*****************************************************************
05/26/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.121
*****************************************************************
   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 [NYTr] Iran gets immediate reward after renewing no-nuke pledge
2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran gains time to strike deal with EU on nuclea
3 AFP: Top Iranian nuclear negotiator pleased with EU plan - 
4 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Official Says N. Korea May Collapse
5 Xinhua: S.Korea-US summit slated for June   
6 INSIDE JoongAng Joins: Chung cautions North over nuclear arms crisis
7 AU ABC: South Korea's 'important' nuclear proposal
8 Japan Times: North Korea wary of China
9 US: Guardian Unlimited: Bush's war comes home
10 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomat Tries to Salvage U.N. Conference
11 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Conference Approaches End
12 Platts: European CO2 market could be critical by 2015: McKinsey
13 BBC: Russian fights Swiss extradition
14 Xinhua: NPT summit making no headway   
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
15 US: Pennsylvania¹s Nuclear Power Plant  
16 US: [NukeNet] Public Citizen comments on Clinton Draft EIS
17 US: [NukeNet] Illinois does not need new nuke
18 US: Exelon Joins the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
19 US: Emergency sirens w/o backup power may not work in nuclear meltdo
20 US: Brattleboro Reformer: NRC rejects coalition petition on emergenc
21 US: NRC: Documents Containing Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirement
22 Platts: UK hopes for marine energy could be dashed by nuclear reviva
23 New Statesman: Nuclear power - a convert
24 Interfax: Russia withdraws nuclear fuel from Latvia research reactor
25 US: Portsmouth Herald: Reps. complain about Seabrook
26 Platts: KEDO executive director stepping down
27 US: New Scientist: US funding of fusion reactor in doubt
28 US: toledoblade.com: Besse's sirens lack power backup
29 Mos News: World's First Floating Nuclear Power Plant to Be Construct
30 US: Monticello Times: NRC calls 2004 power plant operations ‘very sa
31 US: LA Weekly: Split Over Atoms
32 US: Record Online: Can nuclear plant deal with attack? 
33 India News Today: FBR criticality date remains unchanged
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
34 US: AP Wire: Labor Department to begin compensating sick weapons wor
35 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Bill to keep files on N-test fallouts 
36 Yokwe: MARSHALL ISLANDS PETITION GETS HEARING
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
37 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Ukraine to Safeguard Nuclear Waste
38 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Agreement reached on VY waste storage
39 News24: SA mulls nuclear waste options
40 Nevada Appeal: Yucca opposition espoused at business breakfast
41 US: The State: Report grabs Spratts attention
42 GreenvilleOnline.com: State may get more nuclear waste
43 US: NY Daily News: Waste facility has to go 
44 NewsFromRussia.Com: U.S. energy secretary, Ukrainians to discuss
45 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Agency rejects latest appeal of Skull Valley
46 Business Day: State body to manage radioactive waste in the pipeline
47 The Whitehaven News: SELLAFIELD ‘SATELLITES’ SAFE FOR NOW 
48 Whitehaven News: NEW HOPE FOR THORP WORKERS 
49 Whitehaven News: CLOSING THORP NEEDN'T MEAN THE LOSS OF HUNDREDS OF 
50 US: NEWS.com.au: ERA may face more mine charges 
 
                           PEACE
 
51 Tomgram: Jonathan Schell on Crossing Nuclear Thresholds 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
52 Guardian Unlimited: UC Board Wants to Keep Los Alamos Contract
53 Albuquerque Tribune: Jabs begin as UC nears vote on lab bid
54 Guardian Unlimited: UC to Compete for Los Alamos Lab Contract
55 Seattle Times: Hanford plant to cost more
56 SF Chronicle:  Amid loud dissent, panels urge Los Alamos bid 
57 Tri-Valley Herald: UC to go ahead with Los Alamos bid
58 lamonitor.com: UC panels OK LANL bid plan 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 [NYTr] Iran gets immediate reward after renewing no-nuke pledge
 
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 16:45:55 -0500 (CDT)

 
Via NY Transfer News Collective  *  All the News that Doesn't Fit
 
AP via Pravda
http://newsfromrussia.com/world/2005/05/26/59992.html

Iran gets immediate reward after renewing no-nuke pledge

by ALEXANDER G. HIGGINS, Associated Press Writer

The reward to Iran for renewing its pledge to refrain from developing
nuclear weapons came swiftly Thursday; Tehran won approval to begin talks
aimed at membership in the World Trade Organization.

A day after Iran reassured key European ministers that it would continue to
freeze suspect nuclear activities, the WTO agreed to start membership talks
- which the United States had kept on hold since 1996 by preventing
consensus on the bid.

Iranian Ambassador Mohammad Reza Alborzi said the WTO decision "has long
been overdue" and that his country was looking forward to join. "Today this
house with this decision has done service to itself by correcting a wrong,"
he said.

The European Union has been telling Iran that the 25-nation bloc would
support Iranian membership in the WTO if Tehran keeps its nuclear program
within bounds. The EU also has told Iran it can expect economic and
technical cooperation.

The U.S. government, which has been going along with the European approach
in recent months, said in March it would drop its long-standing opposition
to WTO membership negotiations with Iran.

The foreign ministers of Britain, France and Germany and EU foreign policy
chief Javier Solana met for three hours with Iranian negotiators Wednesday
in Geneva under an implied threat that Tehran could be hauled before the
U.N. Security Council to face possible international sanctions over its
nuclear program.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said the Europeans got the renewed
pledge from the Iranians and agreed to present Iran with more proposals in
about two months, but declined to say what the proposals might be.

Hasan Rowhani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, said, however, that the
proposals would include economic, political and nuclear elements.

"Iran has for its part reaffirmed its commitment not to seek to develop
nuclear weapons," Straw told reporters. "The freeze of the enrichment
program will continue until an agreement is reached."

The talks were held after the EU began warning that it was moving toward the
U.S. position that Tehran should face a Security Council showdown.

The crisis began heating up after Iran announced last week it was
considering restarting its uranium-enrichment program, which the Iranians
insist is only aimed at generating electricity as permitted under the
Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The EU and the United States fear the
program is being used to develop nuclear weapons in violation of the treaty.

German Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer said, however, that the Europeans
never had to resort to threats.

"I'm happy that it didn't come to that," Fischer said.

The EU-Iran talks, which were also held in Geneva, were on the basis of an
agreement the two sides reached last November in Paris. In that accord Iran
agreed to suspend uranium enrichment activities in return for British,
French and German guarantees that Iran has the right to pursue a peaceful
nuclear program.

"The Paris agreement remains in force to ensure that Iran continues its
suspension of uranium-enrichment programs and other fuel-cycle activities,"
Straw said.

As long as the agreement continues, the Europeans won't take Iran to the
Security Council, he said.

French Foreign Minister Michel Barnier said that "we continue working in the
spirit of Paris and from here on it will take us a few weeks to make
concrete proposals with the goal of putting in place a civilian program."

But, said Barnier, the Europeans want to be certain that there are no other
nuclear activities in Iran than those with civilian aims.
       
                                *
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective    *    A Service of Blythe Systems
.          Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us         .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012     http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives:   https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
 2 Guardian Unlimited: Iran gains time to strike deal with EU on nuclear plans
 
Ian Traynor in Vienna
Thursday May 26, 2005
 		
Iran yesterday pulled back from the brink of confrontation with 
Europe and the US over its nuclear programme, gaining more time 
to try to strike a bargain with the European Union and delaying 
the chances of being referred to the UN security council for 
possible sanctions. 

In talks in Geneva involving senior Iranian officials and the 
foreign ministers of Britain, Germany, and France, a two-month 
breathing space was agreed, meaning that Tehran would continue to 
keep its nuclear fuel enrichment programme frozen, while the 
three EU states prepare an offer meant to obtain a halt to its 
enrichment activities. 

The prospects for a settlement that will satisfy all parties look 
slim, but the make-or-break talks in Geneva salvaged a dialogue 
that was heading for collapse. Deadlock yesterday could have 
paved the way for a more dangerous showdown between Iran and the 
west. 

The agreement - if it sticks, and according to western diplomats
the Iranians are notoriously tricky negotiators, regularly
"reinterpreting" what had been agreed - means that Tehran should
avoid being referred to the security council when the UN nuclear
authority, the International Atomic Energy Agency, has a board
meeting in Vienna next month. 

In return, according to Jack Straw, the foreign secretary,
Tehran will maintain a freeze on all aspects of uranium
enrichment. 

The Iranians appear determined to restart processing raw uranium
ore into uranium hexafluoride gas, the substance that is fed
into high-speed centrifuges to be converted into nuclear fuel
for power stations - or into fissile material for nuclear
warheads. 

Iran insists that its purposes are purely peaceful, a claim that
lacks credibility in western capitals. Iran agreed with the EU
trio last November to suspend the uranium enrichment while talks
proceeded. It is now itching to resume the enrichment, and
sounds disenchanted with the incentives being offered by the
Europeans in return for a permanent suspension. 

Hassan Rohani, the chief Iranian negotiator, said after three
hours of talks in Geneva yesterday that the Europeans had until
the end of July to come up with a better, more concrete offer. 

Mr Straw's indication that the Iranian uranium enrichment freeze
would remain in place was confirmed by Mr Rohani. "We will
remain committed to all our promises," the Iranian said in
reference to the freeze pledge last November. 

He sounded optimistic about a deal, saying that an agreement
with the EU troika could be reached quickly. But his comments
contrasted with more threatening statements issuing from Tehran. 

The contradictory signals are expected to continue as Iran is in
the midst of a presidential election campaign. Diplomats do not
expect a clear line to emerge on the nuclear crisis until it is
clear who is the new Iranian president and what his options are. 

There is also dissension within the western camp, with Britain
taking a hard line on the talks that is closer to the US stance,
Germany reluctant to go down the road of sanctions against Iran,
and France in between. The Americans are pushing for Iran to be
reported to the security council. With Germany suddenly plunged
into an election campaign, the chances are bleaker that a
concerted European hard line will prevail before September. 

Yesterday's talks were preceded by a meeting between European
and American officials in Brussels on Tuesday and by recent
talks between Mr Straw and Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of
state, at which the Americans signalled they would not accept
any softening of the European stance. 

The Iranians are recognised as being astute bargainers,
exploiting every crack in the European position. As previously
in the two-year game of diplomatic brinkmanship, yesterday's
agreement suggests that a short-term truce has been reached
before the battle is rejoined. 
	
[UP] 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 3 AFP: Top Iranian nuclear negotiator pleased with EU plan - 

Thursday May 26, 04:07 PM

GENEVA (AFP) - Iranian chief negotiator Hassan Rowhani said he
was pleased with a European Union offer to come up with new,
concrete proposals to solve a dispute over Iran's controversial
nuclear programme. 

The previous day, Iranian officials and the foreign ministers of 
Britain, France and Germany managed in a last-ditch meeting in 
Geneva to avert a collapse of talks. "We liked the idea" proposed 
by the EU, Rowhani told reporters shortly before leaving 
Switzerland for Iran. 

The European ministers, representing the 25-nation EU, agreed 
with Iranian negotiators that they would make new proposals to 
Tehran in late July or August on cooperation in civilian nuclear 
power and trade ties. 

Iran in turn pledged to maintain a suspension of its uranium 
enrichment programme agreed in Paris last November, amid fears 
that Tehran's plans would allow it to develop a nuclear bomb. "Up 
to now, each time we have asked the Europeans to make clear 
proposals they have ducked the issue and taken time," he said. 

"This is the first time they have committed to making overall 
proposals." The EU ministers had sought a September deadline, but 
in the end accepted a request by Iranian negotiators in Geneva to 
bring it forward. However, Rowhani said, the timetable suggested 
by the EU must still be approved by authorities in Tehran. 

Enriched uranium can be used both for civil or military purposes, 
depending on the level of enrichment. Tehran insists that its 
nuclear programme is only meant to provide an alternative source 
of energy. On Thursday, Iranian foreign minister Kamal Kharazi 
reiterated that position.

"It's not a question of weapons of mass destruction, but of a 
peaceful technology that we have a legitimate right to use to 
produce energy," he told journalists while traveling in Lebanon.
    
         Copyright © 2005 AFP AFP. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 4 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Official Says N. Korea May Collapse
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

	Thursday May 26, 2005 5:46 PM

By GEORGE GEDDA 

Associated Press Write 

WASHINGTON (AP) - A top State Department official predicted on
Thursday that North Korea's decision to remain isolated
internationally will eventually lead to the collapse of its
communist government. 

Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill said North Korea
is showing no interest in taking lessons from the successes
neighboring China has enjoyed from its reform program. 

``It's a real problem,'' Hill said, alluding to North Korea's
self-imposed isolation. ``And it's a problem that will
ultimately be their undoing.'' 

He said chronic food production problems along with a
dysfunctional health care system are raising doubts about the
sustainability of North Korea's rigid communist system. 

Hill testified before the House International Relations
subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific. 

Hill also said that China, given its close ties with North
Korea, shoulders the major responsibility for persuading North
Korea to return to six-party talks on the North's nuclear
program. 

``If China fails to get their good friend North Korea to the
table, the six-party process will fail,'' Hill said. 

He expressed frustration with North Korea's seeming focus on
``small issues,'' such as the occasional pejorative comments in
Washington, when it should give top priority to resolving the
``monumental'' issue of nuclear weapons development. 

``We're talking about an issue that would profoundly affect the
future of North Korea,'' he said. 

``Are they serious?'' he asked. ``I can't answer that right
now.'' 

In an opinion piece in Thursday's Wall Street Journal, former
National Security adviser Brent Scowcroft and another former NSC
official, Daniel Poneman, said it is not surprising that North
Korea has resisted appeals to return to the six-party talks. 

``From the North Korean perspective, why hurry back to
negotiations that will only bring increased diplomatic
pressure?'' they asked. 

``Each day they advance their nuclear options, enhancing their
military capability and increasing the price they can demand at
the negotiating table.'' 

Hill acknowledged in his testimony the six-party process will
have to start producing results soon. 

``Clearly this can't go on forever,'' he said. 

Hill was pressed repeatedly by subcommittee members to explain
why the United States doesn't deal bilaterally with North Korea
since the multilateral process is stalled. 

He noted that State Department officials explained the U.S.
position directly to North Korean diplomats during a recent
meeting in New York. 

He added that any direct talks the United States has with North
Korea are in the context of the six-party format. China, South
Korea, Japan and Russia are part of the process, along with the
United States and North Korea. 

Hill also said the United States has a duty to its partners not
to carry the one-on-one format too far. 

He said the consequences would not be good if a U.S.-North
Korean disarmament agreement were to be reached, replete with
any assistance commitments the United States made on South
Korea's behalf. 

``You can't work it out bilaterally and then at the end of the
process just hand them the check,'' he said. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 5 Xinhua: S.Korea-US summit slated for June   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-25 12:54:17   

    SEOUL, May 25 (Xinhuanet) -- South Korean President Roh
Moo-hyun will visit Washington for a summit meeting with US
President George W. Bush on June 11, the Presidential Office
officially announced on Wednesday. 

    The two leaders will hold summit talks and then attend a
luncheon together, Presidential Spokesman Kim Man-soo said in a
news release. 

    "We will place the focus of the visit on consultations on
substantive issues," said Kim. 

    "We hope the (summit) talks to provide an important
opportunityfor the leaders to actively seek a peaceful solution
as consultations among concerning countries on the North Korean
(Democratic People's Republic of Korea) nuclear issue continue,"
hesaid. 

    One day earlier, South Korean media quoted informed source
as reporting that Roh will have meeting with Bush in June on the
nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. 

    Roh is to leave here for Washington on June 9 and will head
back to Seoul immediately after the summit on June 11, according
to the release. 

    The six-party nuclear talks aimed to solve the nuclear issue
onthe Korean Peninsula have been suspended since September last
yearas Pyongyang refused to be present at the planned fourth
round of the talks, citing Washington's "hostile" attitude. 

    Pyongyang declared in February that it suspended
participation in the six-party nuclear talks indefinitely. 

    Roh last met Bush in Santiago, Chile, on Nov. 20 last year
on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)
forum, where they reconfirmed their pledge to resolve the
nuclear issue peacefully through the six-party talks. Enditem 

  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 6 INSIDE JoongAng Joins: Chung cautions North over nuclear arms crisis
 
May 27, 2005 KST 13:49 (GMT+9)                                                                         

  May 27, 2005 ¤Ñ TOKYO ¡ª Unification Minister Chung Dong-young
warned yesterday that his government's policy of trying to
engage North Korea would be reconsidered if Pyongyang takes
steps that could threaten to deepen the current nuclear crisis. 
In a question and answer session at the Future of Asia forum in
Tokyo hosted by the Nihon Keizai Shimbun of Japan, Mr. Chung
reiterated South Korea's offer of an important proposal to North
Korea if, and when, the six-nation nuclear disarmament talks
resume and make progress. 

At last week's inter-Korean talks, Rhee Bong-jo, Mr. Chung's
deputy, told the North Korean delegation that Seoul would
provide incentives to North Korea if it returned to the
negotiation table.

 "The specifics of the proposal cannot be revealed at this
point, but it will include measures that can actually settle the
nuclear issue," Mr. Chung said. "South Korea will lead the
initiative after consulting with concerned countries."

 While Mr. Chung urged Pyongyang not to engage in any
provocative action that may put Seoul's engagement policy in
jeopardy, he made clear that he objects to any sanctions against
North Korea. 

"It is time to concentrate our efforts of diplomacy to resume
the six-party talks," Mr. Chung said. "It is not appropriate to
discuss measures to pressure North Korea at this point." 

He also said intelligence communities of South Korea, Japan and
the United States do not have hard evidence to prove that North
Korea is preparing to test a nuclear device.

 On the subject of relations between Seoul and Tokyo, Mr. Chung
urged Japan to seek the trust of its neighbors and show a
willingness to coexist. "I am concerned by some Japanese
figures' reactionary historical views which appear to be denying
the peace policy established in the post-war era," Mr. Chung
said. 


by Yeh Young-june myoja@joongang.co.kr>   
	  
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 7 AU ABC: South Korea's 'important' nuclear proposal
 
Last Updated 26/05/2005, 22:44:51 

A South Korean minister says Seoul has a proposal to break the
nuclear impasse with North Korea.

"We plan to make an important proposal that would solve the
nuclear problem in an essential way if six-way talks are
resumed," South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-Young
said on a visit to Tokyo. 

"The North Korean nuclear issue must be solved through serious
give-and-take negotiations," he said. 

But Mr Chung refused to disclose details of the proposal, saying
it was "not the right time." 

South Korea first said it had the unspecified proposal last week
when it met with North Korea for the first time in 10 months.

But the inter-Korean talks failed to reach a breakthrough to get
North Korea back to the table of six-nation talks. 

Pyongyang has accused the United States of hostility and
boycotted the six-nation talks on its nuclear program.

The parties to the talks are the two Koreas, China, Japan,
Russia and the United States. 

In February, North Korea said it had a nuclear deterrent to
defend itself. 

China seeking Japan apology

The Chinese Unification Minister was in Japan as his country
asked for an apology after a top Japanese official said
Washington no longer trusted Seoul. 

Mr Chung has declined to discuss the dispute but says "the South
Korea-US alliance will be maintained in a solid manner." 

South Korean President Roh Moo-Hyun and US President George W.
Bush are due to meet on June 10 in the United States to discuss
the North Korean nuclear issue. 

      © ABC 2005   
*****************************************************************
 8 Japan Times: North Korea wary of China

  Wednesday, May 25, 2005   

Obviously, North Korea is directing its rhetoric at Japan and
America as a way to curry favor with Beijing as well as throw it
off guard. Indeed, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il's only
logical reason for developing nuclear weapons is to ward off any
future Chinese hegemony that might someday point in his
direction. This is the only long-term way of conceptualizing the
problem since Japan and America do not pose a threat to North
Korea.

 In no way does North Korea fit into any aspect of Japan's or
America's collective international economic order. North Korea's
survival has nothing to do with Japan or America and everything
to do with China. Economic growth and increasing military
prowess in China will, in the decades ahead, overwhelm North
Korea. Let us not be fooled by North Korea's saying one thing
when it means another. For now we should merely deflect their
false threats and provocations.

 The Peninsula and Japan might actually become a safer place
with North Korean nuclear missiles, since the ultimate use of
these weapons is to serve as a shield against China. Both Japan
and South Korea would partake in this protection without really
having to do much or develop nuclear weapons of their own.

 And America might be able to withdraw more troops from East
Asia because they would no longer be of any advantage in a
possible nuclear exchange. Only nuclear weapons defend against
nuclear weapons, and over time this reality and responsibility
will encourage diplomacy. Haven't India and Pakistan been
getting on rather well lately now that both have the bomb?
Mutually assured destruction has brought about a calming and
more refined diplomacy.


KEN C. ARNOLD
Santa Monica, Calif.

 The Japan Times: May 25, 2005
 (The opinions expressed in this letter to the editor
 are the writer's own and do not necessarily reflect
 the policies of The Japan Times.) 


*****************************************************************
 9 Guardian Unlimited: Bush's war comes home
 
His dream of dominating every government institution in tatters, 
the US president is already plotting his revenge            
 		
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday May 26, 2005
 		
President Bush's drive for absolute power has momentarily 
stalled. In a single coup, he planned to take over all the 
institutions of government. By crushing the traditions of the 
Senate he would pack the courts, especially the supreme court, 
with lockstep ideologues. Sheer force would prevail. But just as 
his blitzkrieg reached the outskirts of his objective, he was 
struck by a mutiny. Within the span of 24 hours he lost control 
not only of the Senate but temporarily of the House of 
Representatives, which was supposed to be regimented by 
unquestioned loyalty. Now he prepares to launch a counterattack - 
against the dissident elements of his own party. 

Bush's wonder weapon for total victory was a device called the 
"nuclear option". Once it was triggered, it would obliterate a 
200-year-old tradition of the Senate. The threat of a Democratic 
filibuster in the Senate of his appointments to the federal bench 
would set the doomsday sequence in motion. The Senate Republican 
majority leader, Bill Frist of Tennessee, would call for a change 
in the rule, and a simple majority would vote to abolish the 
filibuster. Bush's nominees would sail through. 

Unlike the House, the Senate was constructed by the 
constitutional framers as an unrepresentative body, with each 
state, regardless of population, allotted two senators. 
Currently, the Republicans have 55 senators who represent only 
45% of the country. The Senate creates its own rules, and the 
filibuster can only be stopped by a super-majority of 60 votes. 
Historically, it was used by southern senators to block civil 
rights legislation. In the first two years of the Clinton 
presidency, the Republicans deployed 48 filibusters, more than in 
the entire previous history of the Senate, to make the new 
Democratic chief executive appear feckless. The strategy was 
instrumental in the Republican capture of the Congress in 1994. 
By depriving the Democrats of the filibuster, Bush intended to 
transform the Senate into his rubber stamp. 

For many senators the fate of the filibuster was only 
superficially about an arcane rule change. And shameless 
hypocrisy was the least of the problem. (Frist, like most 
Republicans in favour of the nuclear option, had enthusiastically 
filibustered against Clinton's court nominees, 65 of which were 
blocked from 1995-2000.) If Bush succeeded he would have 
effectively removed the Senate's "advice and consent" on 
executive appointments, drastically reducing its power. 
zz Over the weekend, two elders, Senator Robert Byrd, Democrat of 
West Virginia, and Senator John Warner, Republican of Virginia, 
pored over the federalist papers, written by the constitutional 
framers, to refresh their thinking about the inviolability of the 
Senate. On Monday, seven Republicans and seven Democrats signed a 
pact that preserved the filibuster under "extraordinary" 
circumstances and allowed several of Bush's appointments to be 
voted on. 

