’ frustration over the impossibility of resolving the Conference’s procedural issues, so that it could enter into substantive discussions in the Main Committees. Continuing the current discussions would only reinforce the message to the outside that there was no prospect for agreement. If it was deemed necessary to read out working papers in full to the plenary, he could present his. Introductions of working papers were also made by the representatives of Australia, Malaysia ( on behalf of the Non-Aligned Movement ), Japan, and Luxembourg ( on behalf of the European Union ). The First Secretary in Iraq’s Ministry for Foreign Affairs made a general statement at the start of the meeting. The 2005 Review Conference on the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons will meet again at 10 a.m. Wednesday, 18 May, to continue its work. Background The 2005 Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons ( NPT ) met this morning to hear a general statement by Iraq, as well as introductions on a series of working papers by several other delegations. General Statement GHALEA FAHAD EL-ANBAKI ( Iraq ), First Secretary, Ministry for Foreign Affairs, said that the people of the new Iraq insisted that their country was multilateral and lived in peace and friendship with the rest of the world, on the basis of mutual respect, common interest, and non-interference in internal affairs, without any form of terrorism. Iraq and its elected leadership would spare no effort to lay the most solid foundations, to live with others in peace and security, and to liberate the region of all weapons of mass destruction. Written into the legislation was respect for all international commitments banning those weapons and prohibiting their use. He said that Iraq’s leaders had announced their awareness of the need to adhere to international treaties on mass destruction weapons without any distinction. Iraq would always shun such weapons and their use and was committed to respecting all non-proliferation agreements. It also planned to adopt appropriate laws, in keeping with non-proliferation. It had welcomed adoption of Security Council resolution 1540 ( 2004 ), and it had offered its cooperation to the Council’s committee in that regard. Iraq had established a nuclear non-proliferation institution. Calling on all delegations to achieve the non-proliferation objective, he said that terrorist networks were trying by every means to get their hands on such weapons, which constituted a most serious threat to collective security and safety. Everyone must cooperate with each other to prevent that tragedy, which could not be reversed if it happened. The NPT was the key basis from which to pursue non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament. Arab States had rejected the nuclear option and had acceded to the NPT, convinced that the Treaty guaranteed their safety and security. The time had come to implement the 1995 resolution on ridding the Middle East of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Introduction of Working Papers Mr. SMITH ( Australia ) introduced the first of six working papers submitted by the “Vienna G-10”, which Australia informally chaired. The G-10 was made up of Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Hungary, Ireland, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway and Sweden. The group had first met in 1980 and had prepared for every NPT review since. Its papers covered those aspects of the Treaty on which there had been agreement. The first was entitled “Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty” ( document NPT/CONF.2005/WP.9 ). The remaining five were on compliance and verification, cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, the nuclear fuel cycle, physical protection and illicit trafficking, and export controls. He said that the NPT conferred a set of interrelated and mutual reinforcing obligations on States parties with respect to disarmament, non-proliferation and cooperation in peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The G-10 paper reaffirmed the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty ( CTBT ) as an effective nuclear disarmament and nuclear non-proliferation measures, vital to the NPT. It stressed the CTBT’s early entry into force as of the utmost urgency, and it reaffirmed that the provisions of NPT article V were to be interpreted in light of the CTBT. Nine years later, however, the CTBT still had not entered into force, he said. The paper renewed the call on all States, particularly the remaining 11 Annex II States whose ratification was a precondition for the Treaty’s entry into force, to sign and/or ratify the Treaty. The paper also expressed concern that any development of new types of nuclear weapons might result in new tests and lower the nuclear threshold. It underlined existing moratoriums on nuclear weapon-test explosions, which must be maintained pending the Treaty’s entry into force. But, those could not serve as a substitute for ratification of the CTBT, which offered the international community a permanent way of ending nuclear testing. Ms. HUSAIN ( Malaysia ), speaking on behalf of the non-aligned States parties of the NPT, presented working papers contained in documents NPT/CONF.2005/WP.8 and 17 through 20. The Non-Aligned Movement ( NAM ) would elaborate on those papers in Committee meetings. The papers, she said, represented a comprehensive outline of the NAM’s view on how to ensure the effectiveness of the NPT. The recommendations contributed toward the full implementation of the Treaty, taking into account the positions elaborated in the 1999 Conference and other meetings. Such institutional memory was essential. Mr. MINE ( Japan ) introduced his country’s working paper NPT/CONF.2005/WP.21 on further measures to be taken for strengthening the NPT, entitled “21 Measures for the 21st Century”, which proposes policy considerations to be included in the final documents of the 2005 NPT Review Conference. He said that, in order to strengthen the non-proliferation regime, his country believed that progress should be made in all three pillars of the NPT -- disarmament, non-proliferation and peaceful uses of nuclear energy. In disarmament, practical measures should be implemented incrementally, toward the total elimination of nuclear weapons, he said. That was consistent with Japan’s long-term positions and included early CTBT entry into force and deep reduction in all types of nuclear weapons. The paper also, he said, proposed urging the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to comply with its obligations under the NPT and dismantle its nuclear programmes, subject to international inspection. For that purpose, it should immediately return to six-party talks. Withdrawal from the NPT should not be tolerated, and his county proposed substantive measures to prevent such withdrawal. In other areas, he highlighted the paper’s proposals to strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) regime and ensure universal adherence to international conventions that would strengthen the IAEA’s technical mechanisms. He also introduced a working paper ( document NPT/CONF.2005/WP.34 ) on disarmament and non-proliferation education, which, he said, played a valuable role in ensuring that all actors involved at various levels played their roles. He welcomed the contribution of non-governmental organizations to awareness of disarmament and non-proliferation issues. The paper advocated strengthening cooperation with non-governmental organizations in that area. Introducing the first of two working papers ( document NPT/CONF.2005/WP.38 ), ALLAN ROCK ( Canada ), said that a top priority for the nuclear non-proliferation regime was achieving the CTBT’s entry into force. The CTBT, with its robust verification capacity, was an effective bar to both horizontal and vertical nuclear proliferation. Failure to bring that accord into force gave countries like the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea a “blank cheque” for indigenous nuclear weapons development. The eight Annex II signatories that had not yet ratified it should do so without delay, if united pressure was to be brought to bear on the three holdouts who had failed to sign that vital Treaty. If nuclear-weapon States still harboured desires to keep the nuclear testing door open, let them be aware that others might exploit that opening if it was not firmly and decisively closed. Existing moratoriums on nuclear tests were welcome signs of restraint, but they could be terminated unilaterally and were no substitutes for a legally binding compact. “Let’s not delude ourselves -- continued stalling on the CTBT imperils the nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament enterprise”, he said. Other steps towards nuclear disarmament included “turning off the tap” of fissile material production for nuclear weapons and ensuring the irreversibility and verifiability of nuclear weapons elimination, he said. As holders of the general store of nuclear weapons, the United States and the Russian Federation had special responsibilities to lead the way in nuclear disarmament. He welcomed the May 2004 decision to cut the current American nuclear stockpile by almost 50 per cent and he encouraged that country to provide a timetable for accomplishing that reduction. He urged the Russian Federation to undertake a similar commitment. As another measure, he suggested that all NPT States parties had a responsibility to account for how they were implementing the Treaty, if progress on nuclear disarmament was to be credible and credited. The Conference should adopt a decision that would make annual reporting to annual NPT sessions a requirement for all members. That would be a modest, but significant, act of “participatory democracy” by Treaty members and accountability before the NPT community. The Russian Federation and China had reported in that manner to the Conference. He urged the other nuclear-weapon States to follow suit. Introducing working paper 39, entitled “Achieving Permanent with Accountability”, he said that that concept underlay the NPT’s indefinite extension. He, therefore, proposed that the Conference adopt outcomes designed to meet the objectives of full implementation by modifying the way it did business and fostering improved transparency and accountability. He proposed the following Conference outcomes: the States parties would agree to meet annually in a one-week Conference of States parties to consider and decide on any issues covered by the Treaty; they would recall the decision of the 2000 review on “regular reports”; and they would agree to report on an annual basis on implementation of article VI and paragraph 4 ( c ) of the 1995 decision on principles and objectives for nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. The Conference would also agree to continue to support the effective participation of representations of non-governmental organizations and encourage the further development of rules of procedure and practice to optimize such participation. Mr. KAYSER ( Luxembourg ), on behalf of the European Union, urged participants to reach early consensus on all procedural issues to allow for a substantive outcome for the Conference. He introduced a working paper ( NPT/CONF.2005/WP.32 ) on withdrawal from the NPT. According to the paper, parties would be entitled to withdraw from the Treaty only if extraordinary events had precipitated such a withdrawal. A written notification should be presented to the United Nations three months prior to such a withdrawal, including to the President of the Security Council. It should contain a detailed account of the rationale for withdrawal. If a State party was preparing to withdraw, the depository States should immediately undertake consultations to resolve problems described in the note of intent to withdraw. Consequences for such a withdrawal should be spelled out clearly, he said. According to the working paper, the Security Council would affirm that, in view of the importance of the NPT for peace and security, any withdrawal should be taken up as a matter of urgency. The State remained responsible for any violation of the NPT before the date of its withdrawal. The paper also proposed measures to ensure that all nuclear equipment and materials meant for peaceful purposes under the Treaty continued to be used only for those purpose after a country’s withdrawal. On a point of order Mr. BAEDI NEJAD ( Iran ), said he had understood from yesterday’s decision that Iraq would speak, followed by Australia’s delegation. There had been no decision to expand that speakers’ list. While he was delighted to hear the views of Member States and their working papers, that manifested the frustration of delegations over the impossibility of resolving the Conference’s procedural issues, in order to enter into substantive discussions in the Main Committees. Now, a sort of general debate was emerging. He said he was concerned that continuing the current discussions would only reinforce the message to the outside that there was no prospect for agreement to proceed with negotiations in the Main Committees. If the Conference President thought it was necessary to read the working papers and present them in full to the plenary, he could also present his working papers. If that was the intention, perhaps the President could make that more organized, but the Conference should be careful not to mislead the outside that that was a kind of negotiation, when it was really only an extension of the general debate. Conference President SERGIO DE QUEIROZ DUARTE ( Brazil ) said he had not thought that the Conference had objected to delegates’ presentation of their working papers. That decision, taken yesterday, had not affected only the Australian delegation. He had explained yesterday that he had received similar requests from other delegations. He was sure that the Conference would not curtail the right of those delegations to speak and present their papers, if they wished. Mr. FATHALLAH ( Egypt ) presented working paper 36 on implementation of the 1995 Conference resolution and 2000 outcome on the Middle East. The presence of an advanced nuclear program in the Middle East and the threat that caused to the region’s security had prompted Egypt and the States of the region to address that issue in several forums, from 1974. Since then, the General Assembly had annually adopted resolutions calling for the establishment of a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East. And, since 1979, it had annually adopted a resolution addressing the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East. He recalled that the outcome of the 1995 Review and Extension Conference had consisted of a package of three decisions and one resolution. The latter text was on the Middle East question. Among other things, it called on all States in the region to accede to the NPT without delay and without conditions as soon as possible and to place their nuclear facilities under full-scope IAEA safeguards. The 2000 review had reaffirmed the importance of that resolution and had recognized, among other things, that the text remained valid until the goals and objectives were achieved. The outcome of 1995 and 2000 reviews represented a cumulative result, which should be part of the culture of the 2005 review, he said. At the same time, the outcome of the 1995 review represented an integrated whole that would be compromised if any of its components were compromised. Still, Israel remained the only state in the Middle East that had not acceded to the NPT. In order to achieve that goal, he said that the present Conference should adopt an undertaking requiring specific actions by States parties to be taken in the forthcoming preparatory process for the 2010 review to spur action by Israel. Such actions should include: undertaking not to transfer nuclear-related material, technology and information to Israel, notwithstanding prior commitments; denying access to nuclear-related facilities and laboratories to scientists from Israel; reporting by States parties in 2010, as well as in the preparatory committee meetings on the status of trade in, or transfer of, nuclear-related material or technology between them and Israel, as well as on the status of scientific cooperation in that regard. Also, the United Nations Secretariat would be asked to prepare a compilation of States parties’ report. In addition, the Conference should consider appropriate measures to encourage and monitor progress towards realizing the goals of the Conference’s 1995 Middle East decision, through an appropriate institutional structure. Such measures should include a standing committee to initiate contacts with Israel and report on any progress made in that regard. A specific representative or envoy should be appointed to undertake good offices with Israel, in order to “push” it to accede to the NPT. HU XIAODI ( China ) introduced three working papers. He said the paper contained in NPT/CONF.2005/WP.2 proposed an approach to disarmament based on multilateralism and regional cooperation to be included in the final outcome documents of the Conference. It held that those States with the largest nuclear arsenals should bear the greatest responsibilities of disarmament and should do so in a structured and verifiable way. He said the paper also discusses missile defence programmes, instability, early entry into force of the CTBT, control of fissile materials, and reduction of strategic dependence on nuclear weapons, along with other matters. In the working paper contained in document NPT/CONF.2005/WP.3, China proposed elements of non-proliferation to be included in the final outcome documents, as well. According to the paper, the Conference would promote an international security environment based on trust and dialogue, as well as on strengthened nuclear control regimes. It would also discourage double-standards in applying such regimes, and address such matters as prevention of nuclear terrorism. China’s paper contained in NPT/CONF.2005/WP.4 covered, he said, issues in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. He said that non-proliferation was completely compatible with such uses. Among other elements, If you have questions regarding information in these press release contact the company listed below. I-Newswire.com is a press release service and not the author of this press release. The information that is on or available through this site is for informational purposes only and speaks only as of the particular date or dates of that information. As some companies / PR Agencies submit their press releases once per week/month or quarter, make sure check the official company website for accurate release dates as our site displays the I-Newswire.com distribution date only. We do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information on or available through this site, and we are not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in that information or for actions taken in reliance on that information. Press Release Date 2005-05-18 ***************************************************************** 20 The Telegraph: Nuclear gong, loud and clear Wednesday, May 18, 2005 OUR SPECIAL CORRESPONDENT Singh addresses military scientists. (AFP) New Delhi, May 17: India is prepared for “the broadest possible engagement” with the international non-proliferation regime provided its interests are safeguarded, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh said here today. New Delhi is being urged by Washington to sign the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT) and Singh’s elucidation of the Indian standpoint is a justification of India’s position. The Prime Minister was speaking to military scientists and heads of military establishments after giving away awards to scientists of the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO). “In the defence field and the nuclear field, our strategic programmes are indigenous and not dependent on external sources of support. Nor can they be subject to externally imposed constraints,” he said. “Our message to the international community is, therefore, loud and clear — India is willing to shoulder its share of international obligation as a partner against proliferation provided our legitimate interests are safeguarded.” Earlier, the DRDO head and the scientific adviser to the defence minister, M. Natarajan, said India was preparing to testfire the long-range (possibly 3,000 km) strategic Agni III missile this year. But at least twice in the past DRDO heads have announced the intentions to testfire Agni III but the plans did not fructify. The Prime Minister said the government had only last week demonstrated its commitment to non-proliferation. Parliament had passed the Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of Unlawful Activities) Bill. He said the bill compares favourably with the best global standards on non-proliferation. Global and American concerns over proliferation of WMD have been heightened since last year following the disclosure that Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan traded in sensitive material. “India will not be, and I repeat, will not be a source of proliferation of sensitive technologies. We will adopt the most stringent measures to safeguard and secure the technologies that we possess, or those that we acquire through international collaboration,” Singh said. He said India was seeking to maintain a credible defence posture and at the same time make peace with neighbours. “We have no desire to engage in any arms race, as that would divert vitally needed resources away from the basic developmental purpose.” Singh said he was concerned that delays in implementation of defence projects could impact military preparedness. “We can ill-afford continued delays in project implementation, both in terms of impact time and cost overruns. Delays not only affect the national exchequer, they can also seriously undermine the confidence of the defence services if a weapon system is practically obsolete by the time of its induction.” This was an indirect reference to the tardy acceptance and development of several DRDO projects that have fallen behind the timeline for a combination of reasons, from sanctions to faulty planning. Copyright © 2005 The Telegraph. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: Sunshine Federal Register Notice FR Doc 05-9867 [Federal Register: May 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 94)] [Notices] [Page 28323-28324] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17my05-103] DATES: Weeks of May 16, 23, 30, June 6, 13, 20, 2005. PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. STATUS: Public and closed. MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: [[Page 28324]] Week of May 16, 2005 There are no meetings scheduled for the week of May 16, 2005. Week of May 23, 2005--Tentative Monday, May 23, 2005: 10 a.m. Discussion of Intergovernmental Issues (Closed--Ex. 9). 1:30 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Wednesday, May 25, 2005: 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Results of the Agency Action Review Meeting (Public Meeting) (Contact: Lois James, 301-415-1112). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address: . 1 p.m. Briefing on Threat Environment Assessment (Closed--Ex. 1) (New start time). 3 p.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Week of May 30, 2005--Tentative Wednesday, June 1, 2005: 9:30 a.m. Discussion of Security Issues (Closed--Ex. 1). Thursday, June 2, 2005: 9:30 a.m. Briefing on Office of International Programs (OIP) Programs, Performance, and Plans (Public Meeting) (Contact: Margie Doane, 301- 415-2344). This meeting will be webcast live at the Web address: http.// . 2:30 p.m. Discussion of Management Issues (Closed--Ex. 2 & 9). Note: new time, originally scheduled for 1:30 p.m. Week of June 6, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 6, 2005. Week of June 13, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 13, 2005. Week of June 20, 2005--Tentative There are no meetings scheduled for the week of June 20, 2005. *The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. To verify the status of meetings call (recording)--(301) 415- 1292. Contact person for more information: Dave Gamberoni, (301) 415- 1651. * * * * * The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at: . * * * * * The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings, or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (e.g., braille, large print), please notify the NRC's Disability Program Coordinator, August Spector, at 301-415-7080, TDD: 301-415- 2100, or by e-mail at . Determinations on requests for reasonable accommodation will be made on a case-by-case basis. * * * * * This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555 (301-415-1969). In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the Internet system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message to . Dated: May 12, 2005. Dave Gamberoni, Office of the Secretary. [FR Doc. 05-9867 Filed 5-13-05; 9:24 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-M ***************************************************************** 22 Helsingin Sanomat: Sosnovyi Bor - a closed city International Edition - Foreign Wednesday 18.5.2005 Sosnovyi Bor is located in the northwest of Russia, 80 kilometres west of St. Petersburg. The city of about 66,000 inhabitants is a nuclear industry location off-limits to outsiders. The Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant in the city produces about one half of the electricity used in the region. Finland also imports some of the energy. The city has numerous research and industrial plants closely linked with nuclear energy. Most of the residents are connected with nuclear technology in one way or another. Most have moved to the city from outside. The average level of education is above the Russian average. Unemployment is low. More than half of the tax revenue of the atomic city comes from the nuclear power plant, which employs about 6,000 people. Sosnovyi Bor (which means "pine forest") has many parks. Sand dunes on the coast of the Gulf of Finland are sometimes 30 metres high. A 100-year-old pine forest grows on top of the dune area. Near the city there is a wetland which is an important resting place for migratory birds. Construction has caused damage to the fragile natural environment in the area in many places. Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 14.5.2005 Russia wants to extend life of Sosnovyi Bor nuclear plant through 2026 ***************************************************************** 23 Helsingin Sanomat: Two new nuclear plants planned for south shore of Gulf of Finland Wednesday 18.5.2005 By Heli Saavalainen There is a drill underway at the training simulator for the Leningrad Nuclear Power Plant. A siren wails, and lights flash. In a computer room made to look like the the plant's control room, personnel are being trained for dealing with an emergency. In the imaginary danger situation, the main pump which cools the reactor has shut down. Output must be decreased, so that the cooling system will function with little water. Instructor Dmitri Kaliayenkov watches the monitors, presses switches, and shouts instructions. The output decreases, and in a couple of minutes the danger of an explosion is over. In the real control room things are calmer. The number-one reactor has been shut down for maintenance, during which time promised repairs are being made to fix problems that have been noticed in the operation of the power plant, to inspect the welding seams of the pipes, and to improve security systems. The modernisation is needed, because the reactors are at the end of their life cycle. Nevertheless, their use is being extended by many years. According to Valery Lebedev, Director-General of the power plant, the lifespans of all four units are to be extended so that each of them would work for 45 years. This means that some of the present reactors would be in operation until 2026. Lebedev insists that the installation is still as reliable as any nuclear power plant. "Perhaps more so: since 1986 we have made very many improvements to upgrade safety", he says. Russia is also planning to build more nuclear generating capacity. Two new units would be built in Sosnovyi Bor to eventually replace the present reactors. The goal is that the new VVER 1500 type pressurised-water reactors would be taken into use in 2013 and 2015. Building new reactors and shutting down old ones would be a positive development, says Heikki Reponen, head of the unit of expert service of the Radiation and Nuclear Safety Authority of Finland. "The plant is safer than before, but there is still room for improvement", he says. Continuing operations would also require considerable changes in units three and four, even though their security systems are better than those of the oldest units. Reponen feels that the greatest shortcomings of the old units are that the reactor lacks a pressure-resistant protective building that would contain the materials that would be released in a possible accident. "These were in the plans for the new security structures, but they could not be built, so they were left out", Reponen says. "The most precarious pipes have already been replaced, but there could still be places where a leak could take place. Then steam would get out of some vent." The environmental organisation Green World feels that the old installation should be shut down. "It is not safe", says the organisation's chairman Oleg Bodrov. In his view, the temporary storage of spent nuclear fuel on the shore of the Gulf of Finland is a serious risk for the whole Baltic Sea environment. "Spent fuel has been kept on the shore of the Gulf of Finland in leaking temporary storage", he complains. Director-General Lebedev insists that the storage facilities are in order. "There are several measuring points around the waste building, and no readings that exceed the limits have been measured", he says. "Russia's Greens do not seem to have accurate information, and even if we give it to them, they don't believe us", Lebedev says, downplaying the criticism. "The criticism is based on emotional reactions". The closed nuclear city also hides an extensive drug problem behind its gates. It is estimated that this city, which is about the size of the Finnish city of Lappeenranta, has up to 1,000 active users of heroin. Last year 1,230 crimes were recorded, 30-40% of which were committed to finance a drug habit. Lebedev insists that there is no drug or alcohol problem in the nuclear power plant itself. "The personnel undergo medical examinations always before a work shift. Anyone who is caught using drugs is sacked immediately." Employees in the control room of the first unit inspect the emergency shutdown system. "Everything in order", says production manager Dmitri Razbash. In his view, the security systems of the power plant have improved considerably from the time when he started work at the plant 25 years ago. Helsingin Sanomat / First published in print 14.5.2005 ***************************************************************** 24 San Luis Obispo Tribune: Look ahead to Diablo's future, PUC told | 05/17/2005 | Look ahead to Diablo's future, PUC told Coastal Commission says repairs will likely lead to a longer life for the plant and regulators should look at what that means for the county's environment David Sneed The Tribune The state Coastal Commission and environmentalists are asking state regulators to take a broad look at repairs to Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant that could extend the operating life of the plant by 20 years. The California Public Utilities Commission has given Pacific Gas and Electric Co. tentative approval to replace all of the plant's steam generators, which transfer heat from the reactors to the electrical generators, a job that is expected to cost the utility's customers more than $700 million. In April, the agency issued a draft environmental report on the project. Coastal Commission staff said the replacement project is likely to lead to PG&E renewing the operating plant's license, and they asked that the agency look at what that means for the environment of the Central Coast. The report only looks at significance of the replacement project through 2025 when the plant's current license will expire. "We think they ought to look beyond that," said Tom Luster, a Coastal Commission analyst. Without this broad look, other agencies, including the Coastal Commission and county planners, will not be able to make informed decisions about the project, Luster said. Terrie Prosper, spokeswoman for the CPUC, said it is unclear whether the scope of the report will be expanded to comply with the public requests. "We will be reviewing the comments, preparing responses, and incorporating any revisions during the next three to six weeks," she said. If the agency expands the scope of the environmental report, it could delay its completion by several months. However, it is unlikely to delay the project because the work is scheduled to take place later this decade. The main environmental effect of extending the life of the plant by 20 years is the continued use of 2.5 billion gallons of ocean water per day for cooling. The cooling process heats the ocean water and kills fish and crab larvae. PG&E has not applied to renew the plant's operating license. But industry experts and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- the federal agency that oversees nuclear plants -- expect all nuclear facilities to seek to renew their licenses. The Coastal Commission letter mirrors similar criticisms of the report by numerous environmental groups, including the Sierra Club and San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace. Morgan Rafferty, with Mothers for Peace, said the report treats the replacements "as a simple construction project," and the whole report needs to be "sent back to the drawing board." Like the Coastal Commission staff, the group wants the plant's future beyond 2025 included in the report. They also want the report to consider an alternative in which the generators aren't replaced and the plant is closed. The project calls for all eight of the plant's failing steam generators to be replaced. These large components exchange heat from nuclear reactors to the steam-powered electrical generators. PG&E estimates that the plant would have to shut down in 2014 if the steam generators are not replaced. The work is scheduled for refueling shutdowns in 2008 and 2009. The plant's two reactors are periodically shut down to replace a third of its fuel rods with new ones. The old generators, which will emit residual radiation, will be stored in a specially constructed building. PG&E has identified five potential locations for the storage building, with the preferred location in a canyon behind the plant. Luster said more analysis needs to be done on the seismic safety of the storage building sites. All are located on fill dirt or near Diablo Creek or on steep slopes. These locations are just outside the boundary of the coastal zone. However, the Coastal Commission could still have jurisdiction because the project will affect the coastal zone, Luster said. ***************************************************************** 25 Korea Herald: KNEF promotes benefits of nuclear energy (thkim@heraldm.com) By Kim Tong-hyung 2005.05.18 Established in 1992, the state-run Korea Nuclear Energy Foundation has been leading the effort to help change public perception of nuclear energy that is often marked by concerns about safety and waste. The group has implemented a variety of promotional and cultural activities to promote the strengths of nuclear energy and contribute to improve public understanding regarding its risks and benefits. "The objective is to provide comprehensive, accurate information to ensure that the risks and benefits of nuclear energy are clearly and fairly understood by the general public. The public's acceptance of nuclear power is critical, especially in a country like Korea with increasing consumption of electricity and high dependency on foreign fuel supplies," said Park Keum-ok, chairwoman of the Korea Nuclear Energy Foundation. The Korea Nuclear Energy Foundation has been implementing a variety of promotional activities through the media, Internet, publications and events. The group plans special reports jointly with newspapers and television broadcasters to provide the public with in-depth and accurate information. The foundation also publishes a monthly magazine called Nuclear Culture and other books and publications related to nuclear energy and the environment. The Korea Nuclear Energy Foundation also runs a Web page to provide comprehensive information and materials on nuclear energy and gather opinions through bulletin boards and discussion rooms, while publishing a "Webzine" every month to generate interest among young readers. The Korea Nuclear Energy Foundation also runs exhibition facilities such as the Nuclear Center at the National Seoul Science Museum and the Electric Energy Pavilion at the Expo Science Park in Daejeon. They comprise nuclear energy-related models, experimental equipment, graphic panels, information search section and other exhibits for a hands-on experience, offering a good learning venue not only for students but also adults. Korea has been pushing an aggressive nuclear-industry development program over the past three decades to overcome its vulnerability to the world's oil and natural gas markets. Now, Korea controls one of the largest and most-advanced nuclear industries in Asia, operating 20 nuclear reactors nationwide that generate 40 percent of the country's electricity. The government expects nuclear power to become the major energy source by 2015, when it will supply about 46 percent of the nation's electricity. ***************************************************************** 26 RIA Novosti: VIETNAM BOOSTS NUCLEAR COOPERATION WITH RUSSIA 18/05/2005 HANOI, May 17 (RIA Novosti, Thu Huong) - The Vietnamese government views Russia as a strategic partner in the economic development of the country, including in the sphere of nuclear energy, said Vuong Huu Tan, Director of the Vietnam Nuclear Energy Institute. The second sitting of the Vietnam-Russia coordinating committee on nuclear energy is to take place in Hanoi Tuesday. Vladimir Generalov, head of nuclear construction department of the Federal Nuclear Energy Agency (Rosatom), heads the Russian delegation. The sides are to exchange information on the nuclear energy development in their countries, sum up the results of their cooperation for the last two years and outline areas of cooperation for 2005-2006. Russia is a traditional partner of Vietnam in nuclear engineering. The only research reactor at the Da Lat Nuclear Research Institute (500 kilowatt), which was restored with Soviet assistance, has worked effectively and safely for 21 years. The modernization of the Da Lat nuclear reactor control and safety system is one of the main issues of cooperation between Russian and Vietnamese experts. According to Vuong Huu Tan, the corresponding contract may be signed this year. The partners also agreed to boost the implementation of the programs planned during the previous sitting of the joint committee, including the modernization of the gamma-ray installation in Hanoi and the supply of this center with radioactive materials from Russia. According to the country's main expert on nuclear energy, Vietnam is also interested in cooperation with Russia in other peaceful nuclear activities, including the production of radioactive isotopes, control and physical protection of radioactive materials, the handling of nuclear wastes, as well as in Russia's experience in fundamental and applied research, personnel training, uranium ore fields exploration and extraction, and construction and operation of nuclear plants. Vladimir Generalov noted that the Russian side "was ready to discuss questions of cooperation in all areas with Vietnamese colleagues." In particular, Rosatom is ready to implement all the programs planned by both sides in 2003 and accelerate the process with due regard for the local partners' capabilities. The head of the Vietnamese delegation said that nuclear cooperation nowadays did not satisfy the desires and requirements of both sides. According to the participants' assessments, the elaboration and approval of a long-term strategy for the development of nuclear industry by the Vietnamese government will help improve the situation in this sphere. The Rosatom delegation will be in Vietnam till May 20. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 27 BBC: Town awaits nuclear Last Updated: Tuesday, 17 May, 2005 [Reactor at Harwell, Oxfordshire] The Harwell reactor site is being turned into a business park People living near a former nuclear reactor in Oxfordshire are waiting to see whether their town is shortlisted for the disposal of radioactive waste. A list of potential sites is being drawn up by Nirex, a radioactive waste consultancy advising the government. Some nuclear waste is currently being stored at the decomissioned reactor at Harwell, near Didcot, the headquarters of the UK Atomic Energy Authority. The reactor closed in 2002 and the site is to become a business park. Last week, residents were invited to have their say on the disposal of waste at an open meeting in Wallingford held by government advisors from the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM). Nirex is working with CoRWM before the committee delivers its recommendations for the long-term disposal of UK nuclear waste to the Department of the Environment in June 2006. Chris Murray, managing director of Nirex, which is based in Harwell, told BBC Oxford: "What this debate is about is whether a repository would be created at Harwell or any other place." ***************************************************************** 28 SignOnSanDiego.com: Energy secretary sees new nuclear power plant by 2014 The Union-Tribune By John Heilprin ASSOCIATED PRESS 4:42 p.m. May 17, 2005 WASHINGTON  Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Tuesday the first new nuclear power plant in more than two decades could be completed by 2014 under administration proposals to reduce construction risks and speed licensing. Bodman said the Energy Department will ask Congress to establish a $3 billion insurance pool to help investors cover interest, operating, maintenance and newly acquired construction costs stemming from regulatory delays. Premiums would be waived for utilities that place firm orders before 2009 for new power plants. Each new reactor would be insured for up to $500 million. Bodman said the administration also plans to ask Congress to make it harder to stop a new reactor from operating once it is built. He said fewer appeals to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would give "more certainty in the licensing process." "If all goes well, we could see new plants online by 2014," he told the Nuclear Energy Institute, a trade group. The insurance would apply to the first two plants built from a new Westinghouse design, and the first two built from a new General Electric design. Companies would be asked to pay an insurance premium of about 10 percent of their total coverage, possibly over a period of years, Bodman said. The insurance would cover half the costs of interest, operations and maintenance, and "newly acquired construction costs accumulated during the second, third and fourth years of a serious regulatory delay," Bodman said. "I believe that this is the appropriate level of assistance that the government should provide to encourage new plants," said Bodman, while dismissing the need for other incentives. "Looking for upfront incentives now sends the message that nuclear power cannot stand on its own without special government assistance. I don't think this is the right message to send to the American people, and I don't think it's true," he said. President Bush said last month that more than 35 nuclear power plants in the United States have been stopped "because of bureaucratic obstacles." The last application for a new reactor was submitted in 1973. Nuclear power provides about 20 percent of U.S. electricity production. Bodman said he has no specific criteria for raising the bar for an appeal to the NRC, other than requiring "clear evidence that there is a failure to comply with that which was undertaken when the construction began." "That's really what the standard, in my judgment, should be," he said. For more than a decade, NRC spokesman Eliot Brenner said, the NRC has offered a simpler application process for the building and operating phases. He said it already had set "a very high threshold to get to a second public hearing" after a new plant is built. © Copyright 2005 Union-Tribune Publishing Co. ***************************************************************** 29 NRC: Appointments to Performance Review Boards for Senior Executive FR Doc E5-2461 [Federal Register: May 17, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 94)] [Notices] [Page 28324] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17my05-104] Service AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Appointment to Performance Review Boards for Senior Executive Service. SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has announced the following appointments to the NRC Performance Review Boards. The following individuals are appointed as members of the NRC Performance Review Board (PRB) responsible for making recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities on performance appraisal ratings and performance awards for Senior Executives and Senior Level employees: Samuel J. Collins, Regional Administrator, Region I. Karen D. Cyr, General Counsel. James E. Dyer, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Jesse L. Funches, Chief Financial Officer. William F. Kane, Deputy Executive Director for Reactor & Preparedness Programs, Office of the Executive Director for Operations. Bruce S. Mallett, Regional Administrator, Region IV. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. Jacqueline E. Silber, Deputy Executive Director for Information Services and Administration and Chief Information Officer. Jack R. Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. Michael F. Weber, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. James T. Wiggins, Deputy Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. The following individuals will serve as members of the NRC PRB Panel that was established to review appraisals and make recommendations to the appointing and awarding authorities for NRC PRB members: Stephen G. Burns, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel. Carl J. Paperiello, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, State and Compliance Programs. All appointments are made pursuant to Section 4314 of Chapter 43 of Title 5 of the United States Code. EFFECTIVE DATE: May 17, 2005. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Secretary, Executive Resources Board, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (301) 415- 7530. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of May, 2005. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Carolyn J. Swanson, Secretary, Executive Resources Board. [FR Doc. E5-2461 Filed 5-16-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 30 PRN: Nuclear Energy Industry Leaders Challenged to Meet Nation's Need for New Power Plants [PR Newswire - A United Business Media Company] TITLE="http://www.nei.org"> WASHINGTON, May 17 /PRNewswire/ -- Witnessing a convergence of events unparalleled in a generation, the nation's nuclear energy industry leaders were challenged today to take destiny into their hands and build new nuclear power plants that will strengthen the nation's energy security through the 21st century. A confluence of world events, market conditions and public support unseen since the early 1970s has positioned the nuclear industry to meet the nation's need for clean, reliable and affordable electricity. While orders for new plants are not expected until later this decade, the industry must continue to take the necessary steps to address the regulatory and financial challenges that lie on the path to new plant construction, two industry executives said. "Today, nuclear energy -- through its proven performance -- has captured the attention of leading policymakers, the investment community and even some of the world's top environmentalists," said the Nuclear Energy Institute's vice chairman, Robert McGehee, chairman and chief executive officer of Progress Energy Inc. "We've arrived at this position because the nuclear energy industry has been building forward momentum over the past several years thanks to superb plant performance, enlightened regulatory changes and hard, steady work by the industry and the federal government to ensure the future of this vital technology," he said. McGehee addressed more than 400 executives gathered at the Nuclear Energy Assembly, the industry's annual conference. The industry is in a very strong competitive position, and it is time to make the most of the opportunities ahead, he said. McGehee identified these challenges that must be met: * Incorporate the safety-focused concepts that have proven effective in nuclear plant oversight into formal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations. This oversight framework allows the industry and NRC to devote resources to those aspects of plant operations that are most safety-significant. * Achieve a greater measure of NRC regulatory certainty concerning the industry's improved security programs implemented over the past three- and-a-half years. Stability in the security regulations will allow the industry to fully integrate security procedures into safe operations and improve coordination between federal and state resources. * Ensure that Congress increases funding for the YuccaMountainproject to expedite the licensing and opening of the used nuclear fuel repository in Nevada. The program faces chronic funding shortages despite the fact that electricity consumers contribute $750 million a year to the Nuclear Waste Fund that contains a surplus of nearly $15 billion. Concurrently, encourage the timely development of the Environmental Protection Agency's radiation protection standard and the Department of Energy's license application to the NRC. McGehee also discussed the twin challenges of an efficient licensing process and Wall Street support for financing new nuclear plants. He said that though untested, the industry's deliberative process for planning new plants through the submittal of early site permits and the combined construction and licensing process will prove successful. NEI's president and chief executive officer, Skip Bowman, echoed that theme. He emphasized that the key to laying the groundwork for new plants is to preserve the value of the existing fleet. To accomplish that, the industry must better balance short-term priorities and longer-term objectives. "Each day, urgent tactical issues call out for attention that could easily consume every waking hour and more, but we must address the strategic issues that left unmanaged will frustrate all the good work we do in the short-term, and we cannot compromise either," Bowman said. Bowman summarized prevailing market conditions, including the expected 50 percent increase in the demand for electricity by 2025, unsustainable demands on imported natural gas, the overall aging of America's generating capacity and the need to develop new and efficient baseload capacity of which coal and nuclear provide 70 percent. "The nation will need hundreds of new power plants of all types to meet new demand and to replace older, less efficient power plants. For purposes of planning a large power project, we must act today," he said. Bowman emphasized that to achieve this goal, the industry will work with Congress, federal and state governments, regulators, grass-roots organizations and the public to build support for new plants. The latest public opinion survey conducted for NEI -- with 1,000 nationally representative U.S. adults contacted May 5-8 -- showed that a record-high 70 percent of Americans favor "the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States." The survey also found 69 percent acceptability "to add a new nuclear power plant next to the nearest nuclear power plants that are already operating" and 77 percent agreement "that electric utilities should prepare now so that new nuclear power plants could be built if needed in the next decade." The survey, conducted by Bisconti Research Inc. with NOP World, has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points. To promote a diversity of energy sources, especially emission-free sources like nuclear energy, clean coal and renewable energy, enactment of comprehensive energy legislation is urgently needed, Bowman said. "We need to encourage energy conservation, but we can't meet future energy demands with even the most optimistic conservation measures and with all the wind, solar, geothermal and hydro power this country can support," Bowman said. "It's going to take an investment in new nuclear to meet these demands while protecting our environment." Energy security and national security are inextricably linked, and the nuclear industry has a vital role to play in enhancing America's energy security by reducing our reliance on unstable nations for energy supply, Bowman said. "Now that we're united behind a common agenda, our industry has the potential to ensure our prospects for decades to come. This is our time to play a leading role in securing our country's energy future," he said. The Nuclear Energy Institute is the nuclear energy industry's policy organization. This news release and additional information about nuclear energy are available on NEI's Internet site at http://www.nei.org. SOURCE Nuclear Energy Institute Web Site: http://www.nei.org Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 31 Haaretz: Nuclear ambiguity Wed., May 18, 2005 Iyar 9, 5765| |Israel Time: By Avner Cohen Considering the fact that Israel is the country that invented and bequeathed to the world the concept of nuclear ambiguity, there is more than a smidgen of irony that the Israeli discourse about the Iranian nuclear program is predicated on the assumption that Iran's long-term strategic and technological ambitions are fixed, clear and well-defined. For some time, Israeli political commentators have been repeatedly quoting "official assessments" that repeat the claim that Iran's nuclear program is only few months away from the "point of no return." According to this discourse, Iran has but one well-defined, strategic goal that is agreed upon by all Iranian decision-makers: to get "the bomb" and then build an arsenal that within a few years would turn it into a nuclear power like, say, India and Pakistan. According to this view, there is a particular technological point on the curve of Iranian nuclear development, a "point of no return," after which the Iranian bomb should be considered a fait accompli. That point is commonly identified as the moment when the Iranian uranium enrichment program produces a significant amount of highly enriched uranium, enough for one or more bombs. According to a common Israeli assessment, that point of no return is not more than a year away. And at that point, it will be possible to say that international efforts have failed to prevent the Iranian development of a bomb. As part of that deterministic thinking, Iran is perceived as having one and only one national will. Its nuclear and space programs are described as following a supreme coordinated doctrine subject to a multi-year technological-strategic timetable. According to that scenario, after Iran secretly crosses the point of no return and produces significant amounts of enriched uranium, it will find an excuse that frees it from its commitments to the Europeans. Iran may continue arguing that the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty grants it the right of access to all the elements required for a complete nuclear fuel cycle, including enriched uranium. If at that stage it is decided to discuss it in the UN Security Council, Iran will follow in the footsteps of North Korea and unilaterally abandon the NPT, according to Article 10 in the treaty. Under those circumstances, the Middle East will have gone nuclear, and Israel will have to respond appropriately. Such a scenario is not impossible. However, a deterministic outlook and discourse based on a technological point of no return is grossly misleading. It is derived from a distorted idea of the dynamics of a national nuclear development program - a process that at the start is unclear, indecisive and highly hedgy. Although there is no doubt among most experts that Iran's goal is to build a nuclear capability with military significance, at this point nobody can predict if, how and to what extent Iran will be able to fulfill its nuclear aspirations. Will Iran be able to manufacture fissionable material? Will Iran decide to break its commitment to the Europeans? To what extent Iran is bluffing on its threat to resume enrichment? Under what political conditions might Iran declare it is no longer obligated to the NPT and would even undertake a nuclear test? Nobody has clear answers to these questions, including probably even the heads of the Iranian nuclear program. The answers depend, on the one hand, on the international community's determination in its struggle against a nuclear Iran, and on the other hand on the results of an internal debate within Iran itself about just how worthwhile it would be to develop a nuclear weapon, in light of the possibility of sanctions, or even a military strike against it. There is a vigorous debate under way in Iran about the concrete goals of the nuclear development. Some aspire to Iran going North Korea's way, abandoning the NPT, conducting nuclear tests and developing an open nuclear arsenal. Others are interested in Iran following Israel's nuclear ambiguity, and some support a nuclear option and an option to enrich uranium, but not necessarily actually going ahead with the enrichment. There are fundamental strategic differences between these three alternatives. Just as the measure of the determination of the international forces opposed to the nuclearization of Iran has still not faced its final test, neither has the determination of Iran to achieve nuclear capability. Ultimately, the decision is political, not technological, and the struggle over a nuclear Iran will be determined through an ongoing war of attrition, and not by a decisive war. As of now, the talks with the European troika - Britain, France, Germany - are once again in a crisis, but it will take a long time, perhaps years, until we know how this struggle ends. Even if at the end of the struggle Iran does have a certain level of capability of enrichment, it is far from clear if and how it will turn the ability to manufacture fissionable material into a nuclear capability in the military sense of the term. The bottom line is that only a strong proliferation prevention regime can guarantee that Iran does not actualize the possibility of developing a nuclear bomb. The problem is that more than ever before, the proliferation prevention regime is weak, divided and leaderless. The writer is author of "Israel and the Bomb." His new book, "Israel's Last Taboo," will be published next month. © Copyright Haaretz. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 32 Pacific Daily News: Radiation survivors testify guampdn - www.guampdn.com Wednesday, May 18, 2005 By Katie Worth Pacific Daily News TESTIMONY + To submit written testimony, contact legislative Speaker Mark Forbes' office at 472-3518/9. + For information on the issue, contact Pacific Association for Radiation Survivors president Robert Celestial at 633-4595, 688-7277, or email: . While the U.S. military was irradiating the Marshall Islands with nuclear tests in the 1950s, Rose Cruz Jessop and Margarita Cruz were growing up on Guam, eating fish caught by their uncles and vegetables farmed by their grandfather, drinking rain water and fresh cow's milk from their back yard. Fifty years later, Jessop is suffering from brain cancer that doctors do not believe she will recover from. Cruz's vocal chords are paralyzed after a recent bout with thyroid cancer. They have watched their parents, aunts, uncles and siblings die from similarly horrible ailments. Like many others on Guam, Cruz and Jessop blame the nuclear tests for their family's health problems, and were among those at a public hearing last night imploring Guam's lawmakers to do something about it. The Guam Legislature is considering a resolution that would petition the U.S. Congress to amend the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act to include Guam. The 1990 act currently provides compensation to residents in the continental southwest who were impacted by Nevada's nuclear tests in the same era, as well as others who worked in the industry. Though the Marshall Islands tests occurred some 1,500 miles from Guam, a recent study by the federal National Research Council concluded that the island did receive "measurable fallout" from those tests, and "should be eligible for compensation under the RECA in a way similar to that of other downwinders." Last night's testimony varied from emotional accounts of health battles to the sober opinions of doctors and indigenous rights advocates. Jessop began to sob as she testified to senators that her brain cancer will likely be fatal. When she was growing up, she said, she and her family lived off the riches of the oceans and the earth, innocent of the fact that the winds may be carrying radiation that would later poison them. When first diagnosed in 1997, Jessop said, she was forced to leave her teenaged children to take care of themselves and their dying grandmother while she went to get her own treatment. "It's been a long, hard road for all of us," she told senators. "I pray that you will help your people to be compensated for their suffering, especially to those families who have already lost someone dear and close to them." Originally published May 18, 2005 Copyright ©2005 guampdn. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 33 Hawk Eye: IAAP workers' hopes tested again Tuesday, May 17, 2005 Site updated daily at 11 a.m. CST By KILEY MILLER Tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick, tick. Ding. The deadline is today for an expert panel backing compensation for former Iowa Army Ammunition Plant workers with cancer to send its opinion up the chain of command. "The timeline is in place and I would assume it's working," James Melius of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health said Monday. Advisory board members last month voted unanimously to recommend automatic $150,000 payments to anyone diagnosed with one of 22 designated cancers who worked in the plant's Cold War nuclear weapons program. The board guides the Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health on the scientific conundrums of a government compensation program for sick energy workers. Tucked into the motion passed April 26 in Cedar Rapids was a self–imposed time limit giving the board just three weeks to forward its recommendation to Secretary Mike Leavitt, the nation's top health and human services official. The clock expires today. But as of Monday afternoon, neither Leavitt nor NIOSH's Office of Compensation Analysis and Support had seen the board recommendation. "I was told last week by somebody within NIOSH the issue was (board chairman) Paul Ziemer was out of town," said Melius, a scientist and physician from New York. "Otherwise, they had hoped to have it done earlier." Ziemer, a professor emeritus of health sciences at Purdue University, could not be reached Monday for comment. But Laurence Fuortes, a University of Iowa physician directing a medical screening program for the ammunition plant workers, was ecstatic at hearing Melius' comments. "That's great news," Fuortes said. The doctor — and the workers themselves — have learned to temper their optimism with caution. Back in February, the advisory board recommended speedy compensation for energy employees at the 19,000–acre Middletown plant, where the government assembled and tested nuclear weapons components from the 1940s to the 1970s. Specifically, the board members said the plant should be added to the Special Exposure Cohort of the compensation program, a designation paving the way for automatic payments by eliminating time–consuming estimates of how much radiation workers absorbed on the job. The cohort class would include anyone who worked at least 250 days in the nuclear weapons area of the plant from 1949 to 1974. Then came word in March of a new NIOSH document casting doubt on the need for automatic compensation. The advisory board's first recommendation was tossed in the trash bin, frustrating the workers and embarrassing the board members. It was in part to save face after that episode that Melius pushed for the 21–day deadline. The motion required NIOSH to inform the board members and the public of any delays in forwarding the recommendation to Leavitt. So far, so good. "There has not been any alert," Melius said. Once the advisory board's recommendation hits his desk, Leavitt has 30 days to review the matter. From there, the ammunition plant workers' future lies with Congress and the president. Iowa's congressional delegation has thrown its weight around in recent months to get the compensation money flowing. Rep. Jim Leach and Sens. Tom Harkin and Charles Grassley each gave speeches to the board last month supporting the special exposure cohort classification. Maureen Knightly, a staffer in Harkin's office, expressed confidence Monday the recommendation would make it to Washington on time. "We expect and hope the letter will be sent (today)," Knightly said. The Hawk Eye 800 S. Main St., Burlington, Iowa 52601 319-754-8461 · 1-800-397-1708 · FAX 319-754-6824 · ***************************************************************** 34 Las Vegas RJ: Senate urges dumping Yucca Tuesday, May 17, 2005 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Senate unanimously passed a measure Monday that urges federal lawmakers to oppose controversial plans for storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Assembly Joint Resolution 4, approved earlier by the Assembly, asks federal decision-makers to give up on Yucca Mountain because it is "an ill-advised project based on bad science, bad law and bad public policy, a choice that ignores better, less expensive and safer alternatives, a choice which hinders, not helps, national security." Despite delays and spending cuts, Energy Department officials have said recently that the Yucca Mountain plan is alive and well, and that support from the Bush administration remains strong. But opponents have declared the project dead. Recent problems with the government's plans for the dump include criminal investigations to determine whether workers on the project falsified data. Also, a court decision has forced a rewrite of radiation safety standards for the site -- and the DOE has scrapped a planned 2010 completion date. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 35 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Ensign uses wrong tactic Today: May 17, 2005 at 9:15:07 PDT LAS VEGAS SUN Three years ago the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against the state's plan to add four more lanes to U.S. 95 between Rainbow Boulevard and the Spaghetti Bowl. The environmental organization argues that alternatives should be studied because more lanes will lead to more traffic and more pollution, threatening the health of people who live and work near the highway. We have never seen it that way. We strongly believe the widening project will improve the environment, as the extra lanes will allow traffic to move more swiftly, thereby reducing emissions. We have criticized the Sierra Club for filing the suit, which has slowed the project to a crawl -- the same speed at which motorists on this critical stretch of highway must travel every day. The suit was rejected in March 2004 by U.S. District Court Judge Philip Pro. The Sierra Club appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which in July allowed preparatory work to continue but halted actual lane building while it considered the appeal. The court has yet to rule. Meanwhile, growth is not procrastinating. More vehicles are coming onto the highway every day, adding to commuters' already lengthy driving times. They are not alone in being aggravated. Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., is at the boiling point. He has introduced an amendment in Congress that says, essentially: "Damn the federal court order, full speed ahead." If approved, the amendment would give Nevada the right to finish the project. We understand his point of view about the lawsuit, as we share it completely. But we do not agree with his method of dealing with it. The legislative branch should not start interfering with environmental issues that are properly before the judicial branch. This could come back to bite us, and hard. For example, Nevada has received a favorable ruling on Yucca Mountain from a federal court. We wouldn't want Congress passing legislation voiding the decision. Ensign's amendment (to the federal highway spending bill) could set just such a precedent. ***************************************************************** 36 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Now is not time to relax in fight against Yucca I don't think it's smart for the Nevada Legislature to support scaling back on funding for the Yucca Mountain fight. I agree with Senate Minority Leader Dina Titus, D-Las Vegas, that it's the wrong message to send to Nevada's citizens. Now is not the time to relax. The Energy Department is not going to walk away from a $6 billion investment, and I'm afraid Nevadans will feel the fight is over. If you look at how much high-level radioactive waste is repository-bound from the Hanford Nuclear Reservation in Richland, Wash., and the Savannah River Site in Aiken, S.C., there's enough at those two facilities to fill two mountains. And when you add the spent-fuel rods from commercial nuclear reactors, that's enough to fill another mountain, for a total of three needed mountains. When you look at the Energy Department's lists of potential repositories, all of them are in bad shape. They're all cracked, and will become more so from dynamiting and drilling. Believe it or not, in spite of its 39 faultline fractures, Yucca Mountain is the best site on any of the department's lists. It might be that the project will be delayed for 10 years, but mark my word, it will not be abandoned. RON BOURGOIN Rocky Mount, N.C. Editor's note: The writer is a former consultant to the North Carolina community of Rolesville, which opposed a plan to store nuclear waste near where its residents live. ***************************************************************** 37 Las Vegas SUN: Closer scrutiny of documents eyed Today: May 17, 2005 at 10:01:51 PDT By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Nevada wants Nuclear Regulatory Commission judges to take a closer look at the documents the staff submitted to the Yucca Mountain project database last year. The commission staff may not have included references for certain documents in its collection as required under law, leaving Nevada and others interested in the project unaware they even existed. The state filed an "order to show cause" with the Atomic Safety Licensing Board on Monday, asking why the commission staff should not be penalized for leaving the references out. One of the penalties could be the commission losing its "party" status, meaning the staff could not participate in the licensing proceedings. If that happened, the commission's only role would be to grant or deny a license. Nevada has argued before to exclude the commission staff as a party in the anticipated licensing proceedings and to serve only as a regulator, but the request had been denied. At a May 4 hearing before a panel of the Atomic Safety Licensing Board, commission Attorney Tyson Smith said the staff expects up to 1,000 privileged documents, or those protected by attorney-client confidentially or other special rules in the database. Smith told Judge Thomas Moore, the board chairman, that the commission has no privileged documents on the License Support Network, a database of documents related to the Energy Department's proposed nuclear waste storage site at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. Smith said the commission also did not include "headers" or descriptions of the privileged documents in the database. Nevada believes, if Smith is correct, that the staff's action violated the database rules that say at least a basic description of a protected document needs to be in the database. The Energy Department completed its database collection last June, and the commission staff completed its collection 30 days later, as required by law. Nevada challenged the collection and the board ultimately told the department it would need to finalize its document collection again because the first try was not good enough. Nevada is not clear if the board's decision also voided the commission's collection too. It will be up to the board to decide whether or not to grant Nevada's request. Nevada is fighting for access to as many documents at it can get to create a complete record it would need to use during hearings on the license application, if the department files one. Nevada's and the department's attorneys are set to appear before the three-judge panel again on Wednesday to discuss the rules on what documents can be protected. ***************************************************************** 38 Rutland Herald: Dry cask vendor revises design May 17, 2005 By Susan SmallheerHerald Staff The vendor for the concrete and steel storage containers Entergy Nuclear wants to use in its proposed high-level nuclear waste facility submitted a new design to federal regulators Monday for a below-ground system it says is more secure and emits less radiation. Joy Russell, a spokeswoman for Hol-Tec International, said the company's third design, submitted earlier this year to the NRC, had been withdrawn for more safety revisions. Russell said the new underground design is an improvement over its original 1999-2000 design, which Entergy Nuclear plans on using at Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant. "It's more safe and efficient," she said. But Russell said the company's formal amendment to its original design would take about a year for federal regulators to review and approve. "From Vermont Yankee's perspective, their safe bet is to go with the licensed system if timing is an issue," Russell said. Russell said the underground design is safer because it sticks up only 2 feet out of the ground, instead of 18 feet for its original design, which Entergy plans to use. Meanwhile, Hol-Tec's second-generation design will be the subject of a meeting at NRC headquarters outside Washington today over safety issues raised by the New England Coalition, a Brattleboro-based anti-nuclear group. The coalition's senior technical advisor, Raymond Shadis, submitted questions about Hol-Tec's second design earlier this month and raised questions serious enough that they made federal regulators abruptly reverse course. The NRC cancelled its expected approval of the second Hol-Tec design and scheduled a more detailed review, starting with today's meeting. "Our concerns primarily are that the assumptions fed into Hol-Tec's cask calculations were not justified and it does not appear that the NRC staff challenged them on their assumptions," Shadis said. "Additionally, it appears some of the safety margins were extremely narrow, down to a fraction of a percent. It appears that on every parameter there is a negative trend — less safety, less temperature margins, more punishment of the materials in the cask, more radiation," he said. Hol-Tec did not submit and nor did the NRC ask for a cost-benefit analysis to go with this, he said. "Vermonters are very concerned about the durability of the casks and that they can resist flooding and acts of terror," Shadis said. "Either Entergy's offering an unimproved cask or an unapproved cask," Shadis said. He said Hol-Tec is a relative newcomer to the dry cask storage field. Maine Yankee, Yankee Rowe and Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plants, which are shut down, have their fuel in dry storage casks made by Nuclear Assurance Corp. Russell downplayed Shadis' concerns, but declined any specific comments about Tuesday's meeting. Russell said the NRC's lack of approval for the second design meant two of Hol-Tec's nuclear power plant customers were in disposal limbo and unable to move old nuclear fuel into the casks as scheduled. She refused to identify the clients. Entergy Nuclear spokesman Robert Williams said the company planned on using Hol-Tec's original design. "This doesn't affect us. They have a licensed cask design that's available to us," he said. Entergy Nuclear wants to build a high-level nuclear waste facility on the grounds of the Vernon reactor because it is running out of space in its deep-water storage pool. It also has plans to accelerate the production of fuel, which would mean more high-level waste. However, according to a quirk in state law, Entergy Nuclear must get the approval of the Vermont Legislature. So far, the issue is still in the House Natural Resources and Energy Committee. At issue is whether the state taxes the special facility: Entergy has claimed it can't pay any more in taxes and has threatened to shut the plant down. Entergy Nuclear also has to get approval from the Public Service Board, but it cannot apply to state regulators until after the Legislature acts. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. © 2005 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 39 IEER Report: Transmutation - Nuclear Alchemy Gamble IEER | NAG Table of Contents Nuclear Alchemy Gamble: An Assessment of Transmutation as a Nuclear Waste Management Strategy By: Hisham Zerriffi and Annie Makhijani Prepared for the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research May 2000 Executive Summary Table of Contents| Full Report[PDF, 3.7 MB] | Findings | Recommendations | Acknowledgements | References | Endnotes "Research on partitioning and transmutation is rather seductive to all of us. It requires new reprocessing techniques, new fuel developments, additional nuclear data, new reactors and irradiation facilities, new waste treatment and disposal concepts, and specific safety studies. The global nuclear scientific and engineering community is challenged by this opportunity." Everybody realizes however that this voyage to the promised land will pass a desert with a lot of mountains and that we are not so sure that the horizon will be as bright as one can hope." ---Paul Govaerts, SCK-CEN (Belgian Nuclear Research Center). "Welcome Address" to the Fifth International Information and Exchange Meeting on Actinide and Fission Product Partitioning and Transmutation, Mol, Belgium, 25-27 November 1998. "The [transmutation] programme is expected to serve to revitalise the nuclear R&D in general, and also to attract capable young researchers dedicated to bringing the nuclear option into the 21st century in a healthy state." ---"OMEGA Programme: Partitioning and Transmutation R&D Programme of Japan," in Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development/Nuclear Energy Agency, Actinide and Fission Product Partitioning and Transmutation: Status and Assessment Report, Paris: OECD/NEA, 1999, page 253. Summary One of the biggest obstacles facing the nuclear industry is what to do with the nuclear waste generated in the form of spent fuel discharged from commercial reactors or in the form of high-level waste originating from the extraction of plutonium from spent fuel.1 Most countries' preferred option for the isolation of nuclear waste from the public and the environment is to bury it underground in a deep geological repository. However, because the spent fuel and the high-level waste contain a number of radionuclides that have very long half-lives (thousands of years to millions of years) it is generally acknowledged that it is impossible to ensure the isolation of the waste for such long periods of time. Besides the likelihood of leakage of some long-lived radionuclides, it is also impossible to guarantee against human intrusion (intentional or inadvertent). The extremely difficult questions regarding ensuring isolation of waste to a degree sufficient to prevent severe contamination of resources, notably water resources, has made the siting of repositories a controversial scientific and policy issue and has been at the center of much of the public concern and opposition to repositories. Further, the political expediency that has frequently accompanied the selection of sites for study has intensified this opposition. While programs for siting repositories for spent fuel and high level waste are in various stages in different parts of the world, these still face immense scientific hurdles and intense public opposition. In the United States, which has a 2010 target date for opening a repository, there are still no final environmental standards for the protection of the health of future generations and of the environment from the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain. 2 The difficulties and questions associated with repository siting, notably the extremely long periods of isolation required, have caused some to view the transmutation of long-lived radionuclides into short-lived ones as a potential solution to the problem of radioactive waste management. Transmutation is done by inducing nuclear reactions of various types in the nuclei of long-lived radionuclides. The theory is that a transmutation program would transform the vexing problem of long-term isolation into a far less difficult one of storage for several decades or a few hundred years. This theoretical promise has led proponents of transmutation to claim that it would greatly decrease the problems associated with long-term management of nuclear waste. Occasionally, they have even claimed that it might eliminate the need for a repository, though such claims have tended to recede as investigations into the practicalities of transmutation have progressed. At the same time, environmental, waste management, cost, and proliferation concerns have risen. In addition to its promise of a solution to the nuclear waste problem, some transmutation proponents have touted it as the only complete solution to the proliferation problems posed by plutonium. They argue that as long as plutonium remains, either in stockpiles of separated plutonium or in spent fuel that can be reprocessed to obtain separated plutonium, the proliferation risks will remain. Their solution is to use the plutonium as fuel in reactors even if this requires the separation of the plutonium and therefore an increase in proliferation risks over the short term. Transmutation basics Transmutation is the transformation of a radionuclide into another radionuclide, or into two or more radionuclides. Nuclear waste transmutation involves nuclear reactions that would occur in some form of nuclear reactor (thus producing electricity at the same time as transmuting the radionuclides).3 A variety of reactor schemes have been proposed, but they all possess a common characteristic: a substantial amount of energy must be delivered to the nucleus of a long-lived radionuclide in order to induce a nuclear reaction that would convert it into a short-lived radionuclide or a stable element. Figure 1 The figure above shows the main components of an idealized transmutation system. A reprocessing plant is needed to sort out the candidate radionuclides slated for transmutation by separating certain long-lived radionuclides from the others. (In the context of transmutation, reprocessing is also called "separation" or "partitioning.") This allows the selective conversion of long-lived radionuclides into short-lived ones when they are irradiated in a reactor. Without reprocessing, the opposite kind of nuclear reactions would cause a counterproductive conversion of some short-lived radionuclides into long-lived ones. The fabrication facility then manufactures the long-lived radionuclides into fuel and/or targets that are then sent to the transmutation facility, where the conversion of the nucleus actually takes place. The central component of a transmutation facility is a nuclear reactor. It may be a critical