The mutiny is broader than is apparent. More than the seven 
Republican signatories supported the accord, but they let the 
others take a public stance without revealing themselves. Bush's 
radicalism offended their conservatism. Eisenhower would be their 
preferred model for a Republican president. These Republican 
senators are the equivalent of the Republicans on the supreme 
court, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, who are 
conservative but operate without ideology, and hold the balance 
against the aggressive rightwing justices. 
z The day after Bush was frustrated by Republicans in the Senate, 
50 Republicans in the House deserted him on the issue of stem 
cell research. His policy limiting scientific work is a sop to 
the religious right that views the stem cell question as an 
extension of abortion. Debate in the House was marshalled by 
Republican majority leader Tom DeLay, who argued that Bush's 
policy must be supported because "Jesus of Nazareth" began life 
as an embryo. Bush promised to veto the stem cell bill passed 
with massive Republican defections, the irony of his opposition 
to the filibuster unmentioned. 

The compromise pact in the Senate on the filibuster hardly 
postpones the coming storms. The White House intends to push 
judicial nominees that the Democrats are almost certain to 
filibuster. With the elimination of the nuclear option, the 
filibuster may also be used against Bush's supreme court 
appointments. Evangelical religious right leaders denounce 
Republican senators as sell-outs. One of the most influential, 
James Dobson, has cursed one of the silent compromise supporters, 
Senator Trent Lott, the former Republican majority leader from 
Mississippi, as a Judas, and Lott has called Dobson "quite 
unChristian". 

Meanwhile, the conflict has focused attention on the Republican 
presidential succession of 2008, pitting Bill Frist - positioning 
himself as the darling of the right - against cantankerous John 
McCain, one of the Republican magnificent seven. Within the 
party, metal is scraping on metal. But the more the resistance, 
the more Bush presses forward. His unilateralism abroad has been 
brought home, with a vengeance, to his partisan wars. 

In federalist paper number 69 (perhaps re-read by Byrd and 
Warner), Alexander Hamilton concludes his examination of the 
differences between the "qualified" powers of the US presidency 
and the "absolute" powers of the king of Great Britain: "The one 
has no particle of spiritual jurisdiction; the other is the 
supreme head and governor of the national church! What answer 
shall we give to those who would persuade us that things so 
unlike resemble each other? The same that ought to be given to 
those who tell us that a government, the whole power of which 
would be in the hands of the elective and periodical servants of 
the people, is an aristocracy, a monarchy, and a despotism." 

· Sidney Blumenthal is former senior adviser to President Clinton 
and author of The Clinton Wars 

[UP] 

About this site Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 
2005
*****************************************************************
 10 Guardian Unlimited: Diplomat Tries to Salvage U.N. Conference
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

	Thursday May 26, 2005 10:01 AM

By CHARLES J. HANLEY 

AP Special Correspondent 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - The job of trying to salvage a monthlong
conference to tighten controls on nuclear arms, now down to its
final two days, rested in the hands of its Brazilian president
on Thursday. 

Sergio de Queiroz Duarte had little to work with, since the
conference's three main committees, caught in a crossfire of
issues ranging from Iran's nuclear centrifuges to U.S. weapons
plans, all failed to produce consensus recommendations for the
full conference to adopt. 

``There's no hope for a consensus final document,'' a key player
said privately after meeting Wednesday with the Brazilian
diplomat, who may have to settle for issuing a presidential
summary of issues, with no conference-endorsed solutions. 

The more than 180 member nations of the Nuclear Nonproliferation
Treaty convene every five years to identify weaknesses in
implementing the treaty, and to forge political agreement on
steps to remedy them. Though not legally binding, like the
treaty itself, these consensus positions give a boost to
nonproliferation initiatives. 

Under the 1970 nuclear pact, states without atomic arms pledged
not to develop them, and five with the weapons - the United
States, Russia, Britain, France and China - undertook to
eventually eliminate their arsenals. The nonweapons states,
meanwhile, were guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear
technology. 

That guarantee underlies the confrontation over Iran's
uranium-enrichment program, whose gas centrifuges can produce
both fuel for nuclear power plants and material for bombs.
Washington contends Tehran has plans to build weapons, in
violation of the treaty, a charge Iran denies. 

The German, French and British foreign ministers met with
Iranian negotiators on Wednesday in Geneva in the latest round
of long-running talks to get Iran to roll back its nuclear
program in exchange for political and economic incentives. 

Some delegations here had hoped the U.N. meeting might
jump-start an examination of ways to limit access to sensitive
dual-use technology, such as enrichment equipment. Meanwhile,
proposals before the conference's Main Committee II included a
paragraph urging Tehran, among other things, to continue its
current suspension of nuclear activities. 

But the Iranians, unhappy at being singled out as a
proliferation concern, objected to any mention in the text,
saying the situation is being handled in other forums. 

Egypt also objected to Committee II's proposed document on the
Middle East, where Arab nations have long sought a nuclear
weapons-free zone, requiring Israel to dismantle its undeclared
nuclear arsenal. The details of Egypt's objections were not
immediately available. 

Since decisions must be made unanimously, the stymied committee
ended its closed-door work late Tuesday with no recommendations
to forward. ``It's a sobering moment, a very bad signal,''
Chairman Laszlo Molnar of Hungary said of his committee's
failure. 

The conference's two other committees ended their work Wednesday
and forwarded proposals to the main conference body, but without
consensus endorsement. 

Behind the closed doors of Main Committee I, the U.S. delegation
objected to clauses in the text relating to weapons states'
disarmament obligations, participants reported. Among other
things, the proposal took a stand against ``nuclear sharing,'' a
term applicable to longstanding U.S. basing of nuclear weapons
in European countries. 

Many nuclear ``have-nots'' complain the weapons states are
moving too slowly toward disarmament, and cite in particular
Bush administration talk of modernizing the U.S. nuclear arsenal
and its rejection of the 1996 treaty banning nuclear tests. 

In reply, U.S. officials point to sharp reductions in strategic
nuclear forces since the early 1990s, and the continuing
unilateral U.S. moratorium on testing. American actions ``have
established an enviable record of Article VI compliance,'' U.S.
delegate Jackie Sanders told Committee I last week, referring to
the treaty article on disarmament. 

But others rejected the U.S. position on the committee proposal.
``The Americans have requested deletion of some fundamental
issues. We cannot agree,'' Mexico's Luis Alfonso de Alba told a
reporter. 

Similar disputes played out early in the conference, when it
took more than two weeks to settle on an agenda. That delay then
left delegates with little time for serious negotiation on the
issues. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 11 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear Conference Approaches End
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
	Thursday May 26, 2005 11:31 PM

By CHARLES J. HANLEY 

AP Special Correspondent 

UNITED NATIONS (AP) - All but paralyzed on its next-to-last day,
the global conference on the nonproliferation treaty was reduced
Thursday to quibbling over a footnote, having failed to agree on
any concrete new steps to deal with growing nuclear fears in the
world. 

The quibble had symbolic meaning: whether a conference report
should point to past disarmament commitments many say the United
States is shirking. 

But in their closing sessions Friday, after a month's work, the
delegations of more than 180 nations will have no final document
to approve, of consensus recommendations for action. At best,
they may adopt a brief statement endorsing nonproliferation
principles. 

It will be a feeble climax to weeks of divisive debate over
issues ranging from Iran's uranium centrifuges, to Israel's
nuclear capabilities, to U.S. weapons plans. 

``It's a tremendous lost opportunity to strengthen the effort to
stop proliferation,'' said Daryl Kimball, of the private,
Washington-based Arms Control Association. 

The members of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty convene only
once every five years to identify weaknesses in implementing the
1970 treaty, and to forge political agreement on steps to remedy
them. Though not legally binding, like the treaty itself, these
consensus positions give a boost to nonproliferation
initiatives. 

Under the 1970 nuclear pact, states without atomic arms pledged
not to develop them, and five with the weapons - the United
States, Russia, Britain, France and China - undertook to
eventually eliminate their arsenals. The nonweapons states,
meanwhile, were guaranteed access to peaceful nuclear
technology. 

That guarantee underlies the long-running dispute over Iran's
uranium-enrichment program, whose gas centrifuges can produce
both fuel for nuclear power plants and material for bombs.
Washington contends Tehran plans to build weapons, but the
Iranians say they're interested only in peaceful energy. 

Delegations here had promoted ideas, for example, for limiting
access to such dual-use technology with bombmaking potential,
along with proposals to strengthen inspection of nuclear
facilities, pressure nuclear-weapons states to reduce arsenals
more quickly, and take other steps to rein in the ultimate
weapons. 

Some also supported plans to make withdrawing from the treaty
more difficult and penalty-laden. That was a response to North
Korea's announced withdrawal from the treaty in 2003 and its
declaration that it has built nuclear bombs - all done without
consequence under the nonproliferation pact. 

But the three conference committees were caught in a crossfire
of interests, including U.S.-Iranian antagonisms, and all failed
to reach consensus on action programs to send to the full
conference. 

Iran objected to proposed language singling it out as a
proliferation concern. Egypt blocked action on toughening treaty
withdrawal, wanting the option to pull out as long as ex-enemy
Israel, not a treaty member, has a nuclear arsenal. The United
States, for its part, objected to any reference in a final
document to disarmament commitments it and other weapons states
made at the 1995 and 2000 conferences. 

Those commitments included, for example, activation of the
nuclear test-ban treaty and negotiation of a verifiable treaty
banning production of bomb material - both steps now opposed by
the Bush administration. 

The conference's last-minute squabble focused on whether to
include in its technical report - as a kind of footnote - a May
12 statement of the Non-Aligned Movement here that had indicated
the conference should assess how well the 1995 and 2000
commitments have been met. 

Critics here accused Washington of reneging on those
commitments, thereby undermining the balance of nonproliferation
and disarmament obligations in the treaty. 

``I wish the United States had been more flexible here, and not
tried to question or downgrade the validity with respect to the
1995 and 2000 commitments,'' said Thomas Graham, a former lead
U.S. arms negotiator. 

A U.S. delegation spokesman indicated it balked on the
disarmament side because it felt the conference was paying too
little attention to Iran and Washington's other proliferation
concerns. 

``We're happy to talk about their issues,'' said Richard
Grenell, ``but there needs to be a recognition we have to talk
about our issues and their issues - not exclusively their
issues.'' 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 12 Platts: European CO2 market could be critical by 2015: McKinsey
 
+ The shortfall between CO2 emissions reductions targets in 
Europe and forecast actual emissions in 2005-2007 is around 
80-mil mt/yr, said Ron Bloemers, consultant at McKinsey &Company, 
at Synergy's Energy Trading in Central &Eastern Europe conference 
in Budapest Wednesday. 

According to McKinsey calculations, this corresponds to a price 
of some Eur 16/mt in the period--roughly in line with current 
market prices. McKinsey believes that emission quota prices could 
rise to Eur 20/mt by 2010, assuming oil at $40/bbl and a 
relatively tight emissions target of 1,185-mil mt for the EU's 
power sector. But by 2015, maintaining constant emissions could 
become prohibitively expensive. 

"In a tight scenario, the price goes off the scale at Eur 50," 
said Bloemers, even assuming oil at $30/bbl. 

A relatively lax target of 1,265-mil mt could mean a quota price 
of Eur 30/mt. Europe will therefore have to find "relief valves" 
if it wants its economy to still grow while not softening Kyoto 
targets, according to Bloemers. 

A key move could be maintaining high levels of nuclear generation 
in Germany. "If the nuclear phase-out goes away, you have a lot 
of emissions-free terawatt-hours on the market," he said. 

Other choices include shutting down emitting industries are not a 
feasible option, he noted. McKinsey predicts "massive 
replacement" of coal-fired with gas-fired capacity after 2010, as 
European generators scramble to meet emissions targets. 

As a result, coal-fired generation could drop off by as much as 
50% in 2010-2015, said Bloemers. This story was originally 
published in Platts European Power Alert 
http://www.europeanpoweralert.platts.com 

Budapest (Platts)--26May2005
 
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]   
*****************************************************************
 13 BBC: Russian fights Swiss extradition
 
Last Updated: Thursday, 26 May, 2005
 
[Yevgeny Adamov]                                

Mr Adamov wants to go to Russia as a free man                                                           

A former Russian nuclear energy minister is to oppose a move by 
Moscow to have him extradited from Switzerland on corruption 
charges. 

Yevgeny Adamov was held on a US warrant accusing him of 
misappropriating funds allotted by Washington for security in 
Russian nuclear facilities. 

Mr Adamov's legal team said he wanted to return to Russia to 
fight the charges, but as a free man. 

The US authorities are also seeking Mr Adamov's extradition. 

They have until 30 June to make a request. 

The BBC's Steve Rosenberg in Moscow says Mr Adamov has triggered 
a judicial tug-of-war between east and west. 

The possibility of such a senior figure being extradited to the 
US had set alarm bells ringing in Russia, he says. 

Criminal case 

Mr Adamov was arrested on 2 May on a warrant issued in the US 
city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on suspicion that he embezzled 
$9m. 

But the Russian justice ministry announced last week that a 
criminal case had been opened against him in Moscow. 

The former minister said he would fight attempts to remove him by 
force. 

"I wish to hereby inform you, that I am rejecting a simplified 
extradition to both requesting parties," Mr Adamov said in a 
statement read out by lawyers. 

"The incarceration of my person, demanded by the United States of 
America, is illegal. I intend to leave prison as a free man and 
to return to my homeland as a free man." 

Mr Adamov was nuclear energy minister from 1998 to 2001. 

Russian politicians have warned that he possessed detailed 
knowledge of Russia's nuclear weapons programme - secrets which 
could not be allowed to fall into US hands. 

One ultra-nationalist MP even called for Mr Adamov to be 
assassinated to make sure no secrets leaked out. 

		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 14 Xinhua: NPT summit making no headway   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-05-25 10:31:13   

    BEIJING, May 25 -- A month long UN conference will end its
final week on Friday with the parties present still
significantly differing on major issues blocking a final
consensus to fix the nuclear Non-Proliferation treaty. 

    The 188 nations meeting at United Nations headquarters in
New York tried to reach agreement in three committees that cover
the so-called three pillars of the NPT: disarmament,
verification of safeguards on national nuclear programs, and the
peaceful use of atomic energy. 

    The committees are currently deliberating over the final
document from the conference, but failed to reach consensus on
it as the US opposes reaffirming in the draft version that the
nuclear powers follow through their previous pledges to disarm. 

    Additionally, the US is against citing specific steps to be
taken to push for a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. 

    (Source: CRIENGLISH.com) 

    
  Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 15 Pennsylvania¹s Nuclear Power Plant  
 
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 14:21:06 -0700

----------
Subject: Pennsylvania¹s Nuclear Power Plant Emergency Notification Systems 
Vulnerable

Pennsylvania¹s Nuclear Power Plant Emergency

Notification Systems Vulnerable to Grid Failures and Safety 
Challenges

Senate Set to Grill NRC  Commissioners at Today¹s Oversight
       Hearing Before the  Environment and Public Works Committee

May 26, 2005

Contact:
Paul Gunter, Director                     Eric Epstein, Chairman
Nuclear Information and Resource Service         Three Mile Island Alert, Inc.
#202-328-0002                         #717-541-1101

  (Harrisburg, Pa.) - Four of Pennsylvania's nuclear generating 
stations have no backup power while one plant is limited to 
partial energy power for siren and alert systems in the event a 
³Blackout², ³Brownout², or grid failure*  (See Attachment).

On May 20, 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) denied a 
Petition filed by 17 independent public interest organizations 
and local governments. The filing, submitted on February 23, 
2005, demonstrated that grid failures as the result of lightning, 
hurricanes, ice storms, earthquakes and mechanical failures in 
the electricity distribution system routinely cause a loss of 
power to alerting systems around nuclear power stations.
zz The loss of offsite power significantly increases the risk of 
a core melt accident because of reduced safety systems.

____
*     None of the nuclear generation stations on the PJM grid in 
New Jersey or Maryland possess backup power to notify residents 
in the event of a nuclear safety challenge.

Exelon plants in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Illinois remain 
among the most unprepared facilities.

Please refer to attachment i, ii & iii.


                          1

The NRC maintained that it was inappropriate for reactor 
communities to seek relief  for backup power for sirens under the 
agency¹s emergency enforcement petition process.

Instead, the NRC determined that a request for equipping nuclear 
power plants with emergency power for its siren systems should go 
through  petition for rule making process which typically takes 
at least years of deliberations.

    ³The NRC is ignoring public safety by failing to enforce its 
own licensing agreements for emergency planning,² said Eric 
Epstein, Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, a safe-energy group 
based in Harrisburg and founded in 1977. Epstein noted that his 
organization filed requests to address security shortcomings in 
2001 and emergency preparedness gaps in 2002. Neither petition 
has been addressed by the Commission.

Mr. Epstein added, ³The NRC did not dispute the fact that many 
siren systems around nuclear power stations could fail in the 
event of a radiological release coinciding with a power 
blackout.²

The nuclear industry¹s current fall back position is to rely upon 
³local route notifications² where first responders, e.g., police, 
fire departments, and EMS departments into emergency vehicles and 
communicate instructions through bull horns while traveling 
through neighborhoods within the ten-mile emergency planning 
zone.

                        2

   Plants without backup power to any sirens*:

Beaver Valley (FirstEnergy: Shippingport, Pennsylvania)
Browns Ferry
Brunswick
Catawba
Calvert Cliffs  (BGE/Constellation: Lusby, Maryland)
Clinton (Exelon: Clinton, Illinois)
Davis-Besse
Fitzpatrick & Nine Mile Point
Fort Calhoun
Grand Gulf Ginna
Indian Point
Kewaunee
Limerick (Exelon:  Pottstown Pennsylvania)
McGuire
Oconee
Oyster Creek (Exelon: Forked River, New Jersey)
Peach Bottom  (Exelon: Delta, Pennsylvania)
Point Beach
Robinson
Salem/Hope Creek  (PSE&G: Salem, New Jersey)
Sequoyah
Summer
Susquehanna  (PPL: Berwick, Pennsylvania)
Vermont Yankee
Watts Bar
Wolf Creek

*    Source: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, May 25, 2005

     Plants with backup power to some sirens:


Arkansas Nuclear One
Braidwood (Exelon: Braidwood, Illinois)
Byron (Exelon: Byron, Illinois)
Comanche Peak
Cook
Dresden (Exelon: Morris, Illinois)
Duane Arnold
Diablo Canyon
Cooper
LaSalle (Exelon: Seneca, Illinois)
North Anna
Palo Verdes
Quad Cities (Exelon: Cordova, Illinois)
San Onofre
Shearon Harris
South Texas
Surry
Three Mile Island  (Exelon: Londonderry Township, Pennsylvania)

                        ii

            Plants with backup power to all sirens:

Callaway
Columbia
Crystal River
Farley
Fermi
Millstone
Monticello
Palisades
Perry
Pilgrim
Prairie Island
Seabrook
St. Lucie
River Bend
Turkey Point
Vogtle
Waterford

                          iii  

*****************************************************************
 16 [NukeNet] Public Citizen comments on Clinton Draft EIS
 
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 14:21:12 -0700

 
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

hi all, below are PC's comments on the Clinton Draft EIS for 
Exelon's Early Site Permit application.  they're also online 
(both text and nicely-formatted PDF) at: 
http://www.citizen.org/cmep/energy_enviro_nuclear/nuclear_power_plants/nuclear_revival/esp/clinton/articles.cfm?ID=13469


enjoy!

Brendan Hoffman
Organizer, Nuclear Energy & Waste
Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program
Public Citizen
p: 202.454.5130
f: 202.547.7392
bhoffman@citizen.org
www.citizen.org/cmep

==================================

May 25, 2005

Michael T. Lesar
Chief, Rules and Directives Branch
Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Mail Stop T-6D59
Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

Re: Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for an Early
Site Permit (ESP) at Exelon's ESP Site at the Clinton Power Station
(NUREG-1815)

Dear Mr. Lesar:

Enclosed you will find the comments of Public Citizen on the NRC's
draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Early Site Permit
(ESP) at Exelon's ESP site at the Clinton Power Station near Clinton,
Illinois.  These comments are presented in response to a notice
published in the March 10, 2005 issue of the Federal Register (Vol. 70,
No. 46, pg. 12022).

Public Citizen¯in conjunction with the Nuclear Information and
Resource Service, the Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, and the
Environmental Law and Policy Center¯has been admitted as a party to
the licensing proceeding for the Exelon ESP.  As a formal participant
with standing in this proceeding, we hope that our comments and
recommendations on the draft EIS are considered seriously and taken into
account before the NRC issues its final EIS on this project.

For the reasons presented herein, Public Citizen views the draft EIS
for the Exelon ESP as deficient, and we disagree with the NRC staff's
recommendation that the ESP should be granted.  Please enter these
comments into the official record on this proceeding.

Sincerely,

Joseph P. Malherek
Policy Analyst, Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy Program



Public Citizen's Comments on the NRC's Draft Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the
Exelon ESP Site at the Clinton Power Station


General Comments on the NRC's ESP Licensing Process

The purpose of this Early Site Permit (ESP) process is ostensibly to
"assess whether a proposed site is suitable should Exelon decide to
pursue a [construction permit (CP)] or [combined construction and
operating license (COL)]" (EIS, page xxv).  Yet, this draft
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) fails to consider or to fully
acknowledge numerous environmental issues that could demonstrate that
the Clinton site is not suitable for an additional nuclear unit.  The
arbitrary separation of the ESP and COL compromises the ability of the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to perform a thorough and
adequate evaluation¯at either stage or in total¯of the potential
environmental impacts from new reactor development.  Under this
regime¯designed to "provide stability in the licensing process"
(EIS, § 1.3)¯far too many environmental impact considerations have
been deferred to the COL stage of the licensing process.

In comments to the NRC regarding a draft EIS for a similar ESP sought
by the energy company Dominion at its North Anna Power Station, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) registered its reservations with
this licensing scheme: "EPA has concerns with this approach since it
ignores the justification for the power plant addition in the early
stage of project development as well as biases the subsequent energy
alternative analysis toward nuclear power under the second EIS since the
NRC would have approved the suitability under the ESP."   The EPA
underscored its concerns by pointing out the artificial twenty-year
horizon allotted under the ESP, during which time circumstances and
technologies
may change dramatically, rendering the conclusions of the
EIS moot.  The EPA further noted that, typically, if an action has not
taken place within three years of an EIS, a supplemental EIS is
required.   Public Citizen agrees with the EPA's concerns about this
problematic licensing disjunction.

This discordant licensing structure is also evident in the need for a
"Site Redress Plan" (EIS, § 4.11), which addresses the activities
that would be required to restore the ESP site to its present state in
the case that Exelon is granted an ESP but fails to seek or acquire a CP
or COL within twenty years to consummate the preparatory activities
allowed under the ESP.  The breadth of site-preparation activities
allowed under the ESP (considered a  "partial construction permit"
under 10 C.F.R. 52.21) is remarkable, including clearing, grading, and
excavating the site; building roads, service and support facilities; and
even the construction of ancillary plant components such as cooling
towers, intake and discharge structures, and a transmission system (EIS,
pp. 4-42 to 4-43).  This degree of construction activity and the
financial investment it would require would appear to compel the
construction of a nuclear unit, yet this reality is not appreciated at
this stage of the licensing process, indicating the bizarre division
between the ESP and the COL.  Clearly, the specific site and the
specific reactor are one in the same project, and the division into the
separate ESP and COL licensing processes is completely arbitrary,
compromising the NRC's ability to perform an adequate evaluation of
the potential environmental impacts from the project.

While Exelon has not firmly committed to constructing a new nuclear
unit at the Clinton Power Station (CPS) of even selected a specific
reactor design (EIS, pg. 1-5), it is part of an industry consortium
called NuStart Energy Development that plans to apply for a COL.  If
granted an ESP, Exelon could be permitted to begin an extensive
construction operation while numerous important issues, such as the need
for power and the indefinite storage of additional waste onsite, have
not been addressed.   Simply declaring that NRC is not required to look
at these issues does not make them go away.

Plant Parameter Envelope

The Vagueness of the PPE
No specific plant design has been chosen for the new nuclear unit at
the CPS; instead, a plant parameter envelope (PPE)¯a set of
"bounding parameters"¯has been specified.  The new unit may
consist of "one or more reactors or reactor modules" and have a
maximum core thermal power rating of 6800 MW(t) (EIS, pg. 3-1).  As many
as eight reactors may be constructed at the CPS (EIS, pg. 3-3).

The scope of reactor types considered within the PPE¯including five
light water reactor (LWR) and two gas-cooled reactor types, not all of
which have been approved by the NRC (EIS, § 3.2)¯is far too broad,
making it impossible to provide a reasonably precise judgment of the
environmental impact of a new nuclear unit at the CPS, especially
considering that Exelon is not even required to employ any one of these
designs if it ultimately decides to build a new nuclear unit at the CPS
(EIS, pg. 3-3).  The EPA, in commenting on the draft EIS for a similar
new nuclear development, criticized the NRC for this imprecision, noting
that "There is inadequate design information available for some of the
proposed units from which to make accurate environmental assessments of
the impacts."   Exelon did not provide any specific design information
on a heat dissipation system or radioactive waste-management system for
a new nuclear unit at the CPS (EIS, pg. 3-10).

Furthermore, the inaccuracy of this review system is belied by the NRC
staff's admission that they neglected to review Exelon's PPE values
for correctness (EIS, pg. 3-5).

Accident Scenarios
In its analysis of the potential consequences of "design basis"
accidents, Exelon used the characteristics of two particular reactor
designs, assuming the impacts of such ac
cidents would bound those of
other possible reactor designs (EIS, pg. 5-66).  For its analysis of
"severe" accidents, Exelon evaluates the consequences for the
current generation reactors¯not of the kind that it would build at the
CPS (EIS, pg. 5-66)¯and the NRC only considers two reactor designs it
considers bounding in its evaluation of potential hazards from a serious
accident (EIS, pg. 5-69).  How can the NRC reasonably judge accident
consequences when several of the potential reactor designs proffered by
Exelon have never been deployed?

National Environmental Policy Act Requirements

The draft EIS fails to adequately execute the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by not adequately providing a
"detailed statement" of (1) alternatives to the proposed action,
(2) unavoidable environmental impacts, (3) irretrievable commitments of
resources, and (3) the relationship between short-term uses of the
environment and long-term productivity [42 U.S.C. § 4332(C)].

Instead of a thorough evaluation, these issues receive only brief,
perfunctory attention in Chapter 10 of the draft EIS.  For example, only
a half-page is devoted to energy conservation as an alternative, which
Exelon considers unreasonable, an assessment that the NRC staff appears
to agree with (EIS, § 8.2.1.1).

Alternative Energy Sources
Regarding these NEPA requirements, of particular concern to Public
Citizen is the deficient consideration of renewable energy sources draft
EIS.  While addressing renewable energy sources as an alternative, the
draft EIS does not give a fair and thorough consideration of the
potential of clean, sustainable energy, and it relies far too heavily on
the faulty evaluations performed by Exelon (see EIS, § 8.2.3).  Public
Citizen and others have successfully intervened in the licensing
proceeding for the Clinton ESP on the grounds that Exelon's
application "does not provide the basis for the rigorous exploration
and objective evaluation of all reasonable alternatives to the ESP that
is required NEPA."

The evaluation of alternatives to the proposed action in the EIS fails
to achieve the requirements of 40 C.F.R. 1502.14, which compels
agencies, inter alia, to "devote substantial treatment to each
alternative considered in detail."  While the draft EIS gives fair
attention to alternative sites for a new reactor, it gives only scant
attention to renewable energy alternatives, despite the conservative
admission that Illinois has at least 9000 MW(e) of wind power potential
(EIS, pg. 8-17).

The draft EIS overstates the impacts of clean energy alternatives and
understates the impacts of nuclear power, wrongly concluding that a new
nuclear unit at the CPS would be "environmentally preferable" to a
combination of clean energy generation alternatives such as wind, solar,
and biomass, and even suggesting that a new nuclear unit is preferable
in the areas of "air resources, ecological resources, water resources,
and aesthetics" (EIS, § 8.2.4).

Radioactive Waste and the Nuclear Fuel Cycle

High-Level Radioactive Waste
The draft EIS fails to evaluate the environmental impacts and security
threat of indefinitely storing the additional irradiated fuel that would
be generated by the proposed additional nuclear unit onsite.  Another
nuclear unit at Clinton could create annually 20 to 30 metric tons of
additional irradiated fuel to the site.  Despite the NRC's Waste
Confidence Decision, the only national repository site under
consideration, Yucca Mountain in Nevada, is far from a done deal.
Numerous scientific questions remain about whether the site can safely
store waste, and, recently, a scandal has erupted over the possible
falsification of scientific studies used to justify the geologic
suitability of the site.

The NRC's assumption that at deep repositories like Yucca Mountain
"no [radioactive] release to the environment is expected" (EIS,
pg. 6-13) is unfounded¯the geologic integrity of this site is far from
proven.  Moreover, the Department o
f Energy (DoE) has not yet submitted
its license application to the NRC, although the statutory deadline was
more than two years ago.  DoE was supposed to begin accepting waste in
1998 and is highly unlikely to meet its revised goal of accepting waste
by 2012.  Further, Illinois law [220 ILCS 5/8-406(c)] prohibits the
construction of a new nuclear power plant until the director of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency finds that the U.S. government
has identified and approved and demonstrable technology or means for the
disposal of high-level nuclear waste.

Even if Yucca Mountain is opened, the site cannot hold the high-level
radioactive waste that will be generated by existing reactors after
2010.  Therefore, in addition to the waste generated by existing
reactors, waste created by a new nuclear unit at Clinton would also have
to remain onsite for an indefinite period of time.  The NRC recently
approved an unprecedented 40-year license extension for the nuclear
operator Dominion to store high-level nuclear waste on-site at its Surry
nuclear plant near Williamsburg, Virginia, indicating that fuel can
reasonably be expected to be stored at reactor sites for at least that
long.   The environmental impacts of indefinite storage must be
thoroughly evaluated in the final EIS.

Spent Fuel Reprocessing
The draft EIS only considers the "no recycle" option for irradiated
fuel management, which treats spent fuel as waste to be stored at a
federal waste repository, and does not fully consider the possible
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel (EIS, pg. 6-6).  Yet, the DoE has had
significant setbacks in its attempt to attain a license for a federal
repository for irradiated nuclear fuel at Yucca Mountain, and the
federal policy banning the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel far from
intractable.  In fact, the DoE was granted more than $67 million in
fiscal year (FY) 2005 for the "Advanced fuel cycle initiative," a
research and development program intended to provide technology to
"recover the energy content in spent nuclear fuel," and it has
requested $70 million from Congress for FY 2006 for the same program.
This continued government interest in reprocessing, combined with the
failure to establish a national repository for irradiated nuclear fuel,
should compel the NRC to consider the impacts of spent fuel reprocessing
in the final EIS.

Depleted Uranium
The draft EIS lacks a consideration of the environmental and public
health impacts resulting from military applications of depleted uranium
(DU), a byproduct of the enrichment process of the fuel cycle.
Moreover, there is not a complete consideration of the impacts of
managing this substance as a waste.  There is no repository established
for the permanent disposal of depleted uranium, but the impacts of such
a hypothetical facility should be considered.

Uranium Milling and Mining
The draft EIS estimates that, for the reference reactor-year (a
1000-MW(e) LWR), 816,000 metric tons (MT) of raw ore would be required
to produce 900 MT of yellowcake for ultimate use as fuel after
conversion, enrichment, and fabrication (EIS, § 6.1.2.4 and § 6.1.2.5).
Over time, as worldwide uranium ore supplies are depleted, requiring
exploitation of less pure deposits of ore, would this ratio of ore to
yellowcake increase?  If so, would the environmental impacts of mining
and milling become greater?

Transportation Accidents (§ 6.2)
This section and the accompanying Appendix G of the draft EIS do not
give adequate weight and consideration to the possibility and
consequences of severe accident scenarios resulting from the
transportation of spent nuclear fuel.  The possibility of extreme
accidents, while slight, exists, as evidenced by recent incidents such
as the Baltimore train tunnel fire of 2001 and the more recent accident
in Graniteville, South Carolina in January, where a violent train crash
and release of chlorine killed nine people, sent hundreds to the
hospital, and required thousands to evacuate their homes.

W
ater Resources

CPS Impacts on Clinton Lake
Clinton Lake is an artificial reservoir that was created by Illinois
Power Company in 1977 as a source of cooling water for the CPS, but it
has become a popular recreation area (see EIS pg. 2-6), attracting
nearly a million visitors in 2000 (EIS, pg. 2-5).  The CPS draws cooling
water from the lake and is one of the largest users of water in the
region (EIS, pg. 5.3.2).

A "once-through" heat dissipation system from the CPS¯the kind
currently in use to serve the existing reactor, drawing 566,000 gallons
per minute (gpm) from Clinton Lake (EIS, § 2.6.2.1)¯which discharges
heated water into Clinton Lake acts to induce greater evaporation and
reduce the volume of the lake (EIS, § 5.3.1).  The first Clinton unit
raised the temperature of the lake by about 14*F (EIS, pg. 5-19).  This
elevated water temperature is considered by the NRC to be "the most
significant water quality concern associated with the existing unit"
(EIS, § 2.6.3.1), as water temperature is essential to the maintenance
of a healthy aquatic environment (EIS, pg. 5-19).  Higher water
temperatures can increase the number of thermophilic microorganisms,
including harmful enteric pathogens such as Salmonella sp. (EIS, §
5.8.1).

Exelon proposes a closed-cycle cooling system to serve a new nuclear
unit at the CPS (EIS, § 3.2.1.1) ¯though it does not provide and
specific design information on such a system (EIS, pg. 3-10).  A
closed-cycle system would consume greater quantities of water from
Clinton Lake without recharge¯approximately 44,843 gallons per minute
(gpm) (EIS, pg. 3-8)¯most of which would be released into the
atmosphere as evaporation (§ 3.2.1.1).

The NRC staff found in its review that the frequency and magnitude of
low water conditions resulting from the operation of an additional
nuclear unit at the CPS are greater than those predicted by the
applicant and may require mitigation measures in dry, low-water years,
including the temporary shutdown of the plant, thus judging the impact
of another nuclear unit on lake water level as "moderate" (EIS, §
5-7).  The lower water levels may also expose shoreline and allow
"exotic opportunistic species" to overtake native vegetation; the
NRC staff reports that such impacts could be "substantial," but
defers more detailed evaluation until the CP or COL stage because of a
lack of adequate information (EIS, § 5.4.1.4).  Recreational use of the
lake may also be adversely affected by lower water levels (EIS, pg.
5-37).  Drought conditions in the Midwest are predicted to become more
prevalent in coming decades due to climate change, which could
exacerbate the problem.

Will Clinton Lake be able to support this significant additional
withdrawal, even in years of severe drought?  How would the safe
operation of the plant be affected in such a situation?  Could lower
lake levels cause or contribute to the severity of a loss-of-coolant
accident?  The final EIS should demonstrate a trenchant investigation
into these questions, considering the desirability of preserving Clinton
Lake and the critical importance of a healthy water supply to the safe
functioning of the plant.

Aquatic Ecology
How will the addition of a new nuclear unit to the CPS, with great
consumptive water use and potential thermal impacts (EIS, pg. 3-7),
affect the health of the various species of fish that populate Clinton
Lake, such as the striped bass, as well as threatened species such as
the slippershell mussel and spike that may be present in the vicinity of
the CPS (EIS, pg. 2-32, 2-35)?  How would an investigation of the
hydrodynamics of the lake¯something currently lacking from Exelon's
environmental report for the Clinton ESP (§ 2.6.1.3)¯aid in knowledge
of such effects?  Is it possible that the effects of "cold
shock"¯recorded instances of which occurred in 2001 and 2004,
when a wintertime plant shutdown and loss of heated liquid discharge
kills fish that have congregated in the warmer water (EIS, pg.
5-22)¯could be exacerbated by
the addition of a new reactor unit at
the CPS if all reactor units must shut down simultaneously?

Impingement and Entrainment
Would the phenomena of impingement and entrainment¯described in §
5.4.2.1 of the EIS¯be amplified by the addition of a new nuclear unit
at the CPS?  How would the EPA regulations referenced (but not
described) as mitigation measures effectively reduce aquatic life
mortality?  How can this very significant environmental impact be judged
in the absence of a specific cooling water intake design selected by
Exelon (EIS, pg. 5-17)?  Clearly this is an important environmental
effect, as evidenced by the study conducted in 1987-1988 at the CPS,
during which it is estimated that over 43 million gizzard shad fish
where killed from impingement (EIS, pg. 5-18).

Deficient Reporting on Water Resources
According to the EIS, Exelon has yet to provide site-specific data for
the chemistry of groundwater under the ESP site (§ 2.6.3.2), nor has it
reported velocity measurements within Clinton Lake, which are essential
to understand the hydrodynamics of the lake (§ 2.6.1.3).  How can the
NRC adequately consider the impact of the operation of CPS's existing
nuclear unit¯much less an additional one¯without this important
information?

Critical Issues Missing from the Draft EIS

Vulnerability to Sabotage and Terrorism
Nuclear power plants have known vulnerabilities to terrorist attack and
sabotage.  According to the 9/11 Commission Report, the infamous
terrorist organization al Qaeda specifically discussed targeting U.S.
nuclear plants.  Fuel storage pools, dry storage facilities, and reactor
control rooms are not designed to withstand the type attack that
occurred on September 11, 2001.  The U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) concluded in recent testimony before the U.S. Senate that
cargo and general aviation airfields are more vulnerable to security
breaches than commercial airports.   Ignoring the threat because it is
"highly speculative"  does not make the threat go away, and
indicates one shortfall of using an exclusively risk-based approach.

One possible security measure to protect the reactor from assault by
aircraft is to place a reactor below ground level. Therefore, an
analysis in the draft EIS of the suitability of the site to place the
reactor containment below-grade level should be done, which would
require an in-depth analysis of geological and hydrological conditions
at the site.

Need for Power and Who Benefits
According to NRC regulations at 10 CFR 52.17(a)(2), the need for power
does not have to be addressed in the ESP process.  But an evaluation of
the need for power and who benefits is crucial to determining whether
the ESP application should be considered at all.  In fact, the first
question that should be asked is whether residents of Illinois will
receive any of the benefit of a new nuclear unit.  Much of the electric
power produced by Clinton will be fed into the PJM interconnection.  PJM
is the largest regional transmission organization (RTO) in the U.S.  It
coordinates the movement of electricity in all or parts of Delaware,
Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia and the District of
Columbia.  The final EIS should include an analysis of the exportation
of electricity generated by the new nuclear unit at Clinton to other
states where electricity prices are higher and revenues will be greater
for Exelon.

Exelon's Property Taxes

The draft EIS reports that the annual property taxes paid by Exelon on
its CPS have declined dramatically since 1996, when it paid roughly
$17.9 million to DeWitt County and other taxing districts, to a mere
$9.1 million in 2002 (Table 2-13).  Over this period, Exelon's
property tax payments have declined from 80 percent of the county's
total property tax revenue in 1996 to 53 percent in 2002 (EIS, pg.
2-61).

The cause for the precipitous decline is attributed to "a transition
period of declining property ta
x collections due to deregulation"
(EIS, pg. 2-53).  Whereas before deregulation property taxes were based
on the "depreciated assessed value of the CPS" (pg. 2-53), the
institution of deregulation has allowed Exelon to pay taxes based on the
market value of power produced from the plant, and Exelon's assessed
valuation of the plant has plummeted from $559 million in 1996 to a mere
$165 million in 2003, only 40 percent of DeWitt County's assessment
for that same year (EIS, Table 2-14).

Meanwhile, the draft EIS reports that the consensus feeling among
DeWitt County officials is that the economy of the region has "reached
bottom" (pg. 2-47), and Clinton School District 15 has been forced to
cut its budget by $3 million and spending reserves over the past several
years (EIS, pg. 2-60).

As the economic value of the plant declines in the region, what
guarantee is there that a new nuclear unit¯built to export electricity
for profit¯would be an economic benefit to the region?  And is it not
likely that the Clinton School District could be overstressed by the
children of the 3150 construction workers¯many of whom may move to the
area¯required to build the CPS?  A more thorough consideration of the
place of Exelon and the CPS in DeWitt County, addressing these questions
and investigating how the plant serves the community and how it may hurt
it, should be included in the final EIS.

Other Issues

"Best Management Practices"
Please define the term "best management practices," which occurs
throughout the draft EIS.

Electromagnetic fields and electric transmission line capacity
Despite a finding by the National Institute of Environmental Health
Sciences (NIEHS) that "extremely low frequency-electromagnetic field
(ELF-EMF) exposure cannot be recognized as entirely safe" and may pose
a leukemia hazard, the staff does not consider this to be a significant
environmental impact to the public (EIS, § 5.8.4).  Would a stronger
electromagnetic field produced by increased voltage capacity on the
transmission lines from the CPS amplify this hazard?  Further, Exelon is
allowed to wait until the COL licensing stage to determine whether
transmission lines from the site meet the requirements of the National
Electric Safety Code (NESC) regarding electrostatic effects from
operation.  Why is this issue not being addressed at this stage in the
licensing process?

Transmission Capacity
Exelon predicts that four new transmission lines would be required to
handle the electric load generated by a new nuclear unit at the CPS
(EIS, pg. 3-13).  Two segments of two parallel, double-circuit lines
would be installed, running a total of about 40 miles to two separate
substations (EIS, pg. 3-13).  The width of the right-of-way required for
these lines would be about 250 feet (EIS, pg. 3-13), and the
construction of such lines would create at least a temporary loss of
agricultural land, forest land, or open field habitat (EIS, pg. 4-10).
How would such transmission line installation impact landowners?  And
given such a substantial footprint, and the fact that no analysis of
impacts on cultural and historic resources along the transmission line
easement has been performed (EIS, § 4-34), how can the NRC staff judge
the impact of the construction of such lines to be "small" (EIS, §
4.1.2; pg. 4-34)?

Forestland Destruction
About three-and-a-half acres of forest habitat would be cleared for the
construction of a new nuclear unit at the CPS, but their loss is
considered "negligible" (EIS, pg. 4-7).  Also, construction of
electric transmission lines to serve the new generating capacity at the
CPS may require the clearing of up to 74 acres of forest and may destroy
habitat for the endangered Indiana Bat (EIS, § 4-16), but this impact is
considered "minor" (EIS, pg. 4-10).  Such impacts deserve more
evaluation in the final EIS.

Environmental Justice
Exelon did not follow NRC guidance in assessing minority and low-income
populations because of the presence of a single Native American person
in a particular census block (EIS, pg. 2-67), and they
"underemphasized" census block groups where the percentage of
minority or low-income populations was high¯notably an area in Logan
county that contains two prisons (EIS, pg. 2-68).  To what extent were
Exelon's evidently faulty evaluations relied upon by the NRC in its
own consideration of environmental justice issues?

Historic and Cultural Resources
95 archaeological sites and isolated finds from the historic and
prehistoric period have been located within a two-mile radius of the CPS
(EIS, § 2.9.1), including the Pabst Site, which falls within the Area of
Potential Effect (APE), and contains a "large number" of prehistoric
artifacts dating from 4000 to 6000 years ago (EIS, pg. 2-64).  However,
the Pabst Site was submerged by the creation of Clinton Lake and may
have been destroyed (EIS, pg. 2-64), but the site may be excavated for
construction of a new nuclear unit.

Since there is a "high potential for prehistoric sites" in the
general area (EIS, pg. 2-65), what mitigation measures will be required
in order to protect the integrity of these sites?

Conclusion

For the reasons articulated above, the NRC's EIS for the Exelon ESP
site at the CPS is deficient in its consideration of the breadth of
environmental impacts that could be reasonably expected from
construction of a new nuclear unit.  In the final EIS, Public Citizen
requests that these matters be addressed fully and fairly.

_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 17 [NukeNet] Illinois does not need new nuke
 
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 16:53:29 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)

*** P R E S S    R E L E A S E ***

For Immediate Release: May 26, 2005
Contact: Brendan Hoffman (202) 454-5130; Erica Hartman (202) 454-5174

New Nuclear Reactor in Illinois Is Unnecessary, Would Burden Community
More Than Benefit It

Environmental Study Dismisses Potential of Alternative, Renewable
Energy Sources While Underestimating Impacts of Nuclear Power

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Building more nuclear reactors at the existing
Clinton site poses far more risks than benefits to Illinois residents,
and the energy company seeking an early site permit for the reactors
should be denied, Public Citizen said today.

In comments filed late yesterday with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) in response to the federal agency's legally required
environmental evaluation of nuclear operator Exelon's plans for an
additional reactor or reactors at its Clinton Power Station in DeWitt
County, the watchdog group criticized the NRC for failing to evaluate
the full breadth of impacts from a new nuclear power source.

Illinois-based Exelon has applied for a site permit, which would allow
the company to "bank" the site for 20 years, during which time it can
choose a reactor type and apply for a combined construction and
operating license.

"A new reactor in Clinton is unnecessary, unsafe and expensive," said
Wenonah Hauter, director of Public Citizen's Critical Mass Energy and
Environment Program.  "Nuclear power is not a good deal for the
residents of Clinton and it's not a good deal for the American people."

Among the most pressing concerns cited by Public Citizen is how the
additional nuclear capacity would affect the health and vitality of
Clinton Lake. The Clinton nuclear reactor relies on water from the lake
to cool it, but additional generation capacity would require more water
and may overtax and deplete the lake, especially in drought years when
water levels are low. Such overuse may force the plant to shut down,
since the loss of coolant is a serious safety problem that could lead to
meltdown, and could make the lake less desirable as a source of
recreation due to high water temperatures. The precise impact is
unclear, since neither Exelon nor NRC has done a full analysis of how a
new reactor would affect the lake temperature.

"Although we found plenty of issues that should prohibit the granting
of a siting permit for a new reactor, this environmental review is
mostly notable for what it doesn't address," said Brendan Hoffman, an
organizer for Public Citizen's energy program. "We feel that the early
site permit process is designed to give the appearance that important
problems are being considered and resolved, when the difficult questions
are simply postponed or ignored altogether."

The NRC's environmental impact statement also fails to evaluate the
security threat of indefinitely storing onsite the additional nuclear
waste that would be generated by the proposed new nuclear unit. Another
nuclear reactor at Clinton could create 20 to 30 metric tons of
high-level radioactive waste annually. To date, there is no feasible
solution to safely and permanently dispose of this waste, which must
cool onsite for five years before it can be moved. Moreover, the
environmental impact statement does not adequately consider the
possibility and consequences of severe accident scenarios resulting from
the transportation of spent nuclear fuel, Public Citizen said.

NRC regulations do not require consideration of the need for the plant,
and a detailed consideration of need is absent from the agency's impact
statement.

Federal law does require a consideration of alternative energy sources,
but the NRC's review dismisses renewable energy as an alternative source
of power, saying that such sources are not "environmentally preferable"
to nuclear power despite acknowledging that Illinois has the untapped
potential to produce as much electricity from wind as from nine
additional nuclear reactors.

"These early site permits are costing taxpayers millions of dollars
because the government has subsidized the process to encourage big
energy companies to invest in nuclear power," said Hoffman.  "We should
be investing in renewable and energy efficient technologies, not 20th
century technologies that suffer from the same fatal flaws now as they
have for the past 50 years."

Taxpayers are helping out Exelon - they foot half the bill for license
applications. Yet Exelon is not a very good corporate citizen in return.
Because it has taken advantage of new electricity deregulation rules,
its property tax payments have declined from 80 percent of DeWitt
County's total property tax revenue in 1996 to 53 percent in 2002. This
resulted in an annual revenue loss of $8.8 million to the county; local
officials report that their economy has "reached bottom," and Clinton
School District 15 has been forced to cut its budget by $3 million and
spend reserves over the past several years.

To read Public Citizen's comments, go to
http://www.citizen.org/documents/clintondeiscomments.pdf.