reactor, which is a self contained transmutation device, or a sub-critical reactor, which needs an outside source of neutrons to sustain a chain reaction.4 The neutron induced reactions in the reactor transmute the long-lived fission products into short-lived ones; they also fission the actinides, such as plutonium, creating new fission products. Most of these fission products are short-lived, but new long-lived fission products are also created (see below). The actinides, like uranium and plutonium, can also absorb neutrons, resulting in the creation of higher-mass actinides (see below). So plutonium and other transuranic radionuclides are actually being created in some portions of the fuel in transmutation devices, while in others they are being destroyed. Further, not all actinides can be transmuted before the nuclear reactor becomes very inefficient. Hence, a number of passes through the reprocessing, fuel fabrication, and reactor facilities are needed in order to transmute most long-lived radionuclides. Transmutation of all long-lived radionuclides into short lived ones to a degree sufficient to obviate the need for a geologic repository is practically impossible. In particular, the transmutation of separated uranium, which constitutes about 94 percent of the weight of light water reactor spent fuel and which is very long-lived and generally contaminated with some fission products, would be counterproductive. The main transmutation route for almost all the uranium would be to convert uranium-238 (the dominant isotope) into plutonium-239. Hence, the complete transmutation of uranium-238 essentially requires the creation of a plutonium economy, which would be unsound whether viewed from an economic, environmental, or non-proliferation standpoint. Almost all the uranium must therefore be disposed of without transmutation as a matter of practical necessity. Other long-lived fission products as well as residual transuranic actinides would also need disposal. Hence, a repository, as well as other waste management and storage facilities would still be an essential part of transmutation schemes. The merits of transmutation schemes and the difficulties associated with them become clearer if we understand some basics about the physics of transmutation. The physics of transmutation Two transmutation reactions are important for nuclear waste management: neutron capture and fission.5 The goal is that long-lived radionuclides be transformed into short-lived radionuclides that then decay into stable isotopes. To provide concrete examples, this section will discuss neutron capture by two long-lived fission products: iodine-129 and cesium-135. In addition we illustrate two reactions involving plutonium-239 transmutation.6 The absorption of a neutron by iodine-129 results in the production of short-lived I-130 and then in the stable isotope xenon-130.7 Cesium-135 captures a neutron to become short-lived Cs-136, which decays into stable barium-136.8 Hence, in these two cases, nuclear theory indicates that transmutation of these troublesome long-lived radionuclides into non-radioactive, stable ones is possible. However, as a practical matter only I-129 can actually be considered a candidate for transmutation. In the case of cesium-135, transmutation would first require the separation of this specific isotope from cesium-133, which is stable. This is because successive capture of neutrons by cesium-133 converts it first into Cs-134 (short-lived) and then into Cs-135, which is long-lived.9 The cesium in spent fuel is a mixture of both Cs-133 and Cs-135 isotopes which cannot feasibly be separated, in part because the presence of the very radioactive Cs-137 isotope makes the handling and processing of the cesium extremely difficult, expensive, and dangerous. Thus, it is easy to see that the benefit of transmuting Cs-135 would be negated by the production of more Cs-135 from the neutron capture of Cs-133. Some neutrons interactions with plutonium-239 result in fission while others result in the formation of plutonium-240 with a half-life of 6,500 years, which while shorter than the 24,000-year half-life of Pu-239, is evidently still very long. Successive neutron captures result in higher plutonium isotopes.10 This illustrates that transmutation nuclear reactions would need to be closely controlled so that there is an overall change from long-lived to short-lived radionuclides without a build up of new long-lived radionuclides. Note also that neutron capture by plutonium-239 and -240 would not solve the problem of eliminating long-lived radionuclides even if all the plutonium were converted to short-lived plutonium-241. This is because plutonium-241 has an entire decay chain associated with it. It decays into americium-241, which has a half-life of 430 years. Amercium-241 in turn decays into neptunium-237, which has a half-life of over 2 million years. It is evident that neutron capture and the creation of heavier plutonium isotopes creates new problems in place of old ones. By contrast, when plutonium-239 fissions, most fission products are short-lived, while some are long-lived. Hence, significant reduction of the mass of long-lived actinides, such as plutonium, generally necessitates fission of the nuclei. Fission transmutation reactions produce mostly short-lived fission products that decay into stable elements. The example below shows the production of two short-lived fission products, tellurium and molybdenum. They both undergo a series of beta decays. The decay chain of molybdenum-102 consists of short-lived radionuclides until it reaches stable (non-radioactive) ruthenium-102. Tellurium decays into long-lived cesium-135. Pu-239 + n ® Pu-240 ® Te-135 (19 seconds) + Mo-102 (11 minutes) + 3 n ¯¯ I-135 (6.6 hours) + e Tc-102m (4.4 minutes) + e ¯ ¯ Xe-135 m (15 minutes) + e Tc-102 (5.3 seconds) ¯ ¯ Xe-135 (9.1 hours) Ru-102 (stable) + e ¯ Cs-135m (53 minutes) + e ¯ Cs-135 (2.3x106 years) Proposed transmutation schemes Various schemes have been proposed for transmutation. Three types of reactors (light water reactors, fast reactors, and sub-critical reactors) and two types of reprocessing have been proposed. Table 1 shows the type or types of reprocessing associated with each type of reactor and the radionuclides that would be candidates for transmutation. Most transmutation schemes would use a combination of reactors and associated reprocessing technologies. For example, in one scheme, light water reactors would be fueled with mixed oxide (MOX) fuel - that is, fuel made with plutonium extracted from conventional reactor spent fuel which is mixed with depleted uranium, with both materials being in an oxide chemical form. The MOX spent fuel then would be reprocessed and the transuranic actinides would be extracted to fuel a fast neutron reactor (also commonly called a breeder reactor). The fast reactor fuel would, in turn, be reprocessed and the remaining actinides would fuel a sub-critical accelerator driven reactor. Table 1: Transmutation schemes Reactors and neutron sources Type of reprocessing and candidate radionuclides for transmutation Comments Light water reactors (LWRs) (the most common type of commercial nuclear reactor) The reactor is critical and fueled with either low-enriched uranium or mixed oxide uranium-plutonium fuel. Reprocessing: aqueous Radionuclides: Primarily plutonium, Tc-99, I-129. + Creates high proportion of higher mass actinides with associated severe radiation hazards + Reprocessing creates large amounts of liquid radioactive waste + Issues of reactor safety + Cannot fission most actinides + Heavy transuranic build-up, creating waste management problems Fast reactors: The reactor is critical and can be fueled with plutonium, uranium or, potentially, fuel containing some minor actinides. Reprocessing: mostly dry in advanced schemes. Radionuclides: Plutonium and possibly minor actinides. Tc-99 and I-129 may be possible but only in moderated targets outside the reactor core. + The development of fast reactors has been crippled by persistent problems + Fission products are not efficiently transmuted + Heavy transuranic build-up though to a lesser extent than with LWRs + Issues of reactor safety Sub-critical reactors: an accelerator-target system provides fast neutrons to a sub-critical reactor Reprocessing: the reprocessing can be all aqueous or all dry or a combination of the two Radionuclides: plutonium and minor actinides. Tc-99 and I-129 may be possible but only in moderated targets outside the reactor core. + Sub-critical reactors are only at the R&D stage + Cost is projected to be high. + Reactor safety still an issue + Fission products are not efficiently transmuted None of these schemes can transmute uranium, cesium-135, carbon-14, and some other radionuclides. Table 2 (below) shows the various radionuclides of concern from the point of view of long-term management and their status with respect to various transmutation schemes. Table 2: Main Long-lived Radionuclides of Concern Radionuclide (half-life in years, to two significant digits) Type Impact Transmutation Potential Transmutation Problems Tin-126 (100,000) Long-Lived Fission Product Groundwater release Difficult Difficult to separate from spent fuel/HLW. Long time to transmute. Lower isotopes result in new production of radionuclide Selenium-79 (60,000) Same Same None Same Cesium-135 (2.3 million) Same Same None Formation of more Cs-135 from Cs-133. Isotopic separation difficult due to presence of Cs-137 Zirconium-93 (1.5 million) Activation Product Groundwater release None Presence of stable Zr isotopes would produce more Zr-93. Would require expensive isotopic separation. Carbon-14 (5,700) Activation Product Groundwater release and/or air release as CO2; incorporation into living matter None Small neutron capture cross-section. Often released as gas from reprocessing operations Chlorine-36 (300,000) Activation Product Groundwater None Presence of natural Cl-35 would generate more Cl-36 Technetium-99 (210,000) Long-Lived Fission Product Groundwater Release. Affects thyroid Yes. Requires slow neutrons Would require several transmutation cycles Iodine-129 (16 million) Long-Lived Fission Product Same Yes. Requires slow neutrons Same. Also, difficulty in capturing during separation. Difficulty in fabricating targets. Could pose corrosion problems Uranium (mainly U-238, 4.5 billion) Actinide source material Forms bulk of spent fuel (~94 percent by weight). Has higher radioactivity than TRU waste slated for geologic disposal None. Would be separated and disposed of as LLW or used like depleted uranium U-238 transmutation would result in the generation of more Pu-239 defeating the purpose of transmutation as a waste management strategy. Would essentially create a breeder reactor economy. Americium-241 (430) Actinide Gamma-emitter. Human intrusion. Groundwater release (parent of U-233). Radiotoxicity Preferably in fast reactors Would require multiple separation and irradiation cycles. Would result in creation of curium which would make subsequent cycles more difficult Neptunium-237 (2.1 million) Actinide Groundwater release Preferably in fast reactor Formation of more radioactive shorter-lived Pu-238 Curium-244 (18) Actinide Highly radioactive alpha and gamma emitter. Contributes to heat of spent fuel. Difficult. Requires fast reactor Difficult to separate from other actinides in HLW due to handling and chemistry problems. Would require multi-recycling along with other actinides. Could require storage of decades or even a century. More Cm-244 and other Cm isotopes created in irradiation of lower actinides (Pu and Am). Plutonium (mainly Pu-239, 24,000) Actinide Pu-239 Fissile. Radiotoxicity. Goes to bones Fast reactor required for non-fissile isotopes. Neutron capture forms higher isotopes and higher actinides (e.g. Am and Cm). Strontium-90 (29) Medium-lived Fission Product Contributes to initial heat of waste. Determines repository capacity. Intrusion scenario dose. Behaves like calcium in the body None Cannot be transmuted due to small neutron cross-section. Forms a large part of the heat of spent fuel and high level waste and therefore limits increase in repository capacity from transmutation.. Cesium-137 (30) Same Same except behaves like potassium in the body. Also radiation barrier to proliferation. None Same. Also, separation from fissile materials eliminates radiation shielding for proliferation prevention. Residual Waste Even the most elaborate transmutation schemes will leave behind substantial amounts of long-lived radionuclides requiring disposal, while generating large new volumes of operating and decommissioning wastes. Transmutation does not eliminate the need for a high-level waste repository. First, no transmutation scheme is able to deal with all of the radionuclides of concern since many cannot be transmuted for practical purposes (see example of uranium and Cs-135, above). Second, transmutation of Tc-99 and I-129 is not 100% effective, even with multiple passes through the reactor. Third, new long-lived fission products are created from the fission of the actinides. Fourth, fissioning of the actinides is not 100% effective in eliminating them. For instance, even the most optimistic, best-case estimate concedes that at least 2.4 metric tons of transuranic radionuclides would be left over after the transmutation of 906 metric tons of transuranics anticipated to be produced by US nuclear reactors during their licensed lifetimes.11 Moreover, the composition of the residual transuranic waste would be shifted towards higher isotope actinides, making the residual fraction more radioactive per unit weight. This would result in greater radiological risks, complicate disposal, and limit any gains in repository capacity due to a smaller actinide inventory. Fifth, the disposal in a repository of cesium-137, which is mixed with cesium-135 in spent fuel, would necessitate a large repository. This is because the intense radioactivity of cesium-137 results in the generation of a large amount of heat, which necessitates an increase in spacing of the disposal canister. The large space requirements would negate one of the most important benefits of transmutation - that of reducing repository size for a given nuclear energy generation.12 Only storage of long-lived wastes for a hundred years or more, with its attendant high uncertainties, risks, and costs, would significantly alleviate this repository capacity problem.13 Finally, waste from prior reprocessing operations, whether for commercial or military purposes, is highly unlikely to be transmuted since almost all of it will have been vitrified for safety reasons before a transmutation program can be put into place. This large amount of waste would have to be sent directly to the repository. In other words, there are fundamental and substantial limitations to the reduction in long-lived radioactivity that can be achieved even with an elaborate and very expensive transmutation program. Table 2 shows the main long-lived radionuclides of concern and the feasibility of their transmutation. As can be seen from this table there are a large number of radionuclides, which cannot be transmuted due to complicating factors or because of the nature of the radionuclide. These include the medium-lived fission products, uranium (which forms about 95 percent of spent fuel), and many long-lived radionuclides that arise either from fission or from neutron activation.14 Of the long-lived fission products, only technetium-99 and iodine-129 have the potential to be fabricated into targets and transmuted in a reactor. The plutonium, and in some cases, the other minor actinides, would be made into fuel to run the transmutation reactor. The actinides could either undergo fission or capture a neutron, though for the purposes of transmutation, which is trying to reduce the amount of actinides, fission is preferred. Transmutation would also create significant quantities of additional transuranic and low-level waste, particularly if aqueous reprocessing is used. Furthermore, it has been proposed in the United States to dispose of uranium separated from spent fuel in a transmutation program as "low-level" waste in shallow land burial sites. This, along with the possible shallow-land disposal of other long-lived radionuclides, could result in an even greater overall radiological risk to the public from transmutation, compared to disposal of all spent fuel in an appropriately selected and engineered repository. The same observation is also likely to be true of worker and public health hazards arising from repeated reprocessing of spent fuel, fabrication of increasingly radioactive fuels and operation of new reactor types with which there is little commercial experience. Transmutation, even in the context of a phase-out of nuclear power, would also require decades to implement and possibly centuries to complete.15 This may require institutional control over the waste for time periods much longer than is feasible or desirable. Implications of Transmutation The implementation of any of the transmutation schemes discussed above would also have a number of implications for nuclear proliferation, the environment and human health, safety, cost, and the future of nuclear power. Proliferation. All transmutation schemes require reprocessing and separation of transuranic radionuclides. The current use of commercial reprocessing and MOX fuel, the simplest of schemes to transmute a small fraction of existing plutonium, results in the separation of significant quantities of plutonium, which is undesirable from a proliferation standpoint. The current mismatch between reprocessing capacity and reactor capacity for MOX use has meant that a significant stockpile of commercial separated plutonium has accumulated worldwide (including 30 metric tons in Russia). While some new transmutation schemes would materials that would be unattractive to weapons designers in nuclear weapons states, they are nonetheless weapons-usable and would pose significant proliferation risks. Non-state groups or non-weapons states that do not have weapons-usable materials today might seek to acquire and use them because they may be more available in less secure facilities. Even the reprocessing methods that are labeled as proliferation resistant, such as pyroprocessing, can be modified to allow for the extraction of plutonium pure enough to make weapons. Some reprocessing technologies proposed for transmutation may increase proliferation risks due to their compact size and attendant difficulty of detection. These would lead to new and more difficult problems in developing adequate safeguards in an already complex field. Furthermore, promotion of transmutation as a waste management tool may result in the widespread transfer of reprocessing technology. The separation of isotopes like neptunium-237 and americium-241 (which are two of the radionuclides produced during irradiation of fuel in a reactor) would also increase proliferation risks, since both of these radionuclides can also be used to make nuclear weapons. In sum, transmutation is a scheme that would greatly increase separation of weapons-usable material and/or the diffusion of technologies that would facilitate such separation. It will thereby considerably increase the risks of nuclear proliferation. Environment and Health. Reprocessing, which is required in all transmutation schemes, is one the most damaging components of the fuel cycle. It results in the discharge of large volumes of waste and radioactive emissions to air and water. Health and environmental concerns regarding reprocessing are the basis of the demands of Ireland, Norway, Iceland, and Denmark that Britain and France eliminate their so-called "low-level" radioactive waste discharges from their reprocessing plants into the seas. The increased radiological risk of handling fuel that has been repeatedly irradiated is cause for serious concern. Finally, the increased transportation of high level waste required under a number of transmutation schemes would increase the probability of a transportation accident. Reactor Safety. All transmutation schemes that would transmute significant amounts of plutonium and other transuranic materials require the use of reactors that are currently not commercial. Some schemes would use breeder reactors, which face serious technical issues even after five decades of development, and have not yet been commercialized. Other schemes would use accelerator-driven sub-critical reactors, which have not yet been built. Yet other schemes would use combinations of these two reactor types. Some new reactors, notably accelerator-driven sub-critical reactors, have been described as "inherently safe." However, increases in certain safety features, in comparison with commercial light water reactors, is countered by decreases in other safety features and the creation of new safety problems particular to the new reactor designs. According to Dr. Lawrence Lidsky of MIT's Nuclear Engineering Department, "sub-critical systems can actually be more dangerous than conventional reactors if, as is often the case, there are more subsystems that can fail or initiate failures, and fewer backups. Probabilistic risk analysis is a complex art, requiring a deep understanding