To read Public Citizen's new series of fact sheets on the five fatal
flaws of nuclear power (cost, safety, security, waste and
proliferation), visit http://www.citizen.org/cmep/fatalflaws.

###

Public Citizen is a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy organization
based in Washington, D.C. For more information, please visit
www.citizen.org.


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 18 Exelon Joins the Pew Center on Global Climate Change
 
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 16:54:07 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
  Exelon Joins the Pew Center on Global Climate Change

CHICAGO--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 24, 2005--Exelon Corporation announced today
it has joined the Pew Center on Global Climate Change as a member of the
organization's Business Environmental Leadership Council (BELC). The BELC
was established by the Pew Center in 1998 and is comprised of mainly Fortune
500 companies representing a diverse group of industries. The members share
the belief that enough is known about the science of climate change to begin
taking reasonable steps now to protect the climate.

"We are pleased to join with the Pew Center and other BELC members in
advocating for responsible policies that address global climate change while
at the same time assuring continued economic growth," said John W. Rowe,
chairman, president and CEO, Exelon. "Our BELC membership will enable us to
have a stronger voice in the national debate on future policy."

The Pew Center on Global Climate Change recently assisted Exelon in
developing its goal, strategy and program for reducing its greenhouse gas
emissions by eight percent from 2001 levels by the end of 2008 as part of
the company's participation in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
Climate Leaders Program.

Exelon's actions on climate change are consistent with its overall
environmental strategy. Exelon's environmental priorities include increasing
renewable energy supplies, promoting efficient use of electricity and
natural gas, contributing to the development of a sound national policy
addressing climate change, and preserving the option for low carbon
intensity technologies, including nuclear, for the future.

"The private sector is increasingly taking independent steps to address
climate change because companies understand that ignoring the problem could
bring greater costs in the long run," said Eileen Claussen, president of the
Pew Center. "Exelon recognizes that we must act now to address climate
change. We look forward to working with them on both market-based solutions
and in shaping sound public policy in the United States and around the
world."

BELC members represent a variety of industries including energy,
automobiles, manufacturing, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, metals, mining,
paper and forest products, consumer goods and appliances,
telecommunications, and high technology. Individually and collectively,
these companies are demonstrating that it is possible to take action to
address climate change while maintaining competitive excellence, growth and
profitability. The companies together generate annual revenues in excess of
$600 billion and employ more than 1.7 million people.

The Pew Center receives no financial assistance from BELC members. The
companies demonstrate leadership in addressing climate change by
establishing and meeting emissions reduction objectives; investing in new,
more efficient products, practices, and technologies; and supporting action
to achieve cost-effective emissions reductions.

The other members of the BELC are: ABB; Air Products and Chemicals; Alcoa;
American Electric Power; Baxter International; Boeing; BP; California
Portland Cement Co.; CH2M HILL; Cinergy Corp.; Cummins Inc.; Deutsche
Telekom; DTE Energy; DuPont; Entergy; Georgia-Pacific; Hewlett-Packard
Company; Holcim; IBM; Intel; Interface Inc.; John Hancock Financial
Services; Lockheed Martin; Maytag; Novartis; Ontario Power Generation; PG&E
Corporation; Rio Tinto; Rohm and Haas; Royal Dutch/Shell; SC Johnson;
Sunoco; Toyota; TransAlta; United Technologies; Weyerhaeuser; Whirlpool; and
Wisconsin Energy Corporation.

The Pew Center was established in May 1998 by the Pew Charitable Trusts, one
of the United States' largest philanthropies and an influential voice in
efforts to improve the quality of the environment. The Pew Center is a
nonprofit, non-partisan and independent organization dedicated to providing
credible information, straight answers and innovative solutions in the
effort to address global climate change. The Pew Center is led by Eileen
Claussen, the former U.S. assistant secretary of state for oceans and
international environmental and scientific affairs. For more information
about global climate change and the activities of the Pew Center and the
BELC, visit www.pewclimate.org.

Exelon Corporation is one of the nation's largest electric utilities with
approximately 5.2 million customers and more than $14 billion in annual
revenues. The company has one of the industry's largest portfolios of
electricity generation capacity, with a nationwide reach and strong
positions in the Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Exelon distributes electricity to
approximately 5.2 million customers in northern Illinois and Pennsylvania
and gas to more than 460,000 customers in the Philadelphia area. Exelon is
headquartered in Chicago and trades on the NYSE under the ticker EXC.

CONTACT: Exelon Corporation
Anne Brownsey, 312-394-4013

SOURCE: Exelon Corporation
Careers    Contact Us    Links    Sitemap    Privacy Policy     |     Terms
and Conditions    © 2004 Exelon Corporation. All rights reserved

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 19 Emergency sirens w/o backup power may not work in nuclear meltdown
 
Date: Thu, 26 May 2005 14:01:56 -0400

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

f: 202.462.2183; <a 
href="mailto:nirsnet@nirs.org;">nirsnet@nirs.org;</a> <a 
href="http://www.nirs.org/">www.nirs.org</a></p>

Contact: Linda Gunter, 202-328-0002</span></font></p>

In the Event That a Nuclear Meltdown Coincides with Electric Grid 
Failure

Entire Siren Systems Won&#8217;t Work In Emergency Planning Zones 
for 28 U.S. Reactor Sites

 In the event of a simultaneous accident where the nuclear power 
station melts down at the same time the main power lines fail, 
the emergency siren system for the entire emergency planning zone 
will lose power and not be operable to alert the surrounding 
populations to an approaching radioactive cloud.</span></p>

In response to a petition filed by Nuclear Information and 
Resource Service (NIRS) and 16 other organizations and local 
governments, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has 
revealed that 28 reactor emergency plan zone siren systems are 
entirely reliant upon electricity from their regional grid.&nbsp; 
Another 18 sites have only partial emergency power backup 
available to siren systems. Only 17 reactor sites have siren 
systems that are fully backed up with emergency power systems so 
that they would remain operable independent of the failure of 
main power lines. The Department of Homeland Security /Federal 
Emergency Management Agency have been engaged in revising public 
notification systems since the August 14, 2003 northeast regional 
electricity blackout but no date for completion is available. The 
information was contained in a NRC denial issued May 20, 2005 of 
an emergency enforcement petition submitted on February 23, 2005 
requesting that emergency back up power supplies (rechargeable 
batteries preferably on photovoltaic solar panels) be backfitted 
to all public alert systems around the nation&#8217;s nuclear 
power stations. The NRC released a list specifying reactors sites 
without power back up, partial back up and full back up, today. 

These siren systems would not have worked from day one if the 
grid failed the same time these reactors melted down,&quot; said 
Paul Gunter, Director of the Reactor Watchdog Project for 
Washington, DC-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service. 
&quot;NRC is saying that public safety can wait on bureaucratic 
foot dragging that can leave communities not only in the dark but 
without emergency notification if there is a nuclear 
meltdown,&quot; he said. &#8220;The seventeen sites that have 
emergency power for all their sirens is enough to demonstrate 
that it can and should be done for all of the reactor sites, 
today,&#8221; Gunter said. 

The petition documents that grid failures as the result of 
lightning, hurricanes, ice storms, earthquakes as well as 
mechanical failures in the electricity distribution system 
routinely cause a loss of power to community alerting systems 
around nuclear power stations. The loss of offsite power 
significantly increases the risk of a core melt accident because 
of reduced safety systems. &nbsp;Typically, NRC mock terrorist 
attack tests at reactor sites begin with the assumption that the 
main power lines are taken down. </span></font></p>

In its denial, NRC argued that it is inappropriate for affected 
communities to take up the request for back up power for sirens 
under the agency's emergency enforcement petition process. 
Instead, NRC determined that a request for back fitting the 
nuclear industry with emergency power for its siren systems 
should go through NRC's petition for rule making, a bureaucratic 
process typically involving two years of deliberations. &nbsp;NRC 
claims it does not want to duplicate efforts of the DHS/FEMA to 
revise guidance on outdoor warning and mass notification systems 
as directed by the House Committee on Appropriations following 
the August 14, 2003 blackout.</span></font></p>

NRC does not dispute the fact that many siren systems around 
nuclear power stations will fail in the event of a radiological 
release coinciding with a power blackout. The NRC and nuclear 
industry's current fallback position is to rely upon &quot;local 
route notifications&quot; where first responders (police and fire 
departments, etc.) get into emergency vehicles and communicate 
instructions through bull horns while traveling through 
neighborhoods within the ten-mile emergency planning zone. 

It's absurd to suggest that with an approaching radioactive cloud 
an already overburdened police or fire department driving around 
neighborhoods with bull horns or along roads, some possibly 
impassible, can adequately compensate for deliberately leaving 
these sirens inoperable,&quot; said Gunter. </span></font></p>

NRC has sole jurisdiction to require reactor operators to back 
fit the emergency notification system for the emergency planning 
zone,&#8221; said Gunter.&nbsp; &#8220;It is the responsibility 
of reactor operator to demonstrate and maintain its emergency 
notification system to work,&#8221; Gunter concluded. </font></p>

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D/NY) plans to raise this issue 
before the Senate Environment and Public Works Oversight Hearing 
of the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission scheduled for 
Thursday, May 26, 2005 </span></span></font></p>

To view the February 23, 2005 Emergency Enforcement Petition and 
a list of known nuclear power stations with emergency planning 
zone siren failures go to: <a 
href="http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/emergency/ep2206petitionsirens02232005.pdf">http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/emergency/ep2206petitionsirens02232005.pdf</a>
</span></span></font></p>

*****************************************************************
 20 Brattleboro Reformer: NRC rejects coalition petition on emergency evacuation plan

May 26, 2005 Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
			 					 						 						 			
By CAROLYN LORIé 
Reformer Staff

BRATTLEBORO -- The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued a
proposed decision today rejecting a petition by a local
anti-nuclear group calling for a review of Vermont Yankee's
emergency notification system.

 On Dec. 7, 2004, the New England Coalition submitted a petition
calling for the shutdown of Vermont Yankee nuclear power station
because of what it called an inadequate system.

 That request was rejected one week later by the NRC's Petition
Review Board, which based its decision on an inspection report
on the plant completed in Nov. 2004.

 The coalition also requested that NRC review the plan and that
Vermont Yankee arrange an independent audit of the system.

 Wednesday's decision was a denial of those two requests. A
final decision will be issued in 25 days, following comments
made by the coalition. 

In the petition, the coalition questioned several aspects of
Vermont Yankee's notification system, such as the ability to
alert residents of an emergency in areas where the sirens cannot
be heard and the reliability and effectiveness of the tone alert
radios.

 Specific concerns with route notification were: Seasonal road
conditions, residents being able to hear the alert and the
amount of time it would take to complete the routes.

 The NRC, however, said that the Federal Emergency Management
Agency, which oversees the plan, tested all of those
requirements in 2003 and found the system to be adequate.

 Concerns about the tone alert radios were also dismissed.

 Although the NRC cited Vermont Yankee in March 2005 for not
insuring adequate distribution of the tone-alert radios, the
regulator considered the company's response to the citation to
be sufficient.

 In March, Entergy officials notified the NRC that they had
taken corrective actions including sending out cards to all
residents with emergency planning zone, soliciting requests for
the radios and updating its data base.

 Raymond Shadis, technical advisor to the coalition, expressed
disappointment with the NRC's decision.

 "We are distressed that they want to play it to the edge in
terms of the amount of time they will allow for notification,"
said Shadis.

 In a separate petition filed on Feb. 23, by the Nuclear
Information and Resource Service, a nuclear watchdog based in
Washington D.C., the NRC was called on to address the fact that
many of the nation's nuclear power plants use notification
sirens that will not work if the electric grid loses power.

 Only about half of Vermont Yankee's 21 sirens are connected to
a back-up generator.

 According to Rob Williams, spokesman for Vermont Yankee, the
siren system is being updating. By the end of the June, all 21
of the sirens will have battery back-ups.

       Copyright ©1999-2005 New England Newspapers, Inc., 
*****************************************************************
 21 NRC: Documents Containing Reporting or Recordkeeping Requirements: 
 
                        FR Doc 05-10550 
[Federal Register: May 26, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 101)] 
[Notices] [Page 30496-30497] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr26my05-125]                         
 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice of the OMB review of 
information collection and solicitation of public comment.
 
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the 
following proposal for the collection of information under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35). 1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: 
Revision. 2. The title of the information collection: Final 
Rule--10 CFR part 110, Export and Import of Radioactive 
Materials: Security Policies.
 
3. The form number if applicable: Not applicable. 4. How often 
the collection is required: On occasion. 5. Who will be required 
or asked to report: Any licensee who wishes to export or import 
the radioactive material subject to the requirements of a 
specific license listed in Table 1 of the new appendix P to part 
110.
 
6. An estimate of the number of annual responses: 950. 7. The 
estimated number of annual respondents: 30. 8. An estimate of the 
total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement 
or request: 437.5 hours ( 30 minutes per notification and 15 
minutes per recipient's certification to licensee).
 
9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13 
applies: Applicable.
 
10. Abstract: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is amending 
its regulations pertaining to the export and import of nuclear 
equipment and radioactive materials. This final rule reflects 
recent changes to the nuclear and radioactive material security 
policies of the Commission and the Executive Branch, for the 
import and export of radioactive material. A specific license 
will be required for the import and export of the radioactive 
material listed in Table 1 of the new appendix P to this part.
 
A copy of the supporting statement may be viewed free of charge 
at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North, 11555 
Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB clearance 
packages are available at the NRC Worldwide Web site: 
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The 
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days 
after the signature date of this notice.
 
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer by 
July 25, 2005: John A. Asalone, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs (3150-AH44), NEOB-10202, Office of Management 
and Budget.
 
 
[[Page 30497]] Comments can also be e-mailed to John A. 
Asalone@omb.eop.gov or submitted by telephone at (202) 395-4650.
 
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
 
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of May 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Brenda J. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information 
Services.
 
[FR Doc. 05-10550 Filed 5-25-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 22 Platts: UK hopes for marine energy could be dashed by nuclear revival
 
+ Renewed discussions about the deployment of a new generation of 
nuclear power plants means that there is a very small window of 
opportunity for new renewable technologies like wave and tidal 
power to take off, John Griffiths of the UK Renewable Power 
Association said Wednesday. 

Speaking at an RPA conference on marine energy at that the All 
Energy Exhibition in Aberdeen, Griffiths expressed an aspiration 
that the UK could deploy 50-100MW of marine energy by 2010 and 
even 1GW by 2020. 

"But the timeframe is now limited by the open debate on nuclear, 
which could push marine energy out of the picture," said 
Griffiths.

Other speakers highlighted the many hurdles that must be overcome 
for marine energy to develop as a commercially viable form of 
generation, competitive with wind power which accounts for the 
lion's share of the UK's expanding renewable power portfolio. 

Several UK companies are at the forefront of developing competing 
technologies to harness energy from the sea, drawing on expertise 
from the offshore oil and gas industry. 

These include AWS Ocean Energy, a UK company that has the rights 
to commercialize a wave energy generation technology using a 
submerged telescopic device developed originally in the 
Netherlands with the support of Dutch utility Nuon. 

AWS Ocean Energy Director Simon Grey told delegates that the 
company had completed trials of a full scale pilot of its 
generator off northern Portugal in 2004. 

Portugal offers an incentive tariff of Eur0.30/kWh for marine 
energy, whereas in the UK marine energy has to compete with 
cheaper and more established technologies like wind and biomass, 
which are given equal treatment under the country's renewables 
obligation. 

When asked where AWS expected to deploy its first commercial 
machines Grey said: "unless things change significantly in the 
UK, this is highly likely to be in Portugal." 

Another UK marine energy developer, Ocean Power Delivery 
announced last week it would deploy its first commercial 'wave 
farm' offshore Portugal. This story was originally published in 
Platts European Power Alert 
http://www.europeanpoweralert.platts.com 

Aberdeen (Platts)--25May2005
 
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill 
Companies]   
*****************************************************************
 23 New Statesman: Nuclear power - a convert
 
  Friday 27th May 2005   
    
Mark Lynas
Monday 30th May 2005   
    
  Mark Lynas was sure it would be a disaster - and then he
looked at the alternatives

Suddenly, it seems that everyone's talking about the end of oil
- and not necessarily for the right reasons. Take the recent
Peak Oil UK conference in Edinburgh. Lurking at the back was a
delegation from the BNP, including the party's odious leader,
Nick Griffin. Why were they there? Simple, Griffin told my
informant. Once oil peaks, the global economy will lurch into a
terrible recession - just as it did in the 1930s. Chaos and
strife will ensue. "We would expect to come to power by the end
of the decade."
 
I wasn't at that meeting but I did attend the Energy . . .
Beyond Oil conference in Oxford earlier this month. The meeting
focused on what could replace fossil fuels, and I arrived
convinced - as I wrote in these pages a few weeks ago - that
opting for nuclear power would be a disastrous mistake. Before
long my comfortable green certainties were in tatters.
 
Don't get me wrong: this was not one of the nuclear PR junkets
Jonathan Leake warned us against in last week's New Statesman.
Advocates of each potential non-carbon energy source were
invited to speak in turn, with geothermal at the top of the
list. It seemed like a great idea for Iceland, but less so for
the UK, where as far as I know there are very few volcanoes.
Next up was tidal and wave, for which I had high hopes. The
speaker showed slides of wind-turbine-like things that sit under
the surface of the sea and generate power from tidal currents.
In theory. None has actually been built yet. There is one
wave-power prototype being tested somewhere off Orkney. "Wave
technology is in the same state as wind was 20 years ago," the
speaker said. Sadly, he was being optimistic.
 
By this time, I was getting desperate. What about solar? The use
of photovoltaics is increasing at a rate of 30 per cent per
year, with Japan taking a lead. But it remains hopelessly
uneconomic, and the speaker, Michael Gratzel, called for a
Manhattan Project-style global drive for a materials
breakthrough. Biological solar (biofuels) needs a breakthrough,
too: if we want to feed our cars there will not also be enough
land available to feed our people.
 
Thank God for wind, then. The UK is the windiest country in
Europe and could produce up to a fifth of its electricity from
wind turbines. Except that vitriolic campaigns spring up
wherever turbines are proposed: Whinash in Cumbria is merely the
latest. Offshore wind would help, but it is more expensive and
less accessible. There's also the problem of variability - even
greens don't want their computers to shut down when the wind
stops blowing.
 
Then came Sue Ion of BNFL. Carbon-free nuclear power produces
nearly a quarter of our electricity, she reminded us, but the
stations are closing and by 2020 only one will be left,
supplying just 3 per cent. What can replace them? I did a
back-of-the-envelope calculation. Even with crash programmes for
wind, wave and tidal, with nuclear stations closing we would
still have the same greenhouse-gas emissions by 2020 as we do
today.
 
Energy efficiency could make up a large part of the gap, but
it's a long shot. People want the latest energy-hungry
techno-gadget more than they want insulated lofts, while almost
the entire political class holds economic growth as an article
of faith. And don't even mention energy reduction to India and
China. Hydrogen would be great if only we could find some way to
generate it without using fossil fuels. Oh, and it's difficult
to store and no use at all for aeroplanes.
 
I'm not suggesting that nuclear is a panacea. It can reduce
carbon emissions only as part of a combined dash for renewables
and energy efficiency, buying us time while truly clean energy
systems are developed. True, renewed nuclear power could lead to
Chernobyl-style accidents or terrorist attacks and will leave a
legacy of toxic waste for millennia. But have you considered
what five or six degrees of global warming would do to the
planet? Something far worse, I assure you.
 
And just in case we also find ourselves running out of uranium,
here's another idea. Why not burn up all the nuclear warheads
currently stockpiled in the US and UK (and Israel)? That would
deal nicely with the WMD problem while keep- ing us all in
carbon-free energy for a few decades. If you ask me, anything is
preferable to planetary climatic meltdown combined with a
1930s-style collapse into political darkness. Even nuclear power.
 
Mark Lynas is the author of High Tide: how climate crisis is
engulfing our planet (Harper Perennial)
 
  This article first appeared in the New Statesman. For the
latest in current and cultural affairs subscribe to the New
Statesman print edition.     
    
  © New Statesman 1913 - 2005   
*****************************************************************
 24 Interfax: Russia withdraws nuclear fuel from Latvia research reactor

Interfax.com    Text version    Site map   

May 26 2005 3:56PM
 
MOSCOW. May 26 (Interfax) - Russia withdrew about 2.5 kilograms
of fresh nuclear fuel from the Salaspils research nuclear
reactor in Latvia on Wednesday under a Russian-U.S.
intergovernmental agreement. 

"The nuclear fuel will soon be delivered to the Luch Institute,
processed into a low-enriched nuclear material, and used in the
production of fuel assemblies for nuclear power plants," says a
Thursday press release by the Russian Atomic Energy Agency. 

The Russian-U.S. intergovernmental agreement, which was signed
on May 27, 2004, provides for bilateral cooperation in Russia's
withdrawal of Russian-made nuclear fuel from foreign reactors in
cooperation with the IAEA.     

© 1991-2005 Interfax
 All rights reserved
 
News and other data on this web site are provided for
information purposes only, and are not intended for
republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution
of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is
expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of
Interfax.   


*****************************************************************
 25 Portsmouth Herald: Reps. complain about Seabrook
 
Thu. May 26, 2005

By Associated Press 

CONCORD - Two Massachusetts congressmen wrote a letter to
federal regulators Wednesday about alleged security problems and
overtime violations at New Hampshire’s Seabrook nuclear plant. 

Democrats Edward Markey and John Tierney asked the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission numerous questions about claims that an
intruder detection system wasn’t installed correctly and did not
work, and that the plant forced security guards to work overtime
to compensate. 

"If these allegations are true, they represent a significant
homeland security lapse at the Seabrook nuclear power plant,
which the licensee appears to be compensating for by creating an
overworked, overtired and consequently less effective security
guard force," Markey and Tierney wrote in a letter to NRC
Chairman Nils Diaz. 

Plant spokesman Alan Griffith said federal law prohibits him
from discussing safety issues, but he said that "at no time has
Seabrook ever been in a psoition that it can’t protect public
health and safety." He added that the plant’s safety systems
"are multilayered and not isolated to any one system." And he
called the overtime allegation "completely erroneous." 

A Seabrook employee brought the allegations to the attention of
Markey’s office, the letter says. 

The letter says Markey’s office was told the detection system
was installed at the plant last year, but that on a recent
inspection the NRC concluded it had been installed incorrectly
and probably needed to be replaced. 

"In the meantime, Seabrook officials are reportedly using
reactor security guard forces to compensate for the inoperable
security system, and have violated NRC regulations by forcing
these security guards to work excessive amounts of overtime,"
the letter says. 

Markey and Tierney asked Diaz whether the inspection occurred
and if the NRC would investigate the alleged overtime
violations, among other questions. 

NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the agency does not comment on
security matters. 

"If there is a security issue that is raised with us, we will
certainly take a close look at it and respond accordingly," he
said. 

  Seacoast Online is owned and operated by Seacoast Newspapers.
  Copyright © 2005 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please
*****************************************************************
 26 Platts: KEDO executive director stepping down
 
+ Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO)
Executive Director Charles Kartman is leaving his post but "has
agreed to remain" with the organization "through a transitional
period as the [Executive] Board considers his successor," KEDO
spokesman Brian Kremer said today. 

He said the decision was made yesterday at a meeting in New York 
of the board, which includes Japan, South Korea, the U.S., and 
the European Union. 

Kartman has been executive director of the organization since May 
2001; his most recent contract expired at the end of April, 
Kremer said. 

KEDO was formed in 1995 to build two LWRs in North Korea in 
return for Pyongyang's renunciation of its indigenous nuclear 
program. The LWR project now is officially suspended. 

Washington (Platts)--25May2005
 

Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
 [The McGraw-Hill Companies]   


*****************************************************************
 27 New Scientist: US funding of fusion reactor in doubt

12:58 26 May 2005                                      
	 	
The US Congress is divided over how to fund the US share of the
world's largest nuclear fusion facility, mirroring a rift
between some scientists and the US Department of Energy. The
clash could lead to the US pulling out of the project - which
had stalled following disagreements over its location - just as
it appeared set to move forward once again. 	 

The project, called ITER - International Thermonuclear
Experimental Reactor - aims to lay the groundwork for using
nuclear fusion as an inexhaustible and clean energy source. But
work on ITER ground to a halt in December 2003 because its six
member parties could not agree on whether to locate the main
facility in France or Japan. 	 

Recent media reports have hinted at movement towards an
agreement, and some observers believed a decision on the site
could have come as early as June. 	 

But now, clashes in the US House of Representatives threaten to
derail that progress. The US is expected to cover 10% of ITER's
cost - a portion estimated at $1.12 billion - spread between now
and 2013. The Bush administration requested an increased sum of
$49.5 million to become available in 2006, to fund ITER through
the US Department of Energy (DOE). 	 

But the appropriations committee in the House - which can
suggest changes to the budget in bills that then go to the
Senate for debate - objected to the source of the funding. It
said two-thirds of the increase for ITER would come as a result
of cuts in other US fusion research, against the committee's
previous requests. Under the cuts, three major fusion research
facilities could operate for a total of only 17 weeks in 2006
instead of the planned 48, it said. 	 “Unwise and unacceptable”
	 

In a bill on the DOE's 2006 budget - that was passed by the
entire House on Tuesday - the committee restored the cut funding
to 2005 levels, taking most of the money that the DOE had
planned to use for ITER. 	 

Supporting ITER at the expense of other fusion research was
"unwise", "unacceptable", and "short-sighted", an appropriations
subcommittee wrote in a report of its funding recommendations.
It said the US "needs to maintain strong domestic research
programmes and user facilities to train the next generation of
fusion scientists and engineers”. 	 

"While changes will be necessary, it doesn't make sense to gut
the domestic programme," agrees Raymond Fonck, a physicist at
the University of Wisconsin in Madison, US, who co-chaired a
National Academy of Sciences committee that set guidelines for
fusion research. "You need a good domestic programme to benefit
from participating in ITER." 	 

The appropriations committee says it will use what control it
has of the DOE's purse strings to keep that domestic programme
alive - even if that means the US has to drop out of ITER. If
the DOE's 2007 budget request takes money from other fusion
programmes to pay for ITER, "the Committee is prepared to
eliminate all US funding for the ITER project in the future",
says the funding report. 	 Forcing decisions 	 

But a separate House committee that covers science takes the
opposite stand on funding. "We think, like the Department of
Energy, that you can't keep the fusion programme exactly as it
is and also do ITER," David Goldston, chief of staff of the
House Science Committee, told New Scientist. "There's no way to
do ITER as an add-on." 	 

So Science Committee Chairman Sherwood Boehlert put forward an
amendment to the funding bill to try to force a funding
decision. The amendment, which passed the House and must now go
before the Senate for approval, would prevent the US from
entering into an agreement on ITER before 1 March 2006. 	 

"I want to make sure that before we commit a dime to ITER that
we have a consensus on how we will find that money," Boehlert
told the House. "I will do all I can to prevent the US from
entering into an agreement if no one is willing to make the
sacrifices to pay for it." 	 

The Senate will now have a chance to modify the funding bill,
then both it and the House will have to hammer out an agreement
on the DOE's budget. But Goldston says that unless a compromise
is made, "US participation in ITER is unlikely”.

  + About NewScientist.com 		
*****************************************************************
 28 toledoblade.com: Besse's sirens lack power backup
 
Article published Thursday, May 26, 2005
 
 Anti-nuclear group cites danger to residents
 
By TOM HENRY BLADE STAFF WRITER

Davis-Besse has no backup power for its emergency sirens,
according to a group opposed to nuclear power, a claim that is
confirmed by First Energy Corp.

 The Nuclear Information and Resource Service, which advocates
against the use of nuclear power, yesterday said it has learned,
from public information it had been trying to obtain from the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission since February, that Davis-Besse
and 27 other complexes are entirely reliant upon electricity
from their regional grids.

That, according to the group, means that residents who live near
those complexes might be endangered if a particular combination
of events occurred: A reactor meltdown resulting in an airborne
plume of radioactive gases while main power lines have failed
for whatever reason.

The anti-nuclear group said it expects Sen. Hillary Clinton (D.,
N.Y.) to present this and the fact that Monroe County's Fermi II
is one of 17 facilities with adequate backup to a U.S. Senate
panel this morning.

There are 54 sirens in the 10-mile emergency planning zone that
surrounds the Davis-Besse complex. Forty-nine are in Ottawa
County and five are in Lucas County.

Although the Ottawa County sheriff's office and the county's
emergency management agency are involved with emergency
planning, the NRC has said it is the sole responsibility of
FirstEnergy Corp. to maintain Davis-Besse's sirens.

Richard Wilkins, a spokesman for the utility, confirmed last
night that FirstEnergy does not provide backup power for its
sirens. "They're looking at it," he said.

He said emergency planning includes other components, such as
plans for door-to-door canvassing by emergency workers during
evacuations and frequent messages broadcast on radio and TV
stations.

Paul Gunter, the anti-nuclear power group's reactor watchdog
project director, said it's "absurd to suggest that with an
approaching radioactive cloud an already overburdened police or
fire department driving around neighborhoods with bull horns or
along roads, some possibly impassible, can adequately compensate
for deliberately leaving these sirens inoperable."

Mr. Gunter's group has been joined by 16 others in calling for
full backup power for sirens affiliated with all nuclear
complexes. In addition to the 28 sites with no backup, the
groups said they found 18 sites with only partial backup.

Nuclear power plant evacuations are very rare.

But emergency planning for them must be done regularly as part
of utility licensing requirements.

The most high-profile evacuation occurred in March, 1979, as
Three Mile Island's Unit 2 reactor was in the process of a
partial meltdown, the only such accident in the nation's history.

But even that evacuation was delayed by then-Pennsylvania Gov.
Richard Thornburgh. At a 2004 NRC conference in Washington, Mr.
Thornburgh acknowledged that officials were in the dark about
what was happening inside Three Mile Island.

Back then, there were no cell phones, and the Internet was not
in household use. Mr. Thornburgh said he held off on the
evacuation order for fear that it could lead to injuries by
inducing panic.

Neither NRC nor FirstEnergy officials contacted by The Blade
yesterday knew exactly why Davis-Besse has no backup power for
its sirens.

The plant has been the object of close scrutiny the past three
years.

In 2002, the near-rupture of its old reactor head was discovered
- the industry's most troublesome scenario and the single
biggest example of neglected maintenance since Three Mile Island.

Davis-Besse was one of several nuclear plants that lost off-site
power during the Aug. 14, 2003, blackout, the nation's worst.

Just a few weeks ago, the NRC cited FirstEnergy for supplying
more inaccurate and incomplete information to the government -
this time, about an unrelated problem with Davis-Besse's sirens.

Inspectors found a computer synchronization problem that showed
the local sheriff's office would have been unable to activate
the 49 sirens within Ottawa County between April 27 and May 7,
2004, and that the system was vulnerable to being inoperable for
as long as a month.

Eliot Brenner, director of the NRC's public affairs office, said
the NRC is working with the Federal Emergency Management Agency
and the Department of Homeland Security to get more backup power
for sirens nationally.

The NRC on Friday rejected a petition from Mr. Gunter's group on
the grounds that jurisdiction over the issue may belong to
another agency.

But Mr. Brenner said the NRC is "very much interested in
ensuring there are as many levels of redundancy as possible."

Mr. Gunter said the agency should be more aggressive and take
the lead on the issue.

Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079.

 The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660
, (419) 724-6000 
*****************************************************************
 29 Mos News: World's First Floating Nuclear Power Plant to Be Constructed in Russia 

- NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
 
Created: 26.05.2005 13:22 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 13:22 MSK 

Russia will build the world’s first floating nuclear power
plant, Russia’s Atomic Energy Agency (RosAtom) has announced.

A low-power plant with an electrical capacity of 70 MWt and heat
capacity of 140 Gigacalories may be constructed in the Russian
northwestern town of Severodvinsk within five years, a spokesman
for RosAtom told Itar-Tass on Thursday. The project’s estimated
cost is $180 million, and $30 million has already been spent on
the planning stage.

Calculations made by RosAtom experts suggest the floating power
plant will pay for itself in eight years. The agency lacks
funds, however, and is going to ask the government for help in
obtaining loans in commercial banks or offer from other
countries to join the project. China, Indonesia and a number of
Middle Eastern and Mediterranean countries have reportedly
voiced interest in the project, but they want the plant to be
built first to show potential investors that it does not pose a
threat to the environment.

RosAtom head Alexander Rumyantsev said earlier that floating
power plants are absolutely safe. The reactors “will be the same
as those that are used by our submarines and nuclear
ice-breakers,” he said, stressing that after the Kursk submarine
that sank in August 2000 was lifted from the bottom of the
Barents Sea, its reactors were still in an operational condition.

However, many critics say the main objective of nuclear plants
all over the world is enrichment for building nuclear weapons,
and after RosAtom first announced the building of the floating
plant in the early 2000s, foreign media immediately called it a
“floating Chernobyl”.

The Russian side says that the plant will be able to provide a
town of 50,000 people with heating and electrical energy or be
used to desalinate sea-water.     
 
  Write us: <b>info@mosnews.com</b>
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 30 Monticello Times: NRC calls 2004 power plant operations ‘very safe’
 	 		 	
www.monticellotimes.com

Friday, May 27, 2005            
  
Eric O'Link News Editor

All indicators are green–Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant
operated in a safe manner last year.

That was the conclusion of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
which hosted a public meeting at the Monticello Community Center
Thursday to discuss the results of inspections conducted at MNGP
during 2004.

“We had no reason to conduct supplement inspections at this
facility,” said Bruce Burgess, NRC branch chief.

The NRC uses a scale of colors–green, white, yellow and red–to
assess plant performance and rank inspection findings. Green
represents the most favorable conditions/findings and red the
most severe/problematic.

In both plant performance and inspection findings, Monticello
ranked green in all areas.

This means the NRC believes that any concerns or issues that may
have arisen at the plant are minor enough that MNGP may take its
own corrective measures without the NRC conducting supplemental
inspections.

Nationally, 78 of 103 plants– including Monticello–ranked
similarly, in the “licensee response” category. Twenty-one
plants were in a higher “regulatory response” category, meaning
the NRC would perform supplemental inspections at those
facilities. Three plants were classified as “multiple/repetitive
degraded cornerstones,” meaning the NRC was closely monitoring
operations at those plants relative to the majority.

Performance indicator results at plants nationwide were 1,834
green and six white. Nationally, total inspection findings were
778 green, 11 white. There were no yellows or reds in either
case.

In Monticello, Burgess said there were 4,335 hours of inspection
performed last year. This is “slightly above what we’d normally
expect at a facility,” he said, adding that those hours included
major team inspections performed at MNGP last year.

“Our conclusion was that NMC operated the Monticello facility in
a very safe manner and preserved public health and safety,”
Burgess said.

NMC–Nuclear Management Co.–operates the Xcel Energy-owned
Monticello plant. Earlier this year, Xcel filed to renew the
plant’s operating license through 2030. Its current license
expires in 2010.

In addition to the NRC’s positive assessment of the plant,
Burgess said the NRC noted that the Monticello plant needed to
continue to play close attention to engineering and corrective
action.

Tom Palmisano, site vice president at MNGP, told Burgess he
agreed with the NRC’s findings.

Palmisano said quality and effectiveness of engineering remains
“one of our top six priorities in 2005.”

“We’ve found some things, we’ve fixed them and we’ll continue to
really probe for the next several years until I’m satisfied,” he
said. “We haven’t found anything of any serious significance, as
your findings noted, but that’s important to continue to dig
into.”

He added that he had seen improvement in the last
year-and-a-half in quality of regular completeness of current
engineering, but that the plant still had room for improvement.

Palmisano noted corrective actions were also high on the list of
priorities at MNGP.

“Overall, I’m satisfied with where we are in the corrective
action program,” he said, “but we’re looking to continue ways to
improve effectiveness of action.”

Copyright 2005, Monticello Times
*****************************************************************
 31 LA Weekly: Split Over Atoms
 
MAY 27 - JUNE 2, 2005   
  
Who will pay for San Onofre’s rehab?

by JUDITH LEWIS                                    
  
 Living near a nuclear reactor, Al Tschaeche wants you to know,
is not as scary as it seems. A resident of Encinitas, 30 miles
south of the aging nuclear-power plant at San Onofre, Tschaeche
suspects he may be subject to a persistent dose of low-level
ionizing radiation. This, however, he considers a good thing. “I
have never seen any good human data that demonstrates low doses
are harmful,” he told a small audience gathered at the Oceanside
Civic Center to discuss the continued operation of the
2,150-megawatt San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, also known
as SONGS. “But I have seen demonstrations that show that it’s
beneficial. A little bit of radiation is called ‘hormesis,’ ”
the chipper retired nuclear physicist explained, “and it
mobilizes your body to withstand higher doses.” He hopes all of
his 17 great-grandchildren will enjoy a nuclear-powered world,
not just because he considers nuclear power clean, but because
“low doses are good for you.” 

A few speakers later came Russell D. Hoffman, a Carlsbad
resident who brought with him a small library devoted to nuclear
issues — including, for texture, the souvenir edition of “Atoms
for Peace,” the document of former President Dwight D.
Eisenhower’s plan to channel atomic energy for the good of
humanity. “Hormesis has been thoroughly debunked,” Hoffman
declared. And anyway, low-level exposure to nuclear isotopes is
the least of local residents’ worries. “If the plant were to
melt down, there would be 68,000 casualties,” said Hoffman. “And
that is a government figure.” 

That didn’t scare Tschaeche. “Frankly, I’m more concerned about
being hit by a tanker full of gas than I am by San Onofre
failing,” he concluded. 

And so went the two town-hall forums the California Public
Utilities Commission held in Oceanside and San Clemente on May
17 to determine whether San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG) should
be released from its ownership interest in SONGS, whose two
20-something steam generators need to be replaced in the next
five years to the tune of $680 million. Southern California
Edison (SCE) owns most of the plant, but SDG’s 20 percent share
means it would have to pony up roughly $135 million to keep the
plant running. But even if the CPUC grants the San Diego
utility’s request, it doesn’t mean the reactor shuts down –
instead, Edison will likely foot the whole bill, pass the cost
on to ratepayers, and SDG could then simply buy the 430
megawatts of nuclear-generated electricity – nearly a
half-million homes worth – outright from Edison. 

The particulars didn’t matter much at the meetings, however,
which quickly devolved into community brawls over the continued
operation of SONGS and atomic energy in general. 

At the Oceanside meeting, held midafternoon in a library
community room, one speaker insisted that SDG take its money and
invest it in solar panels, because “100 square miles of solar
panels can power all of North America.” At the San Clemente
meeting, where the California Highway Patrol, tipped off by a
nervous local, had come to police the “activists” — mostly
neatly dressed, gray-haired retirees — a pro-nuclear advocate
claimed that nuclear waste wasn’t such a big deal. “All the
spent fuel in the world could fit on a basketball court two
stories high,” he said. (Close: The Department of Energy’s
waste-storage metaphor, for power-plant-generated waste only, is
a football field 10 feet high.) 

Hardly anyone seemed to realize that SDG, while bound by state
law to draw 20 percent of its energy from renewables by 2010,
has no explicit plan to redirect its nuclear investment into
wind and solar. (SCE already gets 16 percent of its power from
renewables – “more,” said spokesman Ray Golden, “than any other
public utility in the country.”) 

“I was a little bit frustrated, to tell you the truth, admitted
CPUC Commissioner Geoffrey Brown, who presided over the
meetings. “A lot of people were under the assumption that SDG is
going green if it pulls out of San Onofre, or that San Onofre is
going to shut down if SDG pulls out. But that doesn’t
necessarily follow.” For one thing, SDG’s parent company,
Sempra, “bases a good portion of its portfolio on the
importation of liquefied natural gas from Long Beach or Baja
California.” And the future of liquefied natural gas storage is
by no means certain. 

The misinformation on both sides “is terribly frustrating,” said
Rochelle Becker, executive director of the Alliance for Nuclear
Responsibility, who has 30 years of experience fighting nuclear
power. “We’ve always been so careful to make sure that what
we’re presenting is both on point and accurate, because all we
have is credibility. When person after person stands up and
means very well but doesn’t address the issue before the agency
we’re speaking to, we’re not doing anybody any good.” 

To be fair, Brown didn’t get everything right either. When one
speaker brought up Amory Lovins’ Boulder, Colorado–based Rocky
Mountain Institute and its proposed cost-benefit experiment with
public utilities and renewable energy, Brown confused the group
with the conservative Mountain States Legal Foundation. 

“As I understand it, the Rocky Mountain Institute is going to
promote clean coal,” he said. “Isn’t that Gale Norton’s group?” 

Amid a rumble of protests, Brown’s legal counsel, Peter Hanson,
piped in, “No, that’s Lovins, right?” 

Lovins, by the way, once likened nuclear power to “trying to cut
butter with a chain saw.” 



The May 17 forums mirrored many a nuclear-energy debate —
alternately long on fear and on can-do optimism, with few
agreed-upon scientific facts to bolster either side. With
environmentalists such as James Lovelock, the man behind the
Gaia hypothesis, coming out in support of nuclear energy as the
only solution to global warming, and Bush’s energy secretary,
Samuel Bodman, promising to streamline the regulatory process,
the nuclear industry is enjoying a public-relations heyday the
likes of which it hasn’t seen since the meltdown at Three Mile
Island scared the U.S. public off the technology for decades.
But arguments for and against still spill over with fantastical
claims and suspect data. 

Part of the problem is that much useful information just isn’t
available — even the health effects of living near a nuclear
reactor have yet to be adequately studied. “When they built the
Diablo Canyon reactor [near San Luis Obispo], we begged and
begged the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to do a baseline
study of cancer risks in the area,” Becker said at the Oceanside
meeting. “But they refused.” Without those baseline studies,
it’s hard to prove that a childhood cancer rate in the vicinity
of Three Mile Island 7 percent higher than the national average
has anything to do with the reactor there. (Had the cancer rate
been lower than average before the plant was built, however,
that statistic might be alarming — near other reactors, the
cancer rate has soared to as much as 45 percent above average.) 

“Without a baseline, we don’t have any credibility on that
issue,” Becker told me later over the phone. “So we stay away
from it.” 

Which is unfortunate, because Brown asked repeatedly during the
meetings about the health risks, and that data would have meant
something to him — the possibility still exists for the CPUC to
deny SCE’s request and shut the plant down before its NRC
license expires in 2022. “If there were severe cancer rates
around San Luis Obispo or Three Mile Island, I sure would be
concerned,” he said. “That would be startling evidence.” 

But you don’t have to wade into the murky depths of health risks
to object to rehabbing San Onofre, said Becker. All you have to
do is look at what’s been happening with Unit 1, which started
up in 1968, shut down permanently in 1992 and was slated to be
shipped to South Carolina after decommissioning. The
still-radioactive reactor debris, encased in concrete, at 700
tons proved too heavy to ship by highway or by barge through the
Panama Canal, and the Burlington-Northern &Santa Fe railroad
would only transport the unit if it could be absolved of all
liability in the event of an accident. “And if you can’t get rid
of the Unit 1 generator,” says Becker, “how are you going to
replace the other two?” Already the transport of the two 620-ton
generators, ordered from Mitsubishi in Japan, has presented a
new point of conflict — Southern California Edison wants to
truck them along one of three overland routes, but an
environmental study on the project recommends a journey by sea
to avoid disturbing the recreating public at the state beach. 

People have until May 31 to forward written comments to the CPUC
on the initial draft of SCE’s proposed steam-generator
replacement project, which is available online at
www.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/aspen/sanonofre/sanonofre.htm.
But first, recommends Brown, study the issues and hone your
pitch. “If you’re going to make an assertion, back it up.” 

Hormesis, incidentally, has not been debunked. The theory that
small doses of toxic substances, including radiation, may
mobilize the body’s defenses has been demonstrated in perfectly
respectable research by University of Massachusetts–Amherst
professor Edward Calabrese. For the purpose of determining
SONGS’ immediate future, however, that’s probably not important.
“This is an economic proposal based on whether the replacement
of the steam generators is cost-effective,” Brown said. “I doubt
we’re going to solve the issue of low-level radiation this
year.” 
  
*****************************************************************
 32 Record Online: Can nuclear plant deal with attack? 

www.recordonline.com 

May 26, 2005 

By Greg C. Bruno 
Times Herald-Record 
gbruno@th-record.com 

Aboard the Hudson Riverkeeper – The radio is silent as John 
Lipscomb steers his Chesapeake Bay deadrise through the early 
morning chop, Indian Point in his sights. 

Less than 3,000 feet and closing. He checks his heading, 
glances through a pair of binoculars at two patrol boats tied to 
the nuclear plant's bulkhead, and continues on course. 

Just more than 2,500 feet now. 

After a few more seconds, with the cooling towers growing 
taller, Lipscomb closes to within 2,000 feet of the plant, well 
within missile range. 

Had Lipscomb been wielding any one of a number of black 
market weapons systems, he could have fired on the two nuclear 
reactors. 

Indian Point's patrol boats haven't budged. 

"It strikes me that it would be incredibly easy to get around 
the security forces that are in place," Lipscomb says as he 
turns his vessel from the facility, satisfied with his test of 
riverside security. 

For three hours Sunday, Riverkeeper, an environmental 
advocacy group, gave the Times Herald-Record a tour of some of 
the Hudson River's pollution trouble spots and nuclear security 
threats. The 36-foot Hudson Riverkeeper moves at trolling speed 
as it approaches the twin nuclear towers. 

"What they're doing is like a police helicopter flying around 
the World Trade Center trying to protect them, Lipscomb says. 
"It's not going to work." 

Since Sept. 11, 2001, nuclear facilities, chemical plants and 
other potential terrorist targets have drawn the renewed 
attention of government regulators, politicians and local 
security advocates. The federal government has spent millions 
upgrading facilities in hopes of dissuading an attack that could 
claim countless lives. 

At Indian Point, more than $50 million has been spent in the 
past three years on security, plant officials say. Upgrades 
include semi-automatic weapons for security personnel and the 
installation of a 900-foot seclusion zone in the river. That 
perimeter is marked by buoys. 

"If you guys were anywhere near our buoys, we were watching 
you," spokesman James Steets says of our trip. 

He says the plant's 6 feet of concrete stands between any 
attack and the plant's nuclear fuel. 

"We have cameras and security personnel who are watching 
what's going on," Steets says. "We're very confident of our 
capabilities." 

Others are not. 

Critics continue to demand action, warning that a radiation 
leak could cause tens of thousands of cancer deaths in the 
greater-New York City area. 

Lisa Rainwater van Suntum, director of Riverkeeper's Indian 
Point campaign, says no matter what the plant implements, it 
won't be sufficient. 

"We're calling for the closure of Indian Point, because we 
don't believe that even with the most high-tech measures in 
place it can be protected," she says. "It's the wrong plant in 
the wrong place at the wrong time." 

While an attack may be the only sure-fire way to settle the 
argument – something neither Indian Point nor Riverkeeper wants 
– some independent weapons analysts acknowledge the plant is 
vulnerable from the river. 

Charles D. Ferguson, an expert in nuclear terrorism at the 
Council on Foreign Relations in Washington, D.C., says a 
water-based attack at Indian Point could be coordinated with an 
air or land assault to maximize plant damage. 

Last year, Ferguson co-authored "The Four Faces of Nuclear 
Terrorism", which explored the possibility. 

"One of our scenarios is that some terrorist commando group 
could fire a (rocket-propelled grenade) or mortar on a nuclear 
facility," Ferguson says. 

"I think they would have to do more than that if they wanted 
to cripple the plant or cause a leak," he adds, but "we can't 
rule out the possibility" a multi-pronged approach would be 
effective. 