of possible accident initiators and accident progression, and the ATW design is far too rudimentary at this time to apply this powerful tool. However, it is clear that the currently envisaged ATW systems are more complex than fission reactors, have more accident initiators, and many fewer backup safety systems." It is thus premature, at best, to label these reactors as inherently safe. And according to one eminent authority, they could be a lot more dangerous. There is therefore ample reason for caution. Cost. The cost of transmutation, particularly for the advanced schemes that would be required in order to have significant reduction of actinides, is prohibitively expensive (even in comparison to the billions to be spent on repository programs). Furthermore, while electricity would be produced to offset these costs, it is highly unlikely that these revenues will be sufficient. Transmutation would likely require tens of billions of dollars to develop, and additional large subsidies during operations, even after accounting for electric power sales. Even current uses of plutonium in reactors, both in light water reactors and in fast reactors, are not economical. The overall cost can be expected to be many tens of billions of dollars of net costs and overall investments up to hundreds of billions of dollars. Continuation of Nuclear Power. Transmutation is not only considered in the context of managing the waste from the current generation of nuclear reactors (i.e. as part of a phase-out of nuclear power). Most transmutation schemes, particularly in Europe and Japan, assume an indefinite continuation of nuclear power, with transmutation as one part of a new nuclear fuel cycle. By supposedly solving some of the current problems with nuclear power (particularly waste management, but also reactor safety in some cases), transmutation is seen by some as essential to ensuring the continued growth of nuclear power. Seen in this light, transmutation of waste is actually a Trojan horse for perpetuating nuclear power and hence the generation of more and more radioactive wastes for the indefinite future. This is surely not the way to solve the problem of managing radioactive waste from the current generation of commercial reactors. Conclusions and Recommendations Our main finding is that transmutation schemes will not solve long-term waste management problems. Well over 90 percent of the weight of spent fuel consists of uranium. According to according to current US proposals, the uranium would be treated as low-level radioactive waste and be disposed of in ways that will likely pose far greater risks than disposal in a carefully selected and engineered deep geologic repository. In addition, considerable quantities of transuranic materials would remain after transmutation, along with long-lived fission products. Large quantities of new waste would be created, along with new proliferation risks and high costs. Despite these severe limitations, transmutation continues to be seen by some as a "seductive" area of research and essential for revitalizing the "nuclear option." In light of these conclusions, IEER's main recommendation is that, because there is no sound technical basis for proceeding, transmutation should be abandoned as a waste management technology. Detailed findings and recommendations are given below. Findings 1. Transmutation will not solve either the problem of long-term radioactive waste disposal nor the proliferation risks posed by current stockpiles of plutonium. While solutions are required for both of these problems, the use of reprocessing and nuclear reactors is not the best option. 2. The transmutation literature does not evaluate overall risk and is unclear about environmental or proliferation consequences relative to the once-through fuel cycle. The lack of comprehensive and consistent criteria by which to judge transmutation has led to a number of erroneous conclusions concerning its benefits. 3. Reprocessing is required for all transmutation schemes. Reprocessing is one of the most environmentally damaging parts of the nuclear fuel cycle, resulting in emissions to the air and water and in large volumes of radioactive waste. The increased separation requirements of transmutation means that even more processing is required as additional process steps are added to remove specific radionuclides. 4. The separation of radionuclides necessary for transmutation will increase proliferation risks by providing easier access to fissile materials. All separation processes, including those labeled "proliferation resistant," result in an increased proliferation risk over the once through fuel cycle. The implementation of transmutation as a waste management technology will result in more widespread application of reprocessing. 5. Transmutation can only be used to reduce the inventory of some of the radionuclides of concern for waste management. Even for those radionuclides, the process is not 100% efficient and significant amounts of long-lived waste will remain. Transmutation will not eliminate the need for a high-level waste repository or other form of isolation from the biosphere. The remaining long-lived radionuclides, including the uranium which accounts for about 94% of the spent fuel mass, as well as the radionuclides produced during the transmutation process will require disposal. Furthermore, transmutation can only be applied to spent nuclear fuel and some high level waste and not to the full range of radioactive wastes (e.g. transuranic wastes or mining wastes) which exist. 6. While the radiological risk from disposing of radioactive waste in a geologic repository may decrease as a result of transmutation, the overall risk to workers and the public may increase from a combination of disposal of separated uranium and other materials, emissions from new reprocessing and irradiation facilities, and processing of fuel that is more radioactive. These risks have not been adequately assessed in proposals for transmutation. 7. Transmutation will increase the mass and volume of radioactive material requiring disposal. In addition to the high level waste and uranium that would still require repository disposal (see Finding 5, above) reprocessing and transmutation operations will result in more transuranic and low level waste requiring disposal. These newly generated wastes will be in addition to the original mass of the spent fuel, resulting in an overall increase in mass of waste to be disposed of.16 Decommissioning wastes will also increase and can be expected to be substantial. 8. Transmutation will be expensive to implement. Life-cycle cost estimates are rarely presented, but current cost estimates which have been done are unrealistically low, particularly for reprocessing and decommissioning. Even with these low cost estimates and sales of electricity to offset those costs, full-scale transmutation will require some form of government funding and subsidy or substantial increase in utility waste disposal fees. In the United States alone, the net costs over the course of 118 years, after electricity sales, could be over $150 billion (as opposed to $36 billion for direct disposal at Yucca Mountain).17 9. Transmutation will rely on nuclear reactors that would pose serious hazards in case of accident. Both sub-critical and critical reactors contain large inventories of radioactive materials, which can be released during an accident. Transmutation, if it is to achieve any significant reduction in the inventory of actinides, will require the construction and operation of a significant number of fast reactors, whether critical or sub-critical, posing significant safety issues. 10. The increased radiological risks of working with reprocessed materials, particularly fuel that is repeatedly reprocessed, will increase risks to nuclear fuel cycle workers and increase the cost of protecting those workers. 11. Transmutation would require a sustained effort over very long periods of time. Assuming an immediate start to research and development activities, transmutation of the expected spent fuel from existing U.S. reactors would take 118 years to transmute (including development time). The Nuclear Energy Agency of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development estimates that transmutation could take decades, and even centuries, depending on various factors. 12. The reliance of some transmutation proposals on above-ground monitored storage for highly radioactive fission products for hundreds of years (e.g. in Carlo Rubbia's proposal for Spanish waste management) is unrealistic and risky. 13. Transmutation will increase the number of shipments of nuclear high level waste and therefore the probability of a transportation accident. Spent fuel or high level waste would have to be shipped from current storage locations to transmutation sites and then to final disposal. In cases where reprocessing facilities would not be co-located with reactors, the waste would have to be repeatedly shipped between reactors and reprocessing facilities. If transmutation does not begin until after a repository is opened and has started to accept waste (as would be the case in the United States), then spent fuel would be shipped from current storage locations to the repository, removed from the repository for shipment to the transmutation site, and then the residual spent fuel and high level waste would be shipped back to the repository. 14. Transmutation of nuclear waste appears to be one component of a nuclear industry effort to increase the use of nuclear power. Significant development of nuclear power reactors would be required to implement transmutation and, at the same time, transmutation would be seen as a "solution" to the nuclear waste problem. The result could be a continuation of nuclear power, even beyond what would be necessary to transmute current reactor fuel, and thus a continual production of new nuclear waste. Hence, instead of reducing nuclear waste, it could result in increasing and continual generation of waste into the far future. Recommendations 1. Regulations governing the disposal of uranium should be strengthened. The uranium extracted during transmutation has a higher enrichment than natural uranium and will be contaminated with fission products and actinides. The uranium will exceed the radioactivity concentration limit placed on plutonium waste in the United States many times over.18 Despite this fact, transmutation proposals call for the uranium to either be used for commercial re-use in conventional nuclear power plants or disposed of as low-level waste. Neither of these options would be protective of public health. Therefore, uranium should be regulated using the same criteria that are used for transuranic waste. 2. The current use of plutonium fuel in nuclear reactors should be halted. Transmutation schemes build upon the current use of plutonium in light water reactors as MOX fuel and on breeder reactor demonstration programs, which were supposed to produce more plutonium than they consumed. MOX fuel is uneconomical in comparison to other energy sources, such as wind power, and the use of MOX was only initiated when breeder reactor programs did not live up to expectations. Commercial MOX fuel use also increases proliferation risks due to the need for reprocessing in order to separate plutonium and complicates safety and environmental problems connected to reactor operation and waste disposal. Breeder reactor programs, which form the basis of a number of transmutation technologies, have been plagued by problems throughout their history, including safety deficiencies, technical operating problems, and uneconomical operation. They would pose even greater proliferation problems than the use of MOX in light water reactors, particularly as full-scale breeder reactor programs would result in even greater quantities of separated plutonium. Breeder reactors can also be relatively easily reconfigured from a waste transmutation role to one of making weapon-grade plutonium. 3. Current reprocessing operations in all countries should be halted and commercial stockpiles of separated plutonium should be considered a waste to be immobilized. Plutonium reprocessing operations pose unacceptable environmental, proliferation and financial risks and should cease. Existing stocks of separated plutonium should be immobilized (encasing it in a solid material like glass). This would reduce the proliferation risks of separated plutonium while not encouraging the further separation of plutonium from spent fuel. Feasibility studies should be conducted in the United Kingdom, France, and Japan (with the aid of the United States and Russia) on the conversion of MOX fuel fabrication facilities to ceramic immobilization facilities.19 4. The definition of reprocessing should be clarified Any technology which processes spent fuel, and results in a product that includes separated fissile materials, or from which it is easier to separate fissile materials, should be considered a reprocessing technology. This is because virtually any combination of plutonium isotopes, as well as actinides such as americium and neptunium, can be used to make nuclear bombs. Thus, proliferation impacts should be evaluated according to the separation of weapons-usable materials and the potential of the technologies that are used for being modified for producing such materials even if that is not their normal function as part of a waste transmutation system. 5. Waste management research efforts should be redirected towards scientifically sound long-term management of nuclear waste. High-level waste management has been plagued by short-sighted political expediency. For instance, in the United States only one site, Yucca Mountain, is being actively developed, which has resulted in severe pressures to open it despite extensive evidence of its unsuitability. Reforms should be implemented to stop politically expedient repository projects, and those, like transmutation, which seem to have keeping nuclear power alive as a subterranean goal. We need a broad-based scientific search for appropriate disposal options in contrast to efforts on transmutation. 6. Evaluations of transmutation should be based on the overall risks of such a program. Much of the current technical literature on transmutation focuses on the possibility of transmutation to reduce the amount of actinides in high-level waste. This is a questionable approach, given the potential for significant increases in worker and public doses due to increased fuel cycle activities, inappropriate disposal of some reprocessing waste such as uranium, generation of more waste especially in reprocessing operations, and the open questions about the effect that transmutation will have on doses from a repository. All of these various risks need to be included in any overall analysis. At the very least transmutation programs should be suspended until such an analysis, conducted by an appropriate independent body, has been openly and thoroughly done with public input. 7. Government funding of transmutation research should be stopped. In Europe and Japan, where transmutation research budgets are substantial, funds should be redirected to repository programs or other nuclear waste management programs that do not rely on reprocessing and nuclear reactors. Transmutation programs are diverting valuable resources from other, more appropriate, waste management options. Similarly, in the United States, further work on Accelerator Transmutation of Waste (ATW) or other transmutation schemes should be halted. Furthermore, the United States Department of Energy should halt all research on separation processes, including those based on electrometallurgical techniques. This research should be considered a violation of the federal policy against reprocessing of commercial fuel. Acknowledgments We would like to thank Dr. Edwin Lyman, David Lochbaum, Greg Mello, Dr. Lawrence Lidsky, Hideyuki Ban, Dr. Yukio Yamaguchi, Monique Sené, and Jean-Pierre Morichaud for their review of one or more drafts of this report. Of course, the authors are solely responsible for the content of the report, its conclusions and recommendations, and any omissions or errors that remain. We would also like to thank IEER staff members Lois Chalmers, Diana Kohn, Betsy Thurlow-Shields, Michele Boyd and Arjun Makhijani for their comments and assistance. Research for this report was conducted as part of IEER's program: The Road to Enduring and Complete Nuclear Disarmament: A Technical Outreach Project on Nuclear Weapons and Related Energy Issues. We gratefully acknowledge the W. Alton Jones Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, the C.S. Fund, and the HKH Foundation for their generous support of this program. Outreach for this report will also be conducted as part of IEER's Project to Provide Technical Assistance to Grassroots Groups on Nuclear Issues, which is made possible by the support of the John Merck Fund, Ploughshares Fund, Public Welfare Foundation, Town Creek Foundation, and the Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program at Shelter Rock. We would also like to thank our individual donors and general support funding of the Beldon II Fund, Stewart R. Mott Charitable Trust, Rockefeller Financial Services, and Turner Foundation. SUMMARY REFERENCES (A complete list of references can be found in the full report.) Albright, Berkhout and Walker 1997? Albright, David, Frans Berkhout and William Walker. Plutonium and Highly Enriched Uranium 1996: World Inventories, Capabilities and Policies. Solna, Sweden: SIPRI, 1997. ATW Roadmap 1999a U.S. Dept. of Energy, A Roadmap for Developing Accelerator Transmutation of Waste (ATW) Technology: A Report to Congress, DOE/RW-0519, Washington, DC: Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, October 1999. ATW Roadmap 1999d ATW Separations Technologies and Waste Forms Technical Working Group, Preparation of A Technology Development Roadmap for the Accelerator Transmutation of Waste (ATW) System (Cover title: A Roadmap for Developing ATW Technology: Separations Technology & Waste Forms Technology) ANL-99/15 [Argonne, IL: Argonne National Laboratory], September 1999. ATW Roadmap 1999g Smith, R.I., M.R. Shay, S.M. Short, C.S. Erhman, T.J. Myers, Estimated Cost of an ATW System, PNNL-13018, Richland, WA. : Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, October 1999. IAEA 1997b International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Fuel Cycle and Reactor Strategies: Adjusting to New Realities: key issue papers from a symposium held in co-operation the European Commission, The OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and the Uranium Institute, 3-6 June 1997, Vienna. Vienna, 1997. NAS-NRC 1983 National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, A Study of the Isolation System for Geologic Disposal of Radioactive Wastes, Waste Isolations Systems Panel, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on Physical Sciences, Mathematics, and Resources, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1983. NAS-NRC 1996 National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences, Nuclear Wastes: Technologies for Separations and Transmutation, Committee on Separations Technology and Transmutation Systems, Board on Radioactive Waste Management, Commission on Geosciences, Environment, and Resources, Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1996. OECD-NEA 1999a Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency, Proceedings of the 5th International Information Exchange Meeting on Actinide and Fission and Product Partitioning and Transmutation, Mol, Belgium November 25-27, 1998. Co-organised by European Commission. Paris : OECD, 1999. OECD-NEA 1999b Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Nuclear Energy Agency, Actinide and Fission Product Partitioning and Transmutation: Status and Assessment Report ; Synthèse des travaux, Paris : OECD, 1999. Rubbia et al. 1997a Rubbia, C., J.A. Rubio, S. Buono, F. Carminati, N. Fiétier, J. Galvez, C. Gelès, Y. Kadi, R. Klapisch, P. Mandrillon, J.P. Revol, and Ch. Roche, "CERN-Group Conceptual Design of a Fast Neutron Operated High Power Energy Amplifier", IN IAEA 1997a, Section D.3, pp. 187-312. Endnotes 1. There are over 400 nuclear power reactors currently operating worldwide. About 220,000 metric tons of spent fuel have been discharged from these reactors to date (the year 2000), and the number is increasing at a rate of about 10,000 metric tons per year. Almost 20 percent of the plutonium in this fuel has been extracted by reprocessing, while the rest is stored as spent fuel. See IAEA 1997b, p. 119, and Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy. World Spent Fuel Discharges, Reference Case, 1999-2020. http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/nuclear/n_pwr_fc/data98/table10.html . For reprocessing data and estimates, see Albright, Berkhout, and Walker 1997, Chapter 6. 2. See Science for Democratic Action vol. 7, no. 3 (May 1999)for more information about issues related to the long-term management of nuclear waste, particularly in the United States, and for just some of the evidence concerning Yucca Mountain's unsuitability as a repository location. 