Others go one step further, suggesting a shoulder-fired 
weapon alone could do significant damage. 

With a rocket propelled grenade, someone would have to be 
"closer than a few hundred yards" to the plant, says Jim 
O'Halloran, the London-based editor of Land Based Air Defense. 

"Let's hope the security wouldn't allow for that. 

"But if you're talking anti-tank weapons, bunker busters, you 
can use anything up to about a nautical mile," or about 6,000 
feet, he says. "In that case, yes, there are anti-tank weapons 
that would do the job with penetrating warheads." 

And that, for Lipscomb, is a dangerous proposition. 

"What we see is any number of ways the plant is vulnerable 
from the water," the boat captain says as his Indian Point tour 
ended, the plant passing out of view. 

"We want the plant closed because we don't think it can be 
protected 100 percent." 

Have a tip about a news story? Contact THR Managing Editor Meg 
McGuire at mmcguire@th-record.comor call 346-3041. 

Record Online is brought to you by the Times Herald-Record, 

serving New York's Hudson Valley and the Catskills. 

40 Mulberry Street * PO Box 2046 * Middletown, NY 10940 

Telephone 845-341-1100 or 800-295-2181 outside the Middletown, 

N.Y., area. 

CopyrightOrange County Publications. All rights reserved. 
*****************************************************************
 33 India News Today: FBR criticality date remains unchanged
 
NT Bureau 
Kalpakkam, May 26: 
  
Prabhat Kumar, project director, BHAVINI, at a press conference 
in Kalpakkam yesterday (at right) An ice plant at the site.

        Criticality date remains unaltered in the construction
of 500 MWe Fast Breeder Reactor at Kalpakkam, project director
of Bharatiya Nabhikiya Vidyut Nigam Limited (BHAVINI) Prabhat
Kumar has said. 

        Even though four months and nine days were lost or taken
to bring back the project to pre-tsunami status, the time lost
would not affect the reactor going critical in September 2010 as
planned earlier, the director said. 

        Modification in construction sequence of the project was
made to ensure that equipment installation starts as per plan,
he added. He told a media conference organised at Kalpakkam
yesterday to announce the record of continuous concreting of
5000 cubic meter of grade concreting at NICB raft. 

        Prabhat Kumar said a total of 5,025 cubic metres grade
concrete with placement temperature of less or equal to 23
degree Celsius had been poured and 1000 metric tonnes of steel
reinforcement had been done on approximately 10,000 square meter
area in a span of five days by Gammon India, the building
contractor. On this raft, where eight buildings of FBRP
including 73 metre tall reactor, control room and radioactive
based building would come up. When the tsunami struck, he said,
'About 3.5 lakh cubic meter litre of sea water, muck and slush
entered the excavated pit and stopped work. The tsunami-affected
concrete raft was chipped to remove 10 to 15 mm of top surface
layer, 100 mm of concrete using fly ash cement was laid over the
sea water-infected concrete. He added, 'And fresh water proofing
was done before commencement of new raft which resulted in 1.4
metre increase in Nuclear island elevation.' 

        Brushing aside fears of water entering the reactor after
project completion, Prabhat Kumar said, 'The present grade level
of 500 MWe Fast Breeder Reactor Project is around five meter
higher than the water-level encountered at the site during
tsunami.' 

        As on 31 April, 2005, 500 MWe FBRP had achieved six per
cent physical progress and Rs 145 crore was spent since its
inception. Purchase orders worth Rs 380 crore were placed for 15
delivery items like main vessel, roof slab and intermediate heat
exchangers. Procurement action at Rs 386 crore was is at an
advanced stage for 11 more items. when the Rs 3493-crore FBRP is
completed. 

        Prabhat Kumar said, 'the potential power generation is
as high as 3,50,000 ME of electric energy at Rs 3.22 per kwh.' 

*****************************************************************
 34 AP Wire: Labor Department to begin compensating sick weapons workers

| 05/26/2005 | 

Associated Press

WASHINGTON - U.S. Labor Secretary Elaine L. Chao on Thursday
said her agency will start processing the claims of former
nuclear weapons workers who grew sick after working at
government facilities as soon as next week. 

The compensation program, moved from the Energy Department to
Chao's agency last year, is designed to pay workers who got sick
while helping to build Cold-War era bombs or clean up the waste
left behind. 

Earlier this year, the Labor Department began compensating the
survivors of people who died from job-related illnesses, paying
out more than $53 million to 430 people so far. 

But living employees, who worked at facilities such as the
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, had to wait for officials to
develop a formula that accounts for levels of impairment, lost
wages and impairments. 

The Labor Department was expected to release new rules on how
workers would receive compensation late Thursday, in time to
meet a deadline set by Congress. 

Most of the people covered by the program worked at facilities
in Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, New Mexico, Ohio, South
Carolina, Tennessee and Washington. 

ON THE NET 

Labor Department: http://www.dol.gov  


*****************************************************************
 35 Salt Lake Tribune: Bill to keep files on N-test fallouts 

Article Last Updated: 05/26/2005 08:26:00 AM 

Spending: Utah congressmen favor defense research, and support a 
new wilderness area near Skull Valley 

By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon would have to preserve records on 
fallout from nuclear weapons tests, and a wilderness area would 
be created to try to block nuclear storage in Utah as part of a 
major defense spending bill the House passed Wednesday. 

Language added to the bill by Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, 
prohibits the Pentagon from destroying records and requires the 
department to publish the information. 

“It's just saying, 'Look, don't destroy this,' '' Matheson 
said. He added he supports "anything we can do to get more data 
out there about the fallout" to allow more scientific studies. 

The National Academies of Science recommended retaining the 
records in a 2003 report, but the Pentagon does not have a 
policy for keeping the files. 

Rep. Rob Bishop added a provision that would create the Cedar 
Mountain Wilderness Area in western Utah to try to block a rail 
line that would deliver nuclear waste to the Skull Valley 
Goshute Indian reservation, where a group of electric utilities 
wants to store waste from nuclear reactors. 

The 169th intelligence squadron of the Utah Air National 
Guard would receive $7 million in new equipment for monitoring 
radio signals and $5.2 million for new satellite antenna and 
software through language Bishop added. 

Bishop also pushed an amendment that provides $10 million for 
research and development on supersonic cruise missile engines for
a new generation of missiles. 

The bill includes $3 million Bishop requested for design and 
construction of a beryllium processing plant, the first 
installment in a multi-year effort. 

Beryllium is a metal used in defense programs, and the only 
domestic production is in Millard County. 

The bill also directs the Defense Secretary to consult with 
NASA to determine if the space shuttle can be used in place of 
other heavy-lift boosters, which could benefit ATK-Thiokol, a 
manufacturer of shuttle boosters. 

"While we weren't able to fully fund or authorize everything 
at the levels I think our fighting men and women deserve, we did 
make very good progress," Bishop said in a statement. 

The legislation is considered a must-pass bill, setting 
spending levels for the Pentagon for the coming year, but it 
still must pass the Senate and be signed by the president before 
becoming law. 

Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 36 Yokwe: MARSHALL ISLANDS PETITION GETS HEARING

Everything Marshall Islands :: http://www.yokwe.net
 
May 27, 2005 - 01:10 AM                                                               

  [UW Students Help Marshallese]  "We are sitting here talking
about numbers, policies, and science, yet for all of us in the
Marshall Islands, the U.S. Nuclear Weapons Testing Program is a
profoundly human experience," said RMI Foreign Affairs Minister
Gerald Zackios in Washington, D.C. yesterday, referring to the
aftermath of sickness and uninhabitable islands. 

  

The Republic of the Marshall Islands (RMI) was able to present
its case May 25 before the Joint Congressional Committee Hearing
which was considering the RMI's Changed Circumstances Petition,
first submitted over five years ago. 

  

The hearing room was packed with "Who's Who of nuclear issues
from the past 25 years," reported Jack Niedenthal, Bikini Atoll
Liaison who attended with Senator Tomaki Juda and Mayor Eldon
Note. Coming from the Marshall Islands were Iroijlaplap Senator
Michael Kabua, representatives of the Four Atolls, and RMI
Health Ministry officials. 

  

The hearing received testimony from eight witnesses on three
panels. While the Bush Administration's rejection of the
Petition was reiterated by State Department testimony, many
Congressional representatives spoke out about the US "moral
obligation" to consider the RMI's request. 

  

READ ARTICLE: &quot;CCP Gets Support at Hearing&quot;
VIEW: CCP Hearing Photos courtesy of Jack Niedenthal
 LISTEN to FIRST in AUDIO SERIES:
 Testimonies - Minister Gerald Zackios; NCT Judge Jim Plasman
Panel II Questions & Answers - Part 1; 2; 3; 4; 5; 6
 (8-10 min each clip)  

*****************************************************************
 37 Guardian Unlimited: U.S., Ukraine to Safeguard Nuclear Waste
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 
 	 
	Thursday May 26, 2005 8:16 PM

AP Photo XEL101 

By ALEKSANDAR VASOVIC 

Associated Press Writer 

KIEV, Ukraine (AP) - The United States and Ukraine signed an
agreement Thursday to safeguard nuclear waste in the former
Soviet Republic that could be used by terrorists to make a dirty
bomb, pledging to work together to upgrade security at storage
facilities. 

The deal was signed by Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman during a
two-day visit in which the United States is expected to press
for improved nuclear security and cash-strapped Ukraine is
expected to push for more funding. 

The agreement ``is a significant step forward in our partnership
to safeguard these radioactive materials and advance the
security of the region,'' Bodman said after signing the document
with Ukrainian Minister for Emergency Situations David Zhvaniya. 

A dirty bomb combines conventional explosives with radioactive
material to disperse the waste over large areas. It is estimated
that a medium-size bomb could contaminate several city blocks. 

Under the agreement, the U.S. National Nuclear Security
Administration's Office of Global Radiological Threat Reduction
will work with local officials to upgrade security at the six
Ukrainian nuclear waste facilities. 

Bodman said President Bush and Ukraine President Viktor
Yushchenko had pledged to cooperate to promote nuclear safety,
security of nuclear materials, and nonproliferation after
meeting in Washington earlier this year. 

Bodman, who met Yushchenko on Thursday, was to also use his
visit to encourage the handover of Soviet-produced, enriched
nuclear fuel to Russia, the U.S Embassy in Kiev said. 

He was also expected to review the conversion of Ukraine's
research reactors to the use of low-enriched uranium. Such a
conversion would lower the risk of accidents and possible
leakage of nuclear components to terrorists. 

Cash-strapped Ukraine needs additional financial resources for
the expensive task of sending used fuel rods back to Russia for
reprocessing and converting its reactors to low-enriched fuel. 

Ukraine's Soviet-built reactors are fueled by high-enriched
uranium that could also be used for the production of
weapons-grade nuclear material. Ukraine doesn't have the
capacity to reprocess the used fuel itself. 

At a recent conference in London, Western donors including the
United States pledged more funds for the upgrade of Ukrainian
nuclear power plants and for the handling of nuclear waste. 

The West also offered additional money for building a new
structure that will cover crumbling concrete and steel shelter
hastily erected over the destroyed reactor at Chernobyl, which
exploded and burned in 1986 in the world's worst nuclear
disaster. 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 38 Brattleboro Reformer: Agreement reached on VY waste storage

May 26, 2005 Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
 			 								 					
By ROSS SNEYD
Associated Press

MONTPELIER, Vt. -- A deal has been reached that negotiators said
Thursday should mean the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant,
source of a third of the state’s electricity, will continue
operating at least through 2012. 

State government would get as much as $28 million in return that
it would use to encourage creation of renewable energy
generators. The agreement will “provide an economic benefit for
the people of Vermont and allow us to operate this station
safely through the end of this license,” said Ken Theobald, a
regional executive for plant owner Entergy Nuclear. 

The agreement, reached after weeks of talks among Entergy, state
lawmakers and the Douglas administration, calls for the
Legislature to grant Entergy authority to store its spent
nuclear fuel above ground at its plant in Vernon, as long as the
state Public Service Board approves the specific storage plan. 

In return, Entergy would increase the amount it already has
agreed to pay the state in connection with its plan for boosting
electricity production at Yankee by 20 percent. That payment
would rise from $2 million a year to $4.5 million a year. 

The estimated $28 million that would be collected would be
deposited in a “clean energy fund” that would be used to
encourage development of new renewable energy generators. 

“It leads us toward a Vermont where increased energy efficiency
is a priority in Vermont, where good jobs are created,” said
House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Robert Dostis,
D-Waterbury, who was the Legislature’s lead negotiator on the
deal. 

A bill allowing Entergy to apply to the Public Service Board for
what’s known as dry cask storage of its spent nuclear fuel has
been drafted and must work its way through the Legislature
before adjournment, which leaders said could come as early as
next week. 

Passage appears likely because House Speaker Gaye Symington was
intimately involved in the negotiations and Senate President Pro
Tem Peter Welch was involved, as well. They both said they were
satisfied with the deal and they organized a news conference
announcing it. 

“Did we get as much as we wanted? No,” Welch said. “Did we get
more than was originally offered? Yes.” 

Copyright © 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
*****************************************************************
 39 News24: SA mulls nuclear waste options
        
File photo of Greenpeace activists protesting at Koeberg
nuclear power station outside Cape Time. (Daniel Beltra,
Greenpeace/Die Burger)   	 	

Cape Town - In the future, South Africa's high-level nuclear
waste will either be stored in deep underground repositories or
sent abroad for reprocessing, members of parliament's minerals
and energy portfolio committee heard on Wednesday. 

The minerals and energy department's chief director of nuclear
matters, Tseliso Maqubela, told MPs the development of a
national policy to deal with radioactive waste, currently under
way, was "a complex undertaking". 

However, "we believe radioactive waste can be managed safely in
this country", he said. 

The focus of the department was on high-level rather than low
and intermediate-level waste, which "is not an issue... because
there is a disposal facility for this at Vaalputs". 

Overseen by the National Nuclear Regulator, the Vaalputs
radioactive waste disposal facility in the Northern Cape is used
for the storage of low and intermediate-level waste. 

Maqubela said government's draft policy on nuclear waste
management listed three options for the management of high-level
nuclear waste. These included above ground interim storage; deep
geological disposal; and "reprocessing, conditioning and
recycling". 

Although the cheapest option, the first option was not favoured
because it did not offer a permanent solution, and was at odds
with the policy principle of not placing a burden on future
generations. 

Should deep geological disposal be chosen, South African mining
experience would come in handy. 

Maqubela said such deep storage was the most accepted option
worldwide, but admitted that in many cases people didn't want it
in "my backyard". 

Spent reactor fuel rods 

There were also major challenges around choosing a site. 

On the option of reprocessing waste - extracting the uranium and
plutonium from spent reactor fuel rods - he said this would mean
transporting the fuel to another country, such as the United
Kingdom, Japan or France, which had the facilities to do this. 

Speaking to Sapa after the briefing, Maqubela ruled out the
building of a nuclear waste reprocessing facility in South
Africa, saying this was often construed as "a recipe for other
things". 

South Africa was likely to pursue a dual approach to its
high-level waste, storing some locally as well as sending some
overseas for reprocessing. 

Asked if a deep storage facility was built locally, government
would allow other countries to ship their nuclear waste here for
storage, he said: "Never - certainly as far as (the department)
is concerned." 

Currently, about 95% of South Africa's high-level nuclear waste
comes from the Koeberg nuclear power station in the Western
Cape. It is all stored at the facility. 

In her budget vote speech last week, Minerals and Energy
Minister Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka told the national assembly
nuclear energy in South Africa was "here to stay". 

Commenting on the country's abundance of uranium, she said this
would be used "to support our growing nuclear industry". 		 

			 		
News24 feed                                             
*****************************************************************
 40 Nevada Appeal: Yucca opposition espoused at business breakfast
 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	
May 26, 2005

 MINDEN - If the proposed Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste
Repository never holds a single container of high-level
radioactive waste, perhaps it could instead store bottles of
Bordeaux.

Bob Loux, executive director of the Nevada Agency for Nuclear
Projects, was joking when he said the repository would be better
suited as a large wine cellar, which got a laugh from members of
the Northern Nevada Development Authority during its Wednesday
breakfast meeting at the Carson Valley Inn, but he's serious
about keeping nuclear waste out of Nevada.

Located 90 miles from Las Vegas on the Nevada Test Site, the
Yucca Mountain Project has been studied for the last 20 years
and debated just as long. The opposition contends there is too
much water in fractures in the mountain, which could drip onto
the containers and cause nuclear waste to flow into the
environment.

A Department of Energy spokesman said in a phone interview
Wednesday the storage of the nuclear waste 1,000 feet under
Yucca Mountain is the right location because of its "significant
distance from population centers as well as its extremely dry
climate."

But many also oppose the $8 billion already spent on Yucca
Mountain, and the total $100 billion it'll cost to complete it.

The last time Loux spoke at a development authority meeting -
which was about three years ago - it was a grim time for the
Yucca Mountain opposition. In February 2002, Secretary of Energy
Spencer Abraham formally recommended to President Bush that the
Yucca Mountain site be used as the repository.

 Speaking briskly during his nuclear update, Loux said
optimistically that the project is dead, and it'll be less than
a year before legislators discontinue the project

He cited several recent events, including a court action that
threw out the Environmental Protection Agency's radiation
standards for Yucca Mountain, saying the standards don't protect
the public health and safety.

The DOE must submit an application to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, but that can't be done until the EPA decides on a
new standard for Yucca Mountain, Loux said.

Mike Waldron, an Energy Department spokesman, said when the EPA
issues radiation standards this year, the application will be
submitted.

"The Yucca Mountain Project is a heavily engineered project that
we're sure will protect public safety due to its remote
location, but also due to the tremendous engineering that has
taken place," he said. 

"An American flying from the East Coast to the West would
receive a higher dose of radiation than they would by walking on
the ridge of Yucca Mountain."

Loux also read a few selections from the Yucca Mountain e-mails,
sent between the Energy Department and contractors from 1996 to
this year. The e-mails received media attention recently because
they document doubts that scientists and managers had about the
Yucca Mountain Project.

 Loux read a line from one of the e-mails: "I don't have a clue
when these programs were installed. So I've made up the dates
and names. This is as good as it's going to get. If they need
more proof I will be happy to make up more stuff."

This was received with nervous laughter from the audience.

The Energy Department has said the e-mails are simply water
cooler chatter.

Loux said if data were falsified according to these e-mails,
it's possible other things concerning Yucca Mountain were also
falsified.

n Contact reporter Becky Bosshart at
bbosshart@nevadaappeal.comor 881-1212.

All contents © Copyright 2005 nevadaappeal.com
Nevada Appeal - 580 Mallory Way - Carson City, NV 89701                         
*****************************************************************
 41 The State: Report grabs Spratts attention
 
 05/26/2
 
Congressman wins assurances about nuclear waste storage

 By LAUREN MARKOE

 Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON  Fearing South Carolina would become a dumping
ground for tons of homeless nuclear waste, U.S. Rep. John Spratt
won assurances this week that the federal government would not
send the waste to the state without Congress permission. 

Spratt, D-S.C., worried about a report accompanying a $29.7
billion energy bill, which passed the House on Tuesday. The
report suggests that the Energy Department set up interim
storage facilities for spent nuclear fuel because the nations
long-term storage site  Nevadas Yucca Mountain  will not be
finished until 2012. 

Aikens Savannah River Site is one of the suggested interim
depositories. 

There are more than 54,000 tons of highly radioactive waste at
commercial nuclear plants around the country that cannot yet be
sent to Yucca Mountain. 

The problem with interim storage is that it is not built to
last forever, yet interim could very well become permanent,
Spratt said. 

The York Democrat filed an amendment to the bill that would have
specifically prohibited sending the waste to SRS. He noted that
federal law prohibits interim storage sites before Yucca
Mountain is complete. 

He also pointed out that the report attached to the House energy
bill  even if the bill is passed by the Senate and signed by
President Bush  would not amount to a change in law, and so
could not legalize interim storage. 

U.S. Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Energy and
Water Appropriations Committee, asked Spratt to withdraw his
amendment in exchange for several assurances. 

Spratt agreed, and Hobson entered into Congress official record
that it would take a change in the law to set up interim storage
sites and that his committees guidance on interim storage was
not actually part of the energy bill itself. 

Its an important concession, which says that the law must be
changed before interim storage facilities can be sited at
Savannah River, Spratt said. 

Reach Markoe at (202) 383-6023 or lmarkoe@krwashington.com.   




      
<IMG
SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/thestate.news/nation;kw=bottom;
c2=nation;c3=nation_homepage;pos=bottom;group=234x60;ord=11171706
24155?" BORDER="0" >    


TheStateOnline
*****************************************************************
 42 GreenvilleOnline.com: State may get more nuclear waste
 
The Greenville News 305 S. Main St. PO Box 1688 Greenville, SC 
29602
 
 Posted Wednesday, May 25, 2005 - 8:43 pm
 
By Paul Alongi STAFF WRITER palongi@greenvillenews.com

More nuclear waste could be headed for Savannah River Site under 
a bill the U.S. House has approved. 

Legislation leaves it up to the U.S. Department of Energy to 
select one or more interim storage sites for commercial nuclear 
waste, according to The Associated Press. A plan to put the waste 
at a proposed storehouse in Nevada's Yucca Mountain has hit 
delays. 

In the meantime, spent rods are stacking up at nuclear power 
plants around the nation. 

A report accompanying the bill suggests the temporary sites could 
be Savannah River Site near Aiken, the Hanford complex in 
Washington state and an Idaho facility, according to the AP. 

U.S. Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C., said that while Congress and 
the Energy Department should consider interim storage for nuclear 
waste, he's against putting it at Savannah River Site, which is 
in his district. 

"We don't want South Carolina to be turned into a dumping 
ground," he said. 

By law, the Energy Department was supposed to begin taking 
commercial and used reactor fuel in 1998, according to the AP. 

Former Gov. Jim Hodges said the bill reminded him of the fight 
over plutonium from the Rocky Flats site in Colorado. The state 
ended up taking six tons of the material even after Hodges 
threatened to lie down in front of the trucks carrying it. 

Hodges said that once dangerous material from around the country 
is in one location, the pressure to get anything done disappears. 

"When they say temporary, they could mean 30 or 40 years," Hodges 
said. 

The Senate must still consider what the House has passed. The 
attached report said the Energy Department should consider other 
federal sites, including closed defense bases for temporary 
storage, according to the AP. 

It calls on the energy secretary to produce a plan for interim 
storage four months after the bill becomes law and begin 
accepting waste before the end of next year, according to the AP. 

This was all part of a $29.7 billion measure funding the Energy 
Department, according to the AP. 

Glenn Carroll, coordinator of Georgians Against Nuclear Energy, 
said the waste could stay at Savannah River Site permanently 
because there's no clear plan of dealing with it. 

"Yucca Mountain is a failure, but they haven't admitted it," she 
said. 

Energy Department spokesman Mike Waldron said, "At this point we 
are not working on an interim site. We continue to believe that a 
permanent geological repository located at Yucca Mountain is the 
right policy for America." 

U.S. Rep. Bob Inglis, R-S.C., said it's unacceptable to store 
more nuclear waste at Savannah River Site. But he's fine with the 
site receiving more spent nuclear rods as long as they're 
reprocessed into fuel. 

"We are an excellent place for reprocessing," Inglis said. "We 
have the capacity to do that at SRS." 

A movement in Washington has focused on turning Savannah River 
Site into a nuclear power hub that could include more than one 
new reactor and a place to recycle plutonium into fuel for 
nuclear power plants. 

An attempt by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass., to strip the bill of 
$10 million for the interim storage program failed 312-110, 
according to the AP. 

Lawmakers from South Carolina and Washington objected to the 
bill. 

"The state of Washington does not want to become ... a nuclear 
waste dump more than we already are," said Rep. Jay Inslee, 
D-Wash., according to the AP. 