3. Reactors do not necessarily have to produce electricity. For instance, with one exception, none of the reactors used to produce plutonium for nuclear weapons in the United States produced electricity. However, the sale of electricity is the only way to recoup some of the high costs associated with transmutation. This requirement can create its own problems, however, by raising the reliability requirements of some transmutation systems so as to not disrupt electricity supply once it is operational (see section on accelerator reliability in Chapter IV). 4. Accelerated protons hitting a target made of heavy metal, which produces neutrons through a nuclear reaction called spallation, would produce the supplemental neutrons. 5. Transmutation is also possible using photonuclear reactions, which use energetic photons to induce transmutation. Photonuclear transmutation schemes share many technical details with schemes discussed in this report and pose essentially the same major problems. However, phototransmutation is even less developed and would pose even greater research and development hurdles. 6. Reactions are shown in the footnotes with half-lives shown in parentheses. n = neutron; e = beta particle; m = metastable (an excited state of the nucleus that does not decay immediately to the ground state). Half-lives are rounded to two significant figures 7. I-129 (1.6x107 years) + n ® I-130m (9 minutes)® I-130 (12 hours) ® Xe-130 (stable) + e 8. Cs-135 (2.3x106 years) + n ® Cs-136m (19 seconds) ® Cs-136 (13 days) ® Ba-136m (0.3 seconds) + e ® Ba-136 (stable) 9. Cs-133 (stable) + n ® Cs-134 (2.1 years) + n ® Cs-135 (2.3x106 years) 10. The reactions are: Pu-240 + n ® Pu-241 (14 years); Pu-241 (14 years) + n ® Pu-242 (380,000 years) 11. ATW Roadmap 1999d. p. 38 12. In this case strontium-90 would also likely be disposed of in the repository, since its half-life is about the same as cesium-137. 13. For the first one hundred years the fission products dominate the radioactivity of spent fuel (with Cs-137 and Sr-90 being the predominant radionuclides). After 300 years it is the actinides which dominate the radioactivity. Both fission products and actinides contribute to the radioactivity in the period between 100 and 300 years (see NAS-NRC 1983, p. 30). 14. Neutron activation refers to a process by which materials that are not originally radioactive become radioactive after being irradiated with neutrons (e.g. structural materials in the core of a reactor or the material that surrounds the reactor fuel). 15. NAS-NRC 1996, p. 5 and OECD-NEA 1999b, p. 204. Some transmutation schemes would store medium-lived fission products for up to 600 years in order to allow them to decay (see Rubbia et al. 1997). 16. Though not addressed extensively in this report, it must be noted that each of the new facilities operated for the purposes of transmutation will eventually have to undergo decontamination and decommissioning procedures. This will result in even greater amounts of radioactive waste for disposal, including major components of the facilities such as the reactor cores. It is not clear how the increased radioactivity of fuel which has been repeatedly irradiated will affect the D&D process and the disposal requirements. 17. ATW Roadmap cost estimate (ATW Roadmap 1999g) adjusted to reflect more realistic reprocessing costs as established by the National Research Council (NAS-NRC 1996). Figures are in undiscounted 1999 dollars. 18. See Chapter V 19. The issue of separated commercial plutonium will be further explored in a forthcoming report by IEER. Institute for Energy and Environmental ResearchComments to ieer at ieer.org Takoma Park, Maryland, USA May 2000 Full report web posted May 2005 ***************************************************************** 40 News & Star: Tell us the truth about Thorp Published on 17/05/2005 THE new owner of Sellafield is being urged to come clean about its plans for the troubled Thorp plant following reports that it might never be re-opened after a radioactive leak last month. Tim Knowles, chairman of the West Cumbrian Strategic Partnership, and Sellafield union boss Pete Kane, are both demanding answers from the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority after it was reported in the Observer newspaper that “senior sources within the NDA†believed keeping the Thorp shut would be the most economical option. It would also remove controversial nuclear reprocessing from the debate over building new nuclear stations, which the government is understood to be keen to initiate. Mr Knowles said: “Clearly I am very concerned to hear these reports. In my view, something of this magnitude is not just a matter for the NDA anyway. It would have to involve decisions at ministerial level because of the ministerial and contractual implications.†There are also major employment and economic implications for West Cumbria if Thorp is shut permanently - Sellafield’s flagship £1.8 billion reprocessing plant employs some 700 people and supports thousands more jobs. If it was closed, it would also bring an early end to the UK’s reprocessing programme. The plant, which has a £12 billion order book is due to complete its existing contracts by 2010. Mr Knowles said: “It really shows the scale of the control that the NDA can exercise. “Sellafield dominates the economy to such an extent that one organisation alone cannot be allowed to make a decision of this scale. “But I am sure that the chief executive of the NDA, Ian Roxburgh, will be happy to enter into discussions about this as it is a matter of such importance.†Thorp was closed following a major leak of radioactive liquid into the feed clarification cell four weeks ago. The incident is still being investigated but complex work is now underway to remove the 83 cubic metres of liquor, and British Nuclear Group says it is looking at various options to bring the plant back on line. Peter Kane, site convener for the GMB union, said he was shocked by suggestions that the NDA wants to keep the plant closed. “We want to know what is going on and where these stories have come from. I don’t want the workforce unduly concerned by something we don’t know anything about.†He added: “I have been speaking to senior managers at Sellafield and they are quite confident that they can get it [the Thorp leak] sorted.†An NDA spokesman said yesterday: “The NDA has not yet formed a position on the future of Thorp. The arguments surrounding Thorp have been well aired over recent years but we will need a comprehensive understanding of last month’s incident and time to consider all the implications before being able to take a formal view on its future. Any ultimate decision on Thorp will be for the Government.†***************************************************************** 41 News & Star: Play your part in the nuclear waste debate 17/05/2005 COPELAND mayoress Yvonne Clarkson has urged people to have their say on how the UK’s long-term nuclear waste should be managed. She was speaking after an open meeting hosted by the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM) last night to discuss the issue as part of the widest ever public consultation on nuclear waste in Britain. About 50 people, mainly councillors, council officials and people working in the nuclear industry, past and present, attended the Whitehaven meeting. Mrs Clarkson said: “They did listen to what we had to say. It’s very important they undertake this sort of consultation. It’s just disappointing that there were not more members of the public and councillors there. “This is one of the most important issues that we have on our agenda and people just seem unwilling to give up their time to engage in it.†The UK will produce 470,000 cubic metres of radioactive waste with no long-term solution. Final recommendations on the best solution will be made to ministers by July 2006. ***************************************************************** 42 Tri-Valley Herald: UC picks Livermore lab director Article Last Updated: 05/17/2005 09:15:53 AM By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER Lawrence Livermore director Michael Anastasio with credit to ( Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory) In the chess game for control of U.S. nuclear weapons design, the University of California has tapped the director of Lawrence Livermore weapons lab to fight for continued university management of Los Alamos lab in New Mexico. Physicist and bomb designer Michael Anastasio becomes the last major piece in the university's attempt to fend off challenges from two huge defense contractors and persuade the U.S. Department of Energy that it should keep running the nation's largest weapons laboratory as it has for 62 years. If successful, Anastasio would become director of Los Alamos and, paradoxically, a competitor with Livermore for weapons design work. If not, he would stay as Livermore's chief — and begin a new fight for university management of that lab as well. In short, faced with battles over two bomb labs, the University of California has turned to a partnership with Bechtel Corp. and the only scientist in its own stable with experience designing bombs and running a national-security lab. "It's really in the best interest of the country if there are two strong physics laboratories," Anastasio said in an interview Monday. "I think they can really work for the interest of the country if they are managed by the same contractor." It's a smart, if risky, move, according to officials familiar with the nation's weapons labs. "When you play that game, you must win," one source said. Anastasio's experience in lab management and weapons design was considered essential for UC to go up against the nation's largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, which has tapped veteran weapons lab director C. Paul Robinson to lead its bid for Los Alamos. Robinson is a tall, courtly fixture in the U.S. nuclear-weapons complex, with stints as a weapons manager at Los Alamos, an arms-control negotiator and until recently director for 12 years of Sandia National Laboratories, which engineers the non-nuclear components of U.S. nuclear weapons. Anastasio, 56, sports a goatee and drives a slick, black Audi sports coupe. He is known for a laid-back managerial style that puts a premium on listening and consensus. "I try to be very open, professional, informal, approachable with high integrity," he said. "He is very personable, he is very easy to talk to," said Bruce Goodwin, a physicist who leads Livermore's weapons program and has worked closely with Anastasio for 21 years. "He listens very, very well and he hears what people are saying, but he makes a decision and he expects it to be done," Goodwin said. "If you let him down, he'll let you know it." Beneath Anastasio's mild-mannered demeanor is a passion for national-security science, for long-range thinking and for winning, Goodwin said. In the early and mid-1990s, Anastasio briefed senior government officials on the pros and cons of maintaining a ban on nuclear testing, then worked with the Energy Department's top weapons official in designing a program to maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal without explosive testing. "He's civil, he's polite, he's a nice guy, he's charming. That doesn't mean he's not assertive and driven and competitive," Goodwin said. "You don't get to a position like that unless you drive yourself and are driven." With Robinson leading the Lockheed team and Anastasio leading the UC-Bechtel team, officials familiar with the weapons labs say the sales pitches become clear: Lockheed and another team led by defense giant Northrop Grumman will stress managerial competence, notably at Sandia, and UC will stress scientific accomplishment and 62 years of weapons design experience. "That's the clear choice, and your lab directors reflect that choice," said Bill Madia, vice president of lab management at Battelle Memorial Institute, a nonprofit operating several Energy Department labs. "What you'll hear from the university is, 'We are the organization that has run the nuclear-weapons design program for 60-plus years,' and that's different from Sandia as the weapons-engineering lab." Lockheed and another team led by Northrop Grumman will attack UC's management record, and UC will attack the scientific and weapons design credentials of the other two teams. Anastasio started making that pitch even before the announcement of his selection. The university's strengths in science and innovation have kept its labs on the technical edge during the Cold War and prepared with homeland-security technologies before the Sept. 11 attacks, he said. "To accomplish those aims requires these kinds of innovations in which we have a history," Anastasio said. The "we" rhetoric marks a change from the Cold War, when Livermore and Los Alamos competed for weapons designs and often were quick to belittle the other. This week, as Los Alamosans see defense contractors circling, there's a willingness to take help from its sister lab in California. Mark Dunham, who works on Defense Department programs at Los Alamos, said the days of Los Alamos-Livermore rivalry appear over. "I don't know of anyone who has much animosity toward Livermore any more," he said. "We're much closer to siblings than ever before." © 2005 ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 43 Tri-Valley Herald: UC picks anastasio for lab fight Article Last Updated: 05/17/2005 04:01:04 AM Livermore director is last major piece in university's attempt to fend off challenges By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER In a chess game for control of U.S. nuclear weapons design, the University of California has tapped the director of Lawrence Livermore weapons lab to fight for continued university management of Los Alamos lab in New Mexico. Physicist and bomb designer Michael Anastasio becomes the last major piece in the university's attempt to fend off challenges from two huge defense contractors and persuade the U.S. Department of Energy that it should keep running the nation's largest weapons laboratory as it has for 62 years. If successful, Anastasio would become director of Los Alamos and, paradoxically, a competitor with Livermore for weapons design work. If not, he would stay as Livermore's chief — and begin a new fight for university management of that lab as well. In short, faced with battles over two bomb labs, the University of California has turned to a partnership with Bechtel Corp. and the only scientist in its own stable with experience designing bombs and running a national-security lab. "It's really in the best interest of the country if there aretwo strong physics laboratories," Anastasio said in an interview Monday. "I think they can really work for the interest of the country if they are managed by the same contractor." It's a smart, if risky move, according to officials familiar with the nation's weapons labs." When you play that game, you must win," one source said. Anastasio's experience in lab management and weapons design was considered essential for UC to go up against the nation's largest defense contractor, Lockheed Martin, which has tapped veteran weapons lab director C. Paul Robinson to lead its bid for Los Alamos. Robinson is a tall, courtly fixture in the U.S. nuclear-weapons complex, with stints as a weapons manager at Los Alamos, an arms-control negotiator and until recently director for 12 years of Sandia National Laboratories, which engineers the non-nuclear components of U.S. nuclear weapons. Anastasio, 56, sports a goatee and drives a slick, black Audi sports coupe. He is known for a laid-back managerial style that puts a premium on listening and consensus. "I try to be very open, professional, informal, approachable with high integrity," he said. "He is very personable, he is very easy to talk to," said Bruce Goodwin, a physicist who leads Livermore's weapons program and has worked closely with Anastasio for 21 years. "He listens very, very well and he hears what people are saying, but he makes a decision and he expects it to be done," Goodwin said. "If you let him down, he'll let you know it." Beneath Anastasio's mild-mannered demeanor is a passion for national-security science, for long-range thinking and for winning, Goodwin said. In the early and mid-1990s, Anastasio briefed senior government officials on the pros and cons of maintaining a ban on nuclear testing, then worked with the Energy Department's top weapons official in designing a program to maintain the U.S. nuclear arsenal without explosive testing. "He's civil, he's polite, he's a nice guy, he's charming. That doesn't mean he's not assertive and driven and competitive," Goodwin said. "You don't get to a position like that unless you drive yourself and are driven." With Robinson leading the Lockheed team and Anastasio leading the UC-Bechtel team, officials familiar with the weapons labs say the sales pitches become clear: Lockheed and another team led by defense giant Northrop Grumman will stress managerial competence, notably at Sandia, and UC will stress scientific accomplishment and 62 years of weapons design experience. "That's the clear choice, and your lab directors reflect that choice," said Bill Madia, vice president of lab management at Battelle Memorial Institute, a nonprofit operating several Energy Department labs. "What you'll hear from the university is, 'We are the organization that has run the nuclear-weapons design program for 60-plus years and that's different from Sandia as the weapons-engineering lab.'" Lockheed and another team led by Northrop Grumman will attack UC's management record, and UC will attack the scientific and weapons design credentials of the other two teams. Anastasio started making that pitch even before Monday's announcement of his selection. The university's strengths in science and innovation have kept its labs on the technical edge during the Cold War and prepared with homeland-security technologies before the Sept. 11 attacks, he said. "To accomplish those aims requires these kinds of innovations in which we have a history," Anastasio said. The "we" rhetoric marks a change from the Cold War, when Livermore and Los Alamos competed for weapons designs and often were quick to belittle the other — Los Alamos as conservative and overly academic, Livermore as too slick and overreaching. This week, as Los Alamosans see defense contractors circling, there's a willingness to take help from its sister lab in California. "I know who Paul Robinson is and at least around here, people respect him greatly," said Los Alamos astrophysicist and lab fellow Jack Hills, "but they'd much rather have UC than Lockheed. No question about it." Mark Dunham, who works on Defense Department programs at Los Alamos, said the days of Los Alamos-Livermore rivalry appear over. "I don't know of anyone who has much animosity toward Livermore any more," he said. "We're much closer to siblings than ever before." © 2005 ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 44 lamonitor.com: Authors put Oppenheimer in context The Online News Source for Los Alamos review by Mary Louise Williams, For the Monitor If one appreciates good writing that gives clear contextual meaning to the story of an historic life, then one will truly appreciate "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer" by Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin. Those of a certain age know first-hand much of the history of that period as well as the political climate with which the lives of the Oppenheimers and their colleagues collided. The authors discuss Frank and Jackie's efforts to desegregate a swimming pool in Pasadena, Calif., one of the reasons why they and other liberals had joined the American Communist Party in the 1930's. For those who had a social conscience aching to change some of the social injustices in the United States, few organized options existed. The fact was that no political group, other than the communists, was directly addressing segregation and discrimination justified by the Jim Crow laws, certainly not most of the churches, the Republican Party, nor the Democratic Party - until the New Deal. Many liberals felt that the New Deal wasn't going far enough, certainly in terms of black America. The authors quote David Hawkins who pointed out that they were all a "self-consciously ... left wing component of the New Deal." Oppenheimer strongly supported President Roosevelt; however, understanding that Roosevelt was caught in the politically and socially conservative reality of the times that later led to the unfortunate McCarthy era excesses. The authors' metaphoric means of explaining the Chevalier Affair clarifies why this brief conversation that took place in Oppenheimer's kitchen with his close friend and Berkeley colleague, Haakon Chevalier, in the winter of 1942-43, could serve to help destroy Oppenheimer. Over time, " it took on some of the qualities of Rashoman," referring to the brilliant film by Japanese director Kurosawa, in which three convincing perspectives of the same incident are provided by the participants, so that one is left choosing to believe a truth. The perspective chosen by Lewis Strauss, chairman of the AEC, ultimately resulted in the infamous security clearance hearing of Oppenheimer that resulted in the loss of his clearance and the termination of his contract. After one reads these scholars' account, based on their research with access to the hearing files through the Freedom of Information Act, declassified FBI files and Atomic Energy Commission records, one is left with many disquieting questions and concerns not only about the irregularities, but the flawed and unjust manner in which the AEC Personnel Security Board conducted the hearing. Concerned that the United States had come to rely on its unilateral nuclear arsenal for its security rather than through multilateral and international cooperation, Oppenheimer had been a driving international force toward the latter, only to find himself stripped of any further role he could play to formulate and negotiate such a direction. I. I. Rabi later commented on the effect of the security hearing on Oppenheimer, "I think to a certain extent it actually almost killed him, spiritually." But not entirely. He went on to become the director of the Institute for Advanced Studies, where his influence grew. He published a collection of essays under the title, The Open Mind, in which he pleaded for such as an absolute necessity for an open society. People with long associations with the town and/or lab have gathered experiences and stories about Oppenheimer that will naturally begin surfacing with such a beautifully written, thoroughly researched book. For some, it may give rise to almost a grieving process, certainly about his particular life, yes, but all that has been going on in Los Alamos and the nation for the past few years. The small-mindedness and ignorance that drove so much of the outcome of Oppenheimer's life are manifesting itself in a slightly different form, but a no less dangerous one. It is now impacting, not only the sciences, but the humanities and education in which he so deeply believed, as well as the laboratory that he directed. When Oppenheimer realized the power he once wielded had been taken from him by Strauss and his enemies, one might say, he was not unlike Shakespeare's Richard II when Richard is forced to abdicate his throne, "You may my glories and my state depose, But not my griefs. Still am I king of those." The writer John Mason Brown commented to Oppenheimer that his ordeal had been a "dry crucifixion." Oppenheimer replied with a very slight smile, "You know, it wasn't so very dry. I can still feel the warm blood on my hands." "American Prometheus" is available at the Los Alamos Historical Museum Bookstore. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 45 lamonitor.com: Livermore director to lead bid The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor The University of California announced today that Michael R. Anastasio, director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, would lead the UC-Bechtel team vying for the LANL contract. Anastasio will continue as director of LLNL, while serving as team leader in the competition preparations. Anastasio is a nuclear physicist with more than 25 years experience in national security and nuclear weapons. He has led LLNL since 2002. A final decision about UC's participation in the competition will be made by the UC Board of Regents, after the Department of Energy releases the final request for proposal for the LANL contract. That document is scheduled to be released this week. In a prepared statement Tuesday morning, both UC and BNI emphasized the primacy of science in the UC-Bechtel bid. "In his distinguished career at the Livermore laboratory, including the last three years as director, Mike has shown a true understanding of the central role of science at the UC-managed national laboratories and has demonstrated, time and again, the depth of knowledge and expertise required to provide the best possible leadership for this competition," said UC President Robert C. Dynes. "Mike Anastasio is highly respected throughout the DOE complex and his experience at Livermore laboratory, his commitment to science in the national interest and his fundamental understanding of the importance of science in the work at LANL makes him a natural selection for this position," said Bechtel National President Thomas Hash. "Mike is the right leader to deliver science, business and operations excellence to the laboratory." Another announced competitor, Lockheed Martin, named C. Paul Robinson, then-director of Sandia National Laboratories last month to lead its team, which is likely to include the University of Texas System as a partner. Prime contractor, Northrop Grumman, has announced its intention to enter the competition, but has yet to name any of its management team members. The announcement came on the day after new LANL Interim Director Robert Kuckuck was introduced to LANL employees in a closed meeting. Kuckuck was accompanied by Dynes and UC Vice President for Laboratory Management Robert Foley. A LANL spokesperson said Kuckuck was warmly received. "He's fairly well known around here," said Kevin Roark of the LANL Public Affairs Office. "He's very highly respected." David Carroll, a laboratory employee who works in the Material Science and Technology Division, said Kuckuck's debut was like "a breath of fresh air." He added, "People are cautiously optimistic. It was a bit of a morale booster." © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 i-Newswire.com: DOE's Office of Science Seeks Proposals for Expanded Large-Scale Scientific Computing WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman announced today that DOE’s Office of Science is seeking proposals to support innovative, large-scale computational science projects to enable high-impact advances through the use of advanced computers not commonly available in academia or the private sector. Projects currently funded are helping to reduce engine pollution and to improve our understanding of the stars and solar systems and human genetics. Successful proposers will be given the use of substantial computer time and data storage at the department’s scientific computing centers in Berkeley, Calif.; Argonne, Ill.; Oak Ridge, Tenn.; and Richland, Wash. i-Newswire, 2005-05-18 - “Advanced scientific computing is critical to DOE’s missions,” said Secretary Bodman. “Scientific computing is essential to simulating and predicting the behavior of nuclear weapons and accelerating the development of new energy technologies.” “This unique program opens up the world of high-performance computing to a broad array of new scientific users,” Bodman said. “Through the use of these advanced systems, scientists have made important progress in several grand challenge research areas, including combustion, astrophysics, protein structure, chemistry and engineering.” The Innovative and Novel Computational Impact on Theory and Experiment ( INCITE ) program seeks computationally intensive, large-scale research projects. The program encourages proposals from universities, other research institutions and industry. Industry is specifically solicited to propose challenging problems that may be solved using high- performance computing systems. The Office of Science expects to make a small number of large awards. In 2004, three projects were selected from the 23 proposals submitted. “The INCITE program has surpassed all expectations over the last two years,” Dr. Raymond L. Orbach, Director of DOE’s Office of Science, said. “To encourage broader participation in INCITE, we have expanded the program this year to include more of the Office of Science's high-end computing resources, allow for multi-year awards, and consider proprietary research proposals. The INCITE program also provides opportunities for industry to use high-end computing as supported by the Council on Competitiveness.We are providing more hours on different high-end computing architectures so that a wider range of problems can be explored.” Now in its third year, the INCITE program has been expanded to include high-end computing resources from four of DOE’s national laboratories. Scientists from the national and international research community will be able to request allocations on the Cray Leadership-Class computers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory ( ORNL ), the HP-MPP system at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory ( PNNL ), the IBM Power 3 at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory ( LBNL ), and the IBM BlueGene system at Argonne National Laboratory ( ANL ). In support of this program, the Office of Science has committed 10 percent of its high-end computing resources at LBNL, ORNL and ANL, and five percent of the high-end computing resources at PNNL. INCITE proposals will be peer reviewed both in the area of proposed research and also for general scientific merit, comparing them with proposals in other disciplines. Current Department of Energy sponsorship is not required for this program. DOE plans to announce the awards this fall. The Call for Proposals is available at http://hpc.science.doe.gov/. The three computational science projects selected in the INCITE program’s second year to receive a total of 6.5 million hours of supercomputing time at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center at LBNL were: “Direct Numerical Simulation of Turbulent Non-Premixed Combustion – Fundamental Insights towards Predictive Modeling,” led by Jacqueline Chen Sandia National Laboratories in Livermore, California, which was awarded 2.5 million processor-hours and is expected to increase our understanding on ways to reduce pollution from combustion engines. “Magneto-Rotational Instability and Turbulent Angular Momentum Transport,” led by Fausto Cattaneo, University of Chicago, which was awarded 2 million processor-hours and promises to offer insights into how stars and solar systems form. “Molecular Dynameomics” led by Valerie Daggett of the University of Washington, which was awarded 2 million processor-hours to study how proteins express genetic information. DOE’s Office of Science is the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical sciences in the nation and ensures U.S. world leadership across a broad range of scientific disciplines. For more information about the Office of Science, go to www.science.doe.gov. Media contact: Jeff Sherwood, 202/586-5806 Number: R-05-115 If you have questions regarding information in these press release contact the company listed below. I-Newswire.com is a press release service and not the author of this press release. The information that is on or available through this site is for informational purposes only and speaks only as of the particular date or dates of that information. As some companies / PR Agencies submit their press releases once per week/month or quarter, make sure check the official company website for accurate release dates as our site displays the I-Newswire.com distribution date only. We do not guarantee the accuracy or completeness of information on or available through this site, and we are not responsible for inaccuracies or omissions in that information or for actions taken in reliance on that information. 2005-05-18 ***************************************************************** 47 PRN: UC and Bechtel Name Los Alamos National Laboratory Competition Team Leader Tuesday May 17, 2:10 pm ET Michael R. Anastasio to Lead Competition Team OAKLAND, Calif., May 17 /PRNewswire/ -- The University of California and Bechtel National today (May 17) named Michael R. Anastasio, the director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, as the team leader in the competition preparations for the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Anastasio, a nuclear physicist, has more than 25 years' experience in national security and nuclear weapons and has led the Department of Energy's Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory since 2002. Anastasio will lead the UC, Bechtel, BWX Technologies, Inc (BWXT) and Washington Group International (WGI) team through the upcoming DOE competition for management and operations of Los Alamos National Laboratory. The final decision regarding the University of California's participation in the competition is a decision that will be made by the UC Board of Regents following the release of the final request for proposals by the Department of Energy. "In his distinguished career at the Livermore laboratory, including the last three years as director, Mike has shown a true understanding of the central role of science at the UC-managed national laboratories and has demonstrated, time and again, the depth of knowledge and expertise required to provide the best possible leadership for this competition," said UC President Robert C. Dynes. "His familiarity with the Los Alamos National 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 key position." "Mike Anastasio is highly respected throughout the DOE complex and his experience at Livermore laboratory, his commitment to science in the national interest and his fundamental understanding of the importance of science in the work at LANL makes him a natural selection for this position," said Bechtel National President Thomas Hash. "Mike is the right leader to deliver science, business and operations excellence to the laboratory." Anastasio will continue to be director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) throughout the Los Alamos competition process. The strong existing management team at LLNL will assist Anastasio in the day-to-day operations of the laboratory as he assumes these additional responsibilities. "The UC-Bechtel team is very serious about this competition," Anastasio said. "UC has a proven track record of strong scientific and technological expertise in support of national security. "I am honored to have this opportunity and I look forward to leading our team." In late March, UC announced it would also partner with a consortium of New Mexico institutions to form the Advanced Studies Institute at Los Alamos National Laboratory. These institutions include the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University and New Mexico Institute for Mining and Technology. The agreement with these institutions solidifies the role of New Mexico universities as part of a bid to compete for the LANL contract. "I absolutely believe it is in the best interest of the nation to have two strong weapons physics laboratories," said Anastasio. "This allows for a vigorous competition of technical ideas within a balanced, fully integrated program." BACKGROUND ON THE COMPETITION PROCESS The contract to manage Los Alamos National Laboratory expires Sept. 30, 2005. On April 30, 2003, then-U.S. Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham announced that the DOE would compete the management and operations contract for Los Alamos National Laboratory. On Dec. 1, 2004, the DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration released the draft request for proposals (RFP). The draft RFP was amended on Feb. 18 and April 5, 2005. A final RFP is expected soon. The deadline for submission of bids is expected to be 90 days after the release of the final RFP. According to DOE, a source evaluation board made up of DOE technical and business experts will review the proposals submitted and provide recommendations to the source selection official. UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA The University of California, chartered in 1868, is a system of 10 campuses with a mission of teaching, research and public service. With 208,000 undergraduate and graduate students, UC is the world's premier public university. UC has five medical schools, three law schools and the nation's largest continuing education program. Forty-nine researchers affiliated with UC have been awarded Nobel Prizes; 17 of the Nobel Prizes have been won since 1995. In addition, UC has 358 members in the National Academy of Sciences, and UC-affiliated researchers have received 48 Medals of Science since Congress created the award in 1959. UC manages three national laboratories on behalf of the Department of Energy. Today, Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos national laboratories each employ more then 8,000 UC staff and have combined annual budgets exceeding $3.8 billion, while Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory has approximately 4,000 employees and an annual budget of nearly $500 million. The university was recently awarded a five-year contract from DOE to continue management of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The national laboratories are major sources of scientific and technical strength for the nation in fields ranging from national security, to basic physics, biotechnology, climate studies, computer development, materials science, energy, and the environment. The laboratories contribute to the country's economic competitiveness through research partnerships with industry and engage in math and science education for students and teachers at all levels. For more news and information about the University of California: www.universityofcalifornia.edu. BECHTEL Bechtel is a global engineering, construction and project management company with more than a century of experience mastering complex projects in challenging locations. Privately owned, with headquarters in San Francisco, the company has 40,000 employees working in 50 countries. Bechtel National, Inc. is supporting national security and U.S. intelligence and defense efforts, developing new technologies to fight terrorism, monitoring the consequences of terrorist acts, designing emergency response programs, and training both military and civilian responders nationwide. Additionally, BNI has broad capabilities and extensive experience in the management of complex, multisite, environmental programs, including environmental cleanup projects at several Department of Energy sites in the United States. BNI's national security work includes managing and operating the Nevada Test Site and its affiliated facilities for the National Nuclear Security Administration. BNI is also a partner in management of NNSA's Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee and the Pantex Plant in Texas, as well as the Savannah River Site in South Carolina. Among its Department of Defense contracts, BNI manages the Kwajalein missile range and supports non-proliferation efforts in the former Soviet Union for the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. BNI's portfolio also includes over 15 years of government laboratory management and support experience. For more news and information about Bechtel National, Inc.: www.Bechtel.com. BWX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. BWX Technologies, Inc. (BWXT), headquartered in Lynchburg, VA, is the nation's premier manager of complex, high-consequence nuclear and national security operations. Responsible for the operations of the Pantex Plant in Texas and Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee, along with nuclear operations at the Idaho National Laboratory, BWXT has a long history in nuclear manufacturing and operations, both in the Department of Energy and at its unique, highly secure, privately owned and operated nuclear manufacturing and laboratory facilities. A supplier of nuclear products and services to the U.S. government and commercial clients for over 50 years, BWXT has unparalleled experience in nuclear safeguards and security and has been recognized as a model by the DOE. With more than 11,000 employees nationwide, BWXT manages complex, high-consequence nuclear and national security production facilities and is a principal supplier of nuclear components and advanced energy products, delivering both value and customer confidence. For more news and information about BWX Technologies, Inc.: www.bwxt.com/ BWXT Public Relations: 1-434-522-5076 / 1-434-522-5158. WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL Washington Group International, with headquarters in Boise, ID, provides the talent, innovation and proven performance to deliver integrated engineering, construction, and management solutions for businesses and governments worldwide. A contractor for the Department of Energy and its predecessor agencies since the Manhattan Project, Washington Group is a leader in providing safe, disciplined operations, risk management and comprehensive environmental services for its customers. Its long history of successful DOE operations continues today with: management and operation contracts at the Savannah River Site, the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, the West Valley Demonstration Project and its partnership in the Battelle Energy Alliance for operation of the Idaho National Laboratory. Washington Group also is involved in closure contracts at the Weldon Spring Remedial Action Project, Miamisburg Closure Project, Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and the recently awarded Hanford River Closure and Idaho Cleanup Project, as well as technical support and consulting projects at Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Sandia national laboratories, DOE's Hanford Site, Pantex Plant and Oak Ridge complex. For more news and information about Washington Group International: www.wgint.com. Source: Bechtel Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************