Staff writer Paul Alongi can be reached at 298-4746. Friday, May 
27                                          
 	 	 	 	
Copyright 2003 The Greenville News. Use of this site
*****************************************************************
 43 NY Daily News: Waste facility has to go 

Albor Ruiz is a columnist for the Daily News.

E-mail: aruiz@ edit.nydailynews.com
  
Invading Iraq because supposedly it had weapons of mass
destruction was a terribly expensive mistake, in terms of lives
and dollars. It also was totally unnecessary.

 It turns out that to find real WMDs, one had to go only as far
as Brooklyn, where they have been stored for 35 years!

 That's right. Since 1969, hazardous chemical and radioactive
waste has been stockpiled in two innocent-looking buildings on
the Williamsburg waterfront.

 "New York City's dirty bomb," is what U.S. Sen. Chuck Schumer
(D-N.Y.) called the buildings - which are innocent only in
appearance - and their contents.

 Located on Kent Ave., the buildings belong to Radiac Research
Corp., the only nuclear, radioactive and toxic waste storage
facility in the city. A block away is Public School 84, with an
enrollment of 1,100 children, and about 130,000 residents live
in the surrounding community.

 According to Radiac's neighbors, there is no real security at
the facility, which makes it a perfect terrorist target. An
attack on the site, or even an accident, would have the same
effect as a homemade nuclear bomb, they say.

 A petition filed with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by
a law firm representing Neighbors Against Garbage, an
environmental group, reiterates Schumer's assessment.

 "The effect could be comparable to that of a small dirty bomb,"
it stated.

 On Monday, more than 400 people showed up for a hearing held by
the state Department of Environmental Conservation at PS 84.
They demanded with one voice that the dangerous facility be
closed.

 The crowd consisted of local politicians and entrepreneurs,
teachers and representatives of church groups. Latinos and
Hasidic Jews - the two predominant ethnic groups in the
neighborhood - also were well-represented.

 Although the agency will decide next month whether to renew
Radiac's permit to operate at the site, company officials did
not testify at the hearing.

 "Radiac jeopardizes the lives of thousands of New Yorkers,"
said Rep. Nydia Velázquez (D-Brooklyn), who led the protesters
in a march from El Puente, a community organization that is one
of the leaders of the struggle against Radiac, to PS 84. 

When it opened in 1969, Radiac's block and its immediate
neighborhood were mostly industrial. Since then, it has become
primarily residential. Not only is the elementary school close
by, but occupied apartment buildings are now right next door to
the facility.

 Radiac was last subjected to a serious regulatory review in
1988. Its permit was renewed then based largely on the
industrial character of the neighborhood. It expired in 1992 but
has remained in effect because Radiac applied for renewal before
the expiration, and in the more than a decade since then, the
DEC has not acted.

 But as Velázquez made clear during the hearing, Radiac cannot
be trusted to implement effective security measures.

 "The reality is that Radiac does not have a strong track
record," she said. "It has accumulated a lengthy history of
permit violations on regulations that the DEC has recorded."

 And she added: "With a past such as this we have little reason
to believe that Radiac would be diligent about implementing
strict security measures to protect our community."

 El Puente founder Luis Garden Acosta is convinced there is no
more time to waste.

 "This has to be the year when Radiac is finally closed down,"
he said. "This is a disaster waiting to happen." 

Originally published on May 26, 2005   

All contents © 2005 Daily News, L.P.
 Disclaimer and Copyright Notice | Our Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
 44 NewsFromRussia.Com: U.S. energy secretary, Ukrainians to discuss
handover of enriched nuclear fuel to Russia
 
 16:49 2005-05-26

 U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman was scheduled to travel to
Ukraine on Thursday to meet President and other top officials to
encourage the handover of Soviet-produced, enriched nuclear fuel
to Russia, the U.S. Embassy in Kiev said. 

For their part, Ukrainian officials are expected to press for
more funding. Cash-strapped Ukraine needs additional financial
resources for the expensive task of sending used fuel rods back
to Russia for reprocessing and converting its reactors to
low-enriched fuel. 

Ukraine's Soviet-built reactors are fueled by high-enriched
uranium that could also be used for the production of
weapons-grade nuclear material. Ukraine doesn't currently have
the capacity to reprocess the used fuel itself. 

Bodman will also review the conversion of Ukraine's research
reactors to the use of low-enriched uranium, the U.S. embassy
said in a statement. Such a conversion would lower the risk of
accidents and possible leakage of nuclear components to
terrorists. 

"He will focus on using technology to enhance energy resource
development in the most efficient and environmentally
responsible manner, and the benefits of transparent markets that
attract foreign investment," the embassy said. 

At a recent conference in London, Western donors including the
United States pledged more funds for the upgrade of Ukrainian
nuclear power plants and for the handling of nuclear waste. 

The West also offered additional money for the construction of a
new structure that will cover the crumbling concrete-and-steel
shelter hastily erected over the destroyed reactor at Chernobyl,
which exploded in 1986 in the world's worst nuclear disaster. 

Earlier this month, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko said that
Ukraine, which currently operates 15 reactors, wants to build 11
more by 2030. The statement reflected Ukraine's ambition to
achieve energy independence from Russia, its key supplier. 

Tymoshenko ordered the state-run Energoatom, which is
responsible for overseeing the operations of Ukrainian nuclear
plants, to conduct a feasibility study for a domestic nuclear
fuel reprocessing program. She also ordered the company to boost
domestic production of uranium and zirconium, both components of
nuclear fuel rods. 

If Ukraine were to succeed in developing its own fuel
reprocessing program, it would be able to produce its own fuel
from locally produced uranium, which would open up opportunities
for selling the very expensive final product all over the world. 

Bodman was also scheduled to be a principal speaker at an annual
energy conference that focuses on world energy security,
development of energy resources and investment in Ukraine's fuel
and energy sector. 

ALEKSANDAR VASOVIC, Associated Press Writer 

pravda.ru 
	   	 
  Copyright ©1999 by "". When reproducing our materials in whole
view of PRAVDA.Ru's editors.   
*****************************************************************
 45 Salt Lake Tribune: Agency rejects latest appeal of Skull Valley
nuke storage 

Article Last Updated: 05/25/2005 12:59:37 AM 

Safety board: A consortium could be a step closer to building the
facility, but other avenues are available to the state 

By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune 

WASHINGTON - The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board on Tuesday 
rejected Utah's latest appeal seeking to prevent Private Fuel 
Storage's plans to store 44,000 tons of nuclear waste on the 
Skull Valley Goshute Indian reservation. 

The board's decision means PFS is inching closer to getting 
its license to build an interim spent fuel-rod storage site 45 
miles southwest of Salt Lake City. PFS officials have said they 
could be operating by 2007. 

The state still has other avenues of administrative appeal, 
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs has yet to sign off on the 
deal. 

The state also is asking the Interior Department to throw out 
the Skull Valley Band's contract with PFS, and to deny PFS a 
right-of-way for a rail line to the reservation to move the 
waste. Another angle of attack is U.S. Rep. Rob Bishop's 
proposal in a Defense Department bill that would create a 
wilderness area to block the rail line. 

Should PFS continue to prevail with the federal agencies, 
Utah can take the issue to a federal appeals court, said 
assistant Utah Attorney General Denise Chancellor. 

Reaching that point "could be a month, it could be four 
months" she said. 

Nevertheless, PFS views the Atomic Safety and Licensing 
Board's decision as a victory. 

“We're very pleased that the process is moving forward,” said 
Sue Martin, spokeswoman for PFS, the group of electric companies 
proposing the facility. “It has been moving forward. It's just 
been at a glacial pace.” 

The state had asked the licensing board to reverse a Feb. 24 
ruling in favor of PFS, arguing that the board underestimated 
the risk and consequences of an F-16 fighter jet smashing into 
the waste dump while training at the nearby Air Force range. 

“Given the result we reach today, nothing said herein alters 
the status quo, under which the commission has been, and 
continues to be, vested by NRC regulations with the authority to 
issue the requested license,” the three-judge panel wrote. 

In one part of the ruling, the judges were unanimous in 
rejecting the Utah attorneys' contention that the board should 
consider what harm might occur if one of the casks is damaged 
internally by an airplane crash. 

However, the panel did suggest that the commission direct NRC 
staff to conduct “diminished shielding” studies to determine 
whether radiation might escape from a cask that is damaged but 
not breached and decide if those studies warrant further 
research. 

In the second part of the ruling, Judge Peter Lam dissented 
from the other two judges, arguing against the board's 
determination that the risk of an F-16 crash was so remote - less
than one in 1 million per year - that it should not prevent the 
licensing from proceeding. 

Lam argued the determination was based on inadequate F-16 
crash data. 

Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, expressed frustration, but no 
surprise. "I still think these are very legitimate concerns and 
I think it's very disappointing that the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission has approached this the way it has." 

Republican Sen. Orrin Hatch expressed optimism. “PFS will 
never, in my opinion, overcome all the administrative, legal and 
economic hurdles," he said. 

Meantime, Utah's delegation was alarmed by language in an 
Energy Department budget bill that seeks to create an interim 
nuclear storage site by next year to house the waste until a 
permanent repository in Yucca Mountain, Nev., is built. 

A committee report accompanying the bill recommends interim 
storage in Nevada, if existing law can be changed, or at Energy 
Department sites in South Carolina, Washington, Idaho or Nevada. 
However, it also leaves open the option of a “non-federal” 
storage site. 

“I am very nervous about the interim storage issue that is in 
this bill,” said Matheson. “I'm nervous about its effect on 
validating or enhancing the viability of Private Fuel Storage.” 

Bishop asked the chairman of the subcommittee that drafted 
the bill for assurances the storage wouldn't take place at a 
site not run by the Energy Department. 

“I do not see any reason the [Energy] secretary would 
consider a private site or a site on federal land or an Indian 
reservation for interim storage,” Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, 
replied. 

--- 

Tribune reporter Patty Henetz contributed to this story. 

Â© Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. 
*****************************************************************
 46 Business Day: State body to manage radioactive waste in the pipeline Â 

  Posted to the web on: 26 May 2005
								
Linda Ensor
 
Political Correspondent


 CAPE TOWN  The minerals and energy department has proposed the
establishment of a national fund, managed by a dedicated agency,
to handle radioactive nuclear waste. 

The departments nuclear affairs director, Tseliso Maqubela,
told Parliaments mineral and energy affairs portfolio committee
yesterday that generators of radioactive waste would contribute
to the fund, either according to the toxicity or the volume of
waste they produced. 

In terms of the proposed policy, the principle of the polluter
pays would be applied, he said. 

Treatment of nuclear waste became an issue recently when lobby
group Earthlife Africa said untreated waste from the Pelindaba
plant near Pretoria was not being disposed of properly and posed
a danger to local communities. 

Government denied the claims vehemently, and said it would begin
seeking legal counsel on ways to suppress public claims that
could incite unnecessary panic. 

Eskom has an internally managed fund of about R1,5bn to deal
with the disposal of radioactive waste from the Koeberg nuclear
power station outside Cape Town  which produces about 95% of
SAs radioactive waste  as well as the countrys
decontamination and decommissioning processes. 

Maqubela said an executive co-ordinating committee  consisting
of representatives from the departments of health, minerals and
energy, environment and tourism, water affairs and forestry and
participants from the national nuclear regulator  would oversee
the work of the specialised agency. 

The agency could be either a standalone entity or a unit of the
Nuclear Energy Corporation of SA. 

Maqubela said that while radioactive waste in SA was being
managed safely, there was no long-term waste management
strategy. 

The new policy focused only on high-level radioactive waste, and
would ensure that adequate financial provision was made for its
disposal, he said. 

Low and intermediate-level waste from Koeberg was not an issue,
Maqubela said, as there was a facility for its disposal at
Vaalputs in Northern Cape. 

Maqubela said three options were under investigatation for the
long-term storage of high-level nuclear waste. 

The least favoured, but most inexpensive option would be to
create an above-ground interim storage facility. The second,
most internationally adopted option, would be deep geological
disposal  but choosing a site for this would be a challenge. 

The third alternative was to reprocess and recycle spent fuel to
extract uranium and plutonium. This reduced the toxicity and
volume of waste considerably. 

Minerals and Energy Minister Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka said in her
budget vote speech last week that the policy proposals, which
have been released for public comment, would be sent to the
cabinet in August for approval. 

 		   Copyright Notice
 Â© 2005 BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd. All Rights Reserved
 
*****************************************************************
 47 The Whitehaven News: SELLAFIELD ‘SATELLITES’ SAFE FOR NOW 

SELLA PARK, Summergrove and the Sellafield Visitor Centre are
all safe for the time being under their new owners, the NDA
(Nuclear Decommissioning Agency).

They are all among off-site BNFL properties that now belong to
the NDA in a transfer of all BNFL assets and liabilities that
took place in April.

Following discussions between the NDA’s commercial director
Peter Graham and Peter Vaughan of the DTI, it has been agreed
that Sella Park, the historic house and hospitality facility and
the Summergrove hotel will both continue as they are, but that
potential business opportunities for the future should be looked
at.

The NDA is currently housed in Pelham House at Calderbridge,
which is said to be “bursting at the seams’’. The Agency is due
to transfer to its new headquarters on the Westlakes Science
Park this summer.

Coun David Moore, Tory leader on Copeland Council, said he
thought both Pelham House and Sella Park would make top-class
hotels for the area. Summergrove, with its proximity to the
National Park and potential for higher education use, also
looked to have a strong future. Meanwhile Sellafield Visitor
Centre has a guarantee of two years funding through the NDA who
will be setting up a group to look at options for the future of
the building. 

“Maybe it could be taken over by Disney?” was one quip made at
Monday’s meeting of the council’s Overview and Scrutiny
Committee on economic well-being.

Nuclear Opportunities Manager Rosie Mathisen, of West Lakes
Renaissance, who addressed the meeting, said the BNFL Technology
Centre was part of the business case for a Nuclear Academy and
provided a big opportunity for the future – a research centre
tied in with Manchester University’s Dalton Institute, part of
the overall University of Cumbria and with an important status
in Europe, and globally.

Meanwhile discussions are still taking place on the BNFL holding
in the West Cumbria Development Fund.

*****************************************************************
 48 Whitehaven News: NEW HOPE FOR THORP WORKERS 

By Alan Irving

THE jobs of Thorp workers could be safe – even if the key
Sellafield reprocessing plant has to stay closed.

In a letter to The Whitehaven News, Sir Anthony Cleaver,
chairman of Sellafield’s new owners, the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority, has given an assurance following concerns about the
employment impact.

Two thousand Sellafield jobs are connected to Thorp’s operations
and many more with shops and businesses in the community would
be affected if the government does not allow Thorp to re-open
after the serious leak of radioactive liquor which has left the
plant closed for several weeks.

But speaking for the first time about the speculation Sir
Anthony said: “The closure of such a facility as Thorp would not
necessarily mean the loss of hundreds of jobs. We have an
enormous amount of decommissioning work to undertake at
Sellafield and one of our key objectives is to utilise the
available workforce in West Cumbria to help meet that demand,
supported of course by the appropriate training and skills
development.”

Meanwhile, BNFL are pressing ahead with the recovery of the
radioactive liquor, which spilled on the floor of a contained
cell and threw Thorp’s future into doubt, even though it still
has about half of its £12 billion order book to complete.

Sellafield spokesman Ali McKibbin said: “We have started the
recovery of the dissolver liquor and it is progressing well. We
have lifted 12 cubic metres out of the 83 we have to remove, and
this will be sampled and analysed before we start to lift the
next batch around the end of the week.” 

*****************************************************************
 49 Whitehaven News: CLOSING THORP NEEDN'T MEAN THE LOSS OF HUNDREDS OF JOBS' -

NDA 

SIR – The NDA completely understands local concerns following
newspaper speculation about the future of Thorp, and ideally
would like to remove unnecessary uncertainty for people. 

Nevertheless, there are a very complex set of issues that need
to be fully considered before we will be able to recommend a
course of action to the Government, who would, of course, have
the final say.

Safety is the most important priority and any plan of action
would have to get the approval of the Nuclear Installations
Inspectorate before it could be agreed with Government.

However, the closure of a facility such as Thorp would not
necessarily mean the loss of hundreds of jobs. We have an
enormous amount of decommissioning work to undertake at
Sellafield and one of our key objectives is to utilise the
available workforce in West Cumbria to help meet that demand,
supported, of course, by the appropriate training and skills
development.

Finally, I would like to reassure your readers that when we have
completed our considerations on Thorp, we will of course share
them with stakeholders in an open and transparent way.

Sir Anthony CLEAVER 

Chairman,

Nuclear Decommissioning Authority

SIR — I write on behalf of the Black Combe Beagles in response
to your article headlined “Muncaster Fair is saved” (The
Whitehaven News, May 19).

The committee of the Black Combe Beagles would like to point out
that they did not pull out of the Muncaster Country Fair due to
the hunting ban, as reported.

They are not involved in this year’s event because they were
informed by the landowner that the fields on which the event is
usually held would no longer be available to them. The Black
Combe Beagles were quite naturally disappointed that they would
not be able to hold their main fundraising event on the
traditional venue. Indeed, as you reported, this is an event
that has been going for decades.

The Black Combe Beagles will be running a Field Day on Monday,
August 29, at Haverigg Airfield. The event will include a
beagle, foxhound, terrier, lurcher and gundog show. Also terrier
racing, gundog demonstration along with trade stands and a car
boot sale. For further details please contact Andrea on 01946
821951.

The committee of the Black Combe Beagles would also like to
confirm that they will be continuing to follow legal activities
following the hunt ban and these will include trail hunting,
rabbit hunting and hound exercise and as such continued support
and fund raising is important. Therefore, anyone with an
interest in country sports and their continuation should show
their support and attend the above event.

Stephen LOWTHIAN

Treasurer/Secretary 

Black Combe Beagles

SIR — Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific adviser,
who sounded the alarm about global warming more loudly than
anyone else in recent years, believes that new nuclear plants
may be needed to keep Britain’s faltering plans to reduce
greenhouse gas emissions on course.

His comments in The Independent came three weeks after The
Guardian reported that Tony Blair was drawing up plans to revive
the nuclear option as a key element in the Government’s drive to
combat global warming.

Why are we being effectively forced down the nuclear path? The
sad reason is that, despite all the pledges, the Government has
utterly failed to invest in real alternative energy sources such
as wind farms and tidal barriers. We must have a debate which
provides safe energy that does not destroy the atmosphere nor
leave us with nuclear waste heaps for generations.

Coun Steve RADFORD

President, The Liberal Party

Liverpool

SIR — In a letter shortly before the election, I warned that the
means testing of pensioners is on the agenda if the Labour party
was returned. Well, it was returned, and on May 13 David
Blunkett announced he is “not prepared to dig them out of
poverty”!

This is a most insulting statement addressed to the millions of
voters who put him in office. He is a member of that most
exclusive club in the world in which the members, between
elections, are absolute masters and mistresses of their own
destinies. They set their own pay levels, their various
allowances and parliamentary privileges of almost unbelievable
and fabulous nature. And, let us not forget their generous
pensions!

A BROADBENT

Braystones Road, Beckermet

SIR – I found the article headlined “Boy, 13, hit his teacher
with a ruler” (The Whitehaven News, May 19) to be very
thought-provoking. 

I was educated in the 1960s, when it was not uncommon for
teachers to strike the pupils in their care with rulers and to
use blackboard dusters as missiles when they were provoked. The
cane was still in use as an implement of punishment. 

Both situations are equally unacceptable – but this leads me to
wonder about solutions to the tensions which exist in a
classroom environment. 

How could we create a situation in which young people and the
adults responsible for their education show mutual respect for
one another? Perhaps the time has come for a complete change to
the way in which we prepare our youngsters for adulthood.

Bridget ELGIE

Elizabeth Crescent, Whitehaven

SIR — The general election saw Liberal Democrats double their
representation in the North West, electing six MPs across the
region including our first in Cumbria. Next time people go to
the polls it is likely to be to vote in the referendum on the EU
constitutional treaty, but only if the French first vote ‘yes’
in their own referendum on Sunday.

Polls suggest that a majority in France will vote against the
treaty. It is too ‘British’, they say, too Anglo-Saxon, too
‘liberal’. French farmers are almost totally opposed, probably
because the constitution will make reform of the EU’s common
agricultural policy more easy to achieve.

A majority of people in Britain are also said to be opposed to
the treaty. I hope their views will change. It would be ironic
if we end up rejecting an agreement that the French describe as
too ‘British’. 

Chris DAVIES

Lib Dem MEP for the North West

SIR — Residents in the Lake District National Park may not have
realised that as from March 1, a new set of procedures for
considering planning applications has been introduced. 

This now delegates to planning officers powers to settle the
great majority of cases. The Government is expecting that about
90% of cases may be decided by officers.

What the public probably does not know – and ought to know – is
that it is possible to exercise your rights as an objector to be
heard by a committee rather than an officer. In terms of seeing
that justice is seen to be done, the committee route is far more
satisfactory. 

If an objector, in a letter setting out the grounds for
objecting, clearly expresses a wish to state the case to a
committee, that will be granted. If you do not want to speak to
the committee but do want to take the case out of the hands of
officers, then you must recruit four other householders to lodge
objections. These must be separate letters. This will ensure the
case goes to committee.

What is the difference? A committee decision may be no more
favourable to you but when you appear before them, you will be
able to see from the file just what the planning officers are
recommending, what their judgements are on intrusion, what
conditions they think are appropriate. You will know all this
before any decision is taken. 

Note, too, that to be recognised as an objection, your letter
must use the right words. If you only “comment”, your letter may
carry less weight or no weight at all. And who do you think
decides when you have used the right words? Yes! The officers of
LDNPA, who will not tell you if you have not done so.

I have been dealing with the planners for the Lake District
National Park, under various titles since 1967. I was for many
years a supporter of the planning system, then a doubter, now a
critic.

We need much more consultation, more positive thinking to
produce better results.

G K GREENWOOD

Underbarrow, Kendal

SIR — On April 10, Oldham St Anne’s ARLFC travelled to Wath Brow
Hornets. The game was abandoned due to a serious injury to one
of the Saints players. On behalf of the club I would like to
thank John Curwen and his committee and supporters for the
tremendous support they gave, providing accommodation and travel
for our physio and a committee member. They are a credit not
only to the greatest game but also to their community. 

Jim LEACH

Oldham St. Anne’s ARLFC 

SIR — On behalf of the parochial church council of the Church of
the Holy Spirit, Distington, I would like to thank all who
contributed to our sponsored walk and all who took part in our
fundraising walk which was a successful event.

These funds are very urgently needed, especially for the
proposed disabled wheelchair access to the church and, of
course, other urgent facilities badly needed for our church.

James TAYLOR

Church Warden

Church of the Holy Spirit, Distington

SIR — At the end of my presidential year with Soroptimists
International (Whitehaven and District), I would like to thank
everyone who has supported my year in office. 

My designated charities this year are Copeland Talking Newspaper
(£1,000), and with the help of Doug Scott’s lecture at Rosehill
Theatre we were able to contribute £1,000 to his charity
Community Action Nepal.

The sum of £500 has been given to St Nicholas Centre for the
purchase of a new cooker; Male Voice Choir £50; Rosehill Theatre
£50; Marie Curie £125 (raised by a table top sale); £152.86 to
Project Independence (Women Survivors of War). Contributions
have also been given to Penrith Red Squirrel Group, a hospital
appeal in Bangladesh and Howgill Family Centre, and we also
continue to support the Muncaster Owl Trust; Whitehaven Heritage
Group; and Fellow Soroptimists in Chittagon, Bangladesh.

Betty LITTLE

President (Whitehaven and District) 

Soroptimists International


*****************************************************************
 50 NEWS.com.au: ERA may face more mine charges 

| National Breaking News |

(26-05-2005)
 	
By Karen Michelmore May 26, 2005 From: AAP

URANIUM miner Energy Resources of Australia (ERA) may face 
further charges over its troubled Ranger mine in Kakadu National 
Park. As the company awaits punishment over three 
contamination-related charges, the Northern Territory Government 
said today that ERA could face further prosecution, related to an 
injury to a worker at the site last year.

 The contracted fitter, in his 20s, suffered a broken leg and
head injury after an accident at Ranger's controversial
processing plant last July.

 He is understood to be back at work.

 The plant was at the centre of an unrelated contamination
incident that landed the company in trouble when the drinking
water became polluted with uranium last March.

 ERA pleaded guilty earlier this month to three charges under
the Mining Management Act, and could face a fine of up to
$300,000 when it is sentenced next month.

 Twenty-eight workers fell ill with spontaneous vomiting,
gastric upsets, headaches or skin rashes after drinking or
showering in the water – which contained 400 times more uranium
than recommended.

 Darwin Magistrates Court heard the water contamination occurred
after the process water – used during the uranium extraction
process – was mistakenly connected to the drinking water supply
just after 9.30pm (CST) on March 23.

 The error was not discovered until 10 hours later, when a
supervisor drank bitter-tasting water from a cooler in the lunch
room and suspected it was tainted.

 The plant was shut down for two weeks while investigations were
carried out.

 NT Department of Business, Industry and Resource Development
spokesman Stephen Yates said today the department was awaiting
legal advice on whether the further charges should be laid.

 "The department is considering whether to take legal action or
not," Mr Yates said.

 "That is to do with a serious injury to a worker 12 months ago."

 It is understood there is a 12-month statute of limitations on
the charges.

 ERA said it had not yet been told of any further charges.

 "We have not been informed of whether the charges will be laid
in relation to that July incident last year," an ERA spokeswoman
said.                                                           

Copyright 2005 News Limited. All times AEST (GMT + 10). 
*****************************************************************
 51 Tomgram: Jonathan Schell on Crossing Nuclear Thresholds 

[TomDispatch.com]     compiled and edited by Tom Engelhardt   


Call it Star Wars, parts VII-XXII; but last week, just as
Revenge of the Sith was opening galaxy-wide -- multiplexes on
Tatooine alone were expected to pull in billions -- reporter Tim
Weiner revealed on the front page of the New York Timesthat a
new presidential directive will soon essentially green-light the
future U.S. militarization of space. (When, in December 2001,
the administration withdrew from the Antiballistic Missile
Treaty, which forbade the weaponization of space, it opened the
way for exactly the kind of Pentagon R that now threatens to
come to mutant fruition in the heavens.) Just three days before
Weiner's piece appeared, military analyst William Arkinreported
in the Washington Post that "[e]arly last summer, Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld approved a top secret 'Interim
Global Strike Alert Order,'" preparing the way for devastating
attacks against hostile powers developing weapons of mass
destruction, air strikes that could be carried out more or less
on demand anywhere on the planet and, if so desired, included a
"nuclear option." 

These two actions don't represent separate worlds of planning.
One of the imagined future weapons for Rumsfeld's "global
strike" force, for instance, turns out to be a CAV (Common Aero
Vehicle) which, from space, could theoretically hit any target
on Earth with a massive dose of conventional munitions on half
an hour's notice. Of this weapon, the Washington Post's Walter
Pincuswrote, "The first-generation CAV, expected to be ready by
2010, will have ‘an incredible capability to provide the
warfighter with a global reach capability against high payoff
targets,' Gen. Lance W. Lord, commander of Air Force Space
Command, told the House Armed Services Committee… The system
could, Lord said, ‘deliver a conventional payload precisely on
target within minutes of a valid command and control release
order.'" 

Such "global strike" space weaponry, while not (yet)
nuclearized, would not be far off in impact. For instance,
according to Weiner, one such weapon, Hypervelocity Rod Bundles
(nicknamed "Rods from God"), aims "to hurl cylinders of
tungsten, titanium or uranium from the edge of space to destroy
targets on the ground, striking at speeds of about 7,200 miles
an hour with the force of a small nuclear weapon." In this way,
the boundaries between the previously almost unusable nuclear
option and more conventional war-fighting options are slowly --
and quite consciously -- being blurred by the Bush
administration. 

Let's put a label on these developments: Proliferation. In space
as on Earth, the Bush strategists have an almost primal urge to
cross strategic and weapons barriers and thresholds of all
sorts, and head into uncharted territory; or, as an old TV space
opera used to put it, "boldly to go where no man has gone
before." (On Star Trek, though, the voyages of the USS
Enterprise were, at least theoretically, peaceful in nature, and
the announcement of the next destination didn't automatically
end with an explosion.) 

Perhaps there's another label that might capture even better the
administration's primal global urge -- in this case, a label
much beloved by the Air Force Space Command, those "Guardians of
the High Frontier" (as they so flatteringly like to call
themselves): "dominance" or "space superiority." ("Space
superiority is not our birthright, but it is our destiny,"
[Space Command's General Lord] told an Air Force conference in
September. "Space superiority is our day-to-day mission. Space
supremacy is our vision for the future.") In the old Army Air
Corps anthem, airmen sang of taking off"into the wild blue
yonder, climbing high into the sun"; now I suppose it should be
"the wild, black yonder." 

There has been much on-line controversylately about whether the
new Star Wars movie is an attack on the Bush administration. One
thing can certainly be said: Where Star Wars went long ago, Bush
administration fantasies are now heading. After all, what is a
CAV, but a little "Death Star," that terrible, planet-destroying
instrument of the on-screen Evil Empire. As Theresa Hitchens of
the Center for Defense Informationpointed out in a recent
article, "[O]rbiting 'death stars' to attack ground targets are
being considered. Pete Teets, the former acting secretary of the
U.S. Air Force has said: 'We haven't reached the point of
strafing and bombing from space - nonetheless, we are thinking
about those possibilities.'" 

In fact, "thinking" turns out to be something of a euphemism,
given that the first tests of parts of the CAV program are to be
carried out later this year. Of course, the Bush
high-frontiersmen and the high-frontiersmen of the
military-industrial complex (into which so many space-based tax
dollars are already flowing) are just dying to test new
generations of threshold-busting weapons (can't wait!). And yet,
most of these bizarre weapons are technologically daunting and
deficit-bustingly expensive. As Weiner points out: "Richard
Garwin, widely regarded as a dean of American weapons science,
and three colleagues wrote in the March issue of IEEE Spectrum,
the professional journal of electric engineering, that 'a
space-based laser would cost $100 million per target, compared
with $600,000 for a Tomahawk missile.'" 

 posted May 25, 2005 at 8:40 pm         
                  
*****************************************************************
 52 Guardian Unlimited: UC Board Wants to Keep Los Alamos Contract
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday May 26, 2005 9:01 AM

By MICHELLE LOCKE 

Associated Press Writer 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - Two key committees of the University of
California board of regents voted unanimously to bid to maintain
control of the Los Alamos nuclear weapons lab - the birthplace
of the atomic bomb. 

Wednesday's vote gives preliminary approval to compete for the
contract to run the lab. The proposal goes before the full board
for ratification Thursday. 

The university has run the New Mexico laboratory since it was
created in 1943. But after an embarrassing string of financial
and security lapses, the government announced it would put the
contract up for bid for the first time. 

Regents said they felt they had a duty to keep managing the lab:
``The nation needs us to do this job,'' said Regent Peter
Preuss. 

But students who attended the meeting urged committee members to
cut ties with the weapons lab and stood after the vote,
shouting, ``We vote no!'' 

UC Berkeley law student Garrett Wright addressed the regents
before the vote: ``UC should take this opportunity to get out of
the bomb-making business,'' he said. 

If ratified by the board, the university will compete for a new
contract to run the lab for seven years, with potential
extensions for 13 more. It will pay as much as $79 million a
year - nearly 10 times the amount the University of California
now makes for a job it essentially regards as a nonprofit
venture. 

Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas are planning a joint
bid. Northrop Grumman also has indicated it will compete for the
contract. 

Bidders have until July 19 to submit proposals. The government
plans to award the contract by Dec. 1. 

In 1999, Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee was jailed amid an
investigation into possible Chinese espionage. The case proved
to be weak, and Lee pleaded guilty to a single charge of
mishandling classified information and was released. 

Los Alamos, with about 8,000 University of California employees
and 3,000 contract workers, is one of the nation's three chief
installations responsible for maintaining the nation's nuclear
arsenal. 

--- 

On the Net: 

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu 
		 	 	   
      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 53 Albuquerque Tribune: Jabs begin as UC nears vote on lab bid

By Sue Vorenberg
Tribune Reporter
May 26, 2005

The University of California Board of Regents was to decide this
afternoon on whether to bid on the contract to manage Los Alamos
National Laboratory - but bickering between potential
competitors has already started. 

Two University of California committees voted unanimously
Wednesday to recommend the institution move forward with a bid
to operate the lab. If the regents accept the recommendations,
UC and Bechtel Corp. will form a limited liability company to
bid on and operate the lab. 

In the heat of those committees' discussions, Regent Richard
Blum aimed a jab at the university's main competitors - a team
of Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas and another by
Northrop Grumman, which hasn't confirmed yet if it will bid. 

"I'm not sure the competitors have the competence or the
wherewithal - or maybe even the integrity - to manage this
institution," Blum said. 

C. Paul Robinson, head of the Lockheed team, said he was
insulted by the comment. Robinson stepped down as director of
Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, which is managed by
Lockheed, to lead the team. 

"I'm just glad that Mr. Blum is not making the decisions for the
government," Robinson said. "I can't imagine anyone smearing
someone's integrity without any facts whatsoever. I would put up
the leaders of Lockheed Martin and their patriotism against Mr.
Blum's any day of the week." 

The National Nuclear Security Administration decided to put the
contract up for bid after 62 years of management by UC in the
wake of several accounting and security scandals over the past
few years. 

The agency released its final request for proposals to run the
lab on May 19, with responses due in from bidders on July 19. A
winner will be chosen Dec. 1. 

The agency's concerns led UC to bring in Bechtel Corp. as a
partner, UC President Robert Dynes said. 

The new team dynamic will make the competition an interesting
one to follow, Robinson said. 

"I think this is going to be a real competition," he said. "I've
been talking for several years now about what is the best way to
assure science is well protected at national labs, and it seems
the best way is to have an academic-industrial model for
management and science, which is what we, and the UC-Bechtel
team, have." 

Among the concerns voiced by regents on the two UC panels
Wednesday were whether the lab will end up making bunker buster
bombs and whether it will end up as a manufacturing facility for
the pit cores of nuclear weapons. 

Both projects would require congressional approval and would not
be part of the National Nuclear Security Administration's
request for proposals to run the lab, committee members
concluded. 

Many also questioned whether it would be in the university's
best interests to continue managing the lab. 

In a news conference call after the meeting, Dynes and others
said they were happy about the committees' recommendation to
seek the bid, and they accused competitors of only being
interested in the contract because of the $79 million annual fee
paid to the winner. 

"We have in the past and we will in the future not make money on
these contracts," Dynes said of UC's current contract to operate
Los Alamos Lab and, in California, Lawrence Livermore and
Lawrence Berkeley national laboratories. "We never made any
money." 

The university instead reinvests its fees - which at $8 million
a year have been substantially less than the new contract - into
research and development at the lab, Dynes said. 

"It's almost venture capital that is used for new and innovative
ideas back at the laboratory," Dynes said. 

Robinson was quick to point out that Lockheed Martin also
reinvests most of the fees it gets from operating Sandia back
into research and development and the Albuquerque community. One
example of that, he said, is Technology Ventures Corp., which
was designed to help create new companies out of technology from
the labs. 

"This is not a commercial undertaking - it's a service to our
country, no matter who the bidder is," Robinson said. "That
philosophy goes back a long way at Lockheed Martin." 

As for its partner, UT has pledged to put 100 percent of its fee
back into research and development at the lab, Robinson said. 

*****************************************************************
 54 Guardian Unlimited: UC to Compete for Los Alamos Lab Contract
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Thursday May 26, 2005 10:46 PM

AP Photo NMLS801 

By MICHELLE LOCKE 

Associated Press Writer 

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) - The University of California decided
Thursday to compete for the government contract to continue
running Los Alamos, the laboratory that built the atomic bomb. 

The university has managed the nuclear weapons lab in the New
Mexico desert since it was created in 1943 as part of the
top-secret Manhattan Project. But after a recent string of
security lapses and financial abuses, the government decided for
the first time to put the contract up for bid. 

The university's regents voted 11-1 to team up with the
engineering powerhouse Bechtel Corp. and submit a bid. Regents
chairman Gerald Parsky said the board realizes there have been
``management deficiencies'' at Los Alamos, and that is why the
university is forming a partnership with the industrial giant. 

The University of Texas and Lockheed Martin are also planning a
joint bid. Another defense contractor, Northrop Grumman,
recently indicated it would compete for the contract, too, but
said Thursday it had decided not to. 

On Wednesday, two key UC committees recommended the university
go after the contract, saying the school has a duty to stay on
as stewards of Los Alamos. Some students, though, urged the
university to cut ties with the lab, saying UC should not be in
the weapons business. 

The contract will be for seven years, with a possible extension
for 13 more. The government is offering to pay as much $79
million annually. That would be nearly 10 times what UC had been
making. 

Los Alamos has about 8,000 University of California employees
and 3,000 contract workers. 

The Energy Department plans to award the new contract Dec. 1. 

^--- 

On the Net: 

http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu 

      Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 55 Seattle Times: Hanford plant to cost more
 
Thursday, May 26, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 a.m. 	 	
 	
By Seattle Times staff reporter                                            

Bechtel National, the engineering firm trying to erect a
treatment plant to turn the worst of Hanford's nuclear waste to
glass, has told the government that unexpected problems will
dramatically increase construction costs. 

Citing everything from new seismic data that will force
engineers to recalibrate the plant's earthquake-proofing to the
high price of materials, the company reported that one of the
world's most-expensive construction projects now will cost
substantially more than recent estimates of $5.8 billion. 

Officials with the company and the U.S. government repeatedly
refused yesterday to disclose precisely what the new price tag
would be. 

But, as an example of the higher costs, Bechtel spokesman John
Britton said one of its new design problems  a change to a
series of special pumps housed in tanks constantly bombarded by
radiation  will add "a couple hundred million dollars" to the
plant's price tag. 

"These are all part of the challenges of building a
first-of-a-kind nuclear project," Britton said. "This project is
the equivalent of two or three nuclear plants. It's a lot
different than building a Wal-Mart." 

The cost increases also raise new questions about Bechtel's
"design-as-you-go" approach to ridding the Eastern Washington
desert of the 54-million-gallon stew of radioactive and chemical
waste left over from the Hanford nuclear reservation's
bomb-making heyday. 

Bechtel was hired late in 2000 to build a plant and turn waste
now buried in 177 decaying underground tanks into glass logs;
the logs then would be shipped to a permanent
underground-storage site in another state. 

The company was chosen after the Department of Energy (DOE)
sacked its initial contractor, British Nuclear Fuels Ltd.
(BNFL), which surprised regulators by bumping cost estimates for
the plant from $6.9 billion to $15.2 billion. 

BNFL had planned to finance and build the plant, and then charge
the government for the finished product. That was despite
warnings from auditors and some in Congress and critiques from
DOE that the concept was a "half-baked idea" and "premeditated
stupidity." 

Bechtel, on the other hand, offered to design and build at the
same time, which could save time and, ultimately, money. It
initially estimated costs at $4 billion. 

Thus far, design of the plant is about 70 percent complete, and
construction is about 35 percent complete. 

But in December, new research from the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory indicated that the seismic forces the plant
would be subjected to in a major earthquake were substantially
higher than once thought. 

Dirk Dunning, an Oregon Department of Energy official who serves
on a Hanford oversight committee, said federal and company
officials told his board in April that it would take months or
years to perform the thousands of engineering calculations
required for the seismic redesign. The building itself was
designed with massive concrete walls, but the pipes, ventilation
systems and large tanks used to process radioactive wastes still
may be vulnerable in a quake. 

In addition, Britton said, higher-than-expected steel costs,
strict design standards and the cost of inflation associated
with delays all are increasing costs. 

"You put it all together, and it's having an impact," he said. 

Earlier this month, Bechtel submitted a new proposal to the
federal government outlining its estimate of the project's cost.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, at the Bush administration's
request, reviewed Bechtel's accounting. 

"The reports are still under review," said Mike Waldron, a DOE
spokesman in Washington, D.C. 

The battle over dollars has made Washington state regulators
wary; it follows the president's proposal to reduce Hanford's
cleanup budget. 

"If there are seismic issues with the plant, of course it will
drive costs up, not down, so why cut the budget"? asked
Washington state Department of Ecology spokeswoman Sheryl
Hutchison. "We can keep blinking and wincing over the price of
this plant, but it needs to be safe, and it needs to be built,
and every time they take a new look, it costs more." 

But others, including Tom Carpenter with the watchdog Government
Accountability Project, are concerned that cost overruns are a
sign that the government is not doing enough to keep tabs on the
project. 

"We need to treat this waste, and we need to treat it soon, but
we've got a very low comfort level that they really know what
they're doing," he said. 

Times staff reporter Hal Bernton contributed to this report. 

Craig Welch: 206-464-2093 or 	 		 		
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company 	 	 		 		

*****************************************************************
 56 SF Chronicle:  Amid loud dissent, panels urge Los Alamos bid 

/ UC regents to vote today on whether to compete for contract to 
run nuclear lab
 
Thursday, May 26, 2005


Two key committees of the University of California Board of
Regents voted Wednesday to recommend that UC join the
competition for the next contract for running Los Alamos
National Laboratory. 

The full board is scheduled to vote on the recommendation today.
The committees' meeting at UCSF's Laurel Heights campus in San
Francisco was disrupted twice by about 50 chanting,
banner-waving protesters who attacked the university's role in
the nuclear weapons business. The regents left the room both
times, and police moved in to restore order. 

Among the protesters' major objections were UC's involvement in
nuclear weapons research and development and the fact that
regents Vice Chair Richard Blum also is vice chair of a
corporation that does multimillion-dollar business with the
nuclear weapons lab, which the students said poses a conflict of
interest. 

The hand vote by two committees -- the finance committee and the
"oversight of the Energy Department laboratories" committee --
was unanimous but is not binding on the full Board of Regents.
UC currently runs Los Alamos, the nation's premier nuclear
weapons complex, and has announced that it will partner with
Bechtel Corp. if it pursues the management contract. 

If the regents vote today to join the competition, UC will face
two major foes -- Northrop Grumman and a team composed of the
University of Texas and Lockheed Martin. 

Kate Flanagan, a first-year economics major at UC Santa Cruz,
presented her study showing that Blum is vice chair of URS
Corp., a San Francisco corporation, that will be enriched "by
$25 million per year" in a five-year contract at Los Alamos for
"design and construction services." 

Blum acknowledged the business relationship but, in an initial
interview with The Chronicle, said the accusation of a conflict
of interest is a "crock of s -- ." Blum said he asked regents
general counsel James E. Holst about the relationship more than
two years ago, when Blum joined the regents, and at that time
Holst told him not to worry. 

The protesters' objections, though, apparently caused Blum some
concern - - he later phoned The Chronicle and said he was
checking again Wednesday with Holst, who told him at first that
the legal situation might be different this time because in
voting whether to join the contract competition for Los Alamos,
the regents were doing something they had never done before. 

Until now, UC has run the New Mexico lab where the atomic bomb
was developed in 1945, without competition, under an exclusive
contract to the Energy Department. 

By the end of the day, however, Holst told The Chronicle that he
has concluded again that there is no conflict of interest on
Blum's part: "We do not see in these circumstances a
disqualifying financial interest on his part. " 

A spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who is Blum's
wife, also defended the regent, stating that the senator is
aware of Blum's business relationship with URS Corp. "I am aware
of no conflict," Feinstein said in a six-word statement. 

After decades of UC management, the Los Alamos lab has been
rocked in recent years by financial, security and safety
scandals that brought in FBI investigators and toppled the lab's
director and other officials. In response, Congress and the
Energy Department ordered that future Los Alamos contracts be
open to outside bidders. 

During the meeting, numerous students held up dollar bills and
hissed when Blum said one virtue of UC's relationship with the
lab is that UC's scientific excellence maintains a strong U.S.
military posture, thus "keeping all of us safe so we can have
this opportunity to sit here and protest." 

At one point, the shouting protesters so disturbed the regents
that almost all of them got up and left the room. While 10
police officers and several big-shouldered plainclothes security
guards looked on, regents chair Gerald Parsky negotiated with
the protesters, assuring them that they would be evicted if they
didn't stay silent. 

The protesters then held a hand vote among themselves and
decided to stay silent so they could watch the regents
committees vote. After the vote, though, the students broke into
chants, the regents fled the room for the second time, and
police led by a megaphone-wielding officer moved into the
auditorium and ordered the students to leave the room by a back
door or they would be arrested. He issued the order repeatedly,
and the students finally complied. 

There were no arrests or reported injuries among the
approximately 50 students. The students said they came from
campuses in Berkeley, Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara. 

The students initially grew agitated during the "public comment"
period starting at 8 a.m., when regents' officials limited the
speaking time to 90 seconds a person. Regents secretary Leigh
Trivette repeatedly interrupted the students' comments with time
announcements ("60 seconds"), and when Parsky stopped all public
comments after 30 minutes, the students loudly expressed
outrage. 

"We will not be silenced by UC violence!" shouted one protester,
alluding to other protesters' charges that UC soon may end up
manufacturing nuclear weapons at Los Alamos. The present Los
Alamos contract expires in September. 

Late Wednesday, Blum said he expected the majority of regents to
vote today in favor of pursuing the Los Alamos contract. 

A possible exception is regent Gary D. Novack, vice president of
Alumni Associations of UC, who said after the meeting that he is
leaning toward voting against joining the competition. Los
Alamos has had many problems in recent years -- financial,
safety and security scandals among them -- and "everybody has to
spend a lot of time dealing with them," so much that it
distracts from UC's "core business" of education, Novack said. 

E-mail Keay Davidson at . 				
Page A - 1 			

The San Francisco Chronicle] 
*****************************************************************
 57 Tri-Valley Herald: UC to go ahead with Los Alamos bid

Article Last Updated: 05/26/2005 04:10:43 AM                              
                   
University leaders decide to keep fight alive to maintain control 
of lab
 			 			 			 			 			 			 
  By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER   

SAN FRANCISCO — Leaders of the University of California gave a 
preliminary go-ahead Wednesday for a multi-million dollar fight 
to keep designing nuclear weapons for the U.S. government. 

Amid protests and jeers from students, two committees of the
universitys governing Board of Regents voted unanimously to
compete for continued management of Los Alamos National
Laboratory, the New Mexico lab operated by UC since 1943. 

Regents worried aloud that the federal government might force
the university to produce more nuclear weapons components and to
design new nuclear weapons — work that some critics say
conflicts with university mission of education. 

I dont like it, said board vice chairman Richard Blum, referring
to Pentagon proposals for new and modified nuclear-weapons
designs. But thats not enough, he said, to outweigh the benefits
that UC brings to management of two weapons labs. 				 				
					 					 					 				 				 				 					 					 				 

Overwhelmingly, regents relied on a timeworn self-affirmation
used by previous generations of regents: UC does science and
technology better than anyone, so UC is obligated to the nation
to run its H-bomb labs, where scientific integrity is essential.
We are the best suited to do this scientific job, said regent
Paul Preuss, chairman of a committee overseeing Los Alamos and
Lawrence Livermore weapons labs. 

The nation needs us to do this job for the security of this
country. It needs our moral strength, Preuss said. 

The full Board of Regents is widely expected today to ratify the
Los Alamos bid. It will costthe university at least $2 million,
drawn from lab contract dollars saved over the years in a
contingency fund. 

The Bush administration ordered management of Los Alamos put up
for bid for the first time after a series of high-profile
failings by the university in financial control, safety 				
				 					 					 					 				 				 				 					 					 				 and
security. 

UC is headed for historic showdown with two of the worlds
largest defense contractors. Lockheed Martin is assembling a bid
with the University of Texas and others, while third-ranked
defense contractor Northrop Grumman also plans a bid. 

It would be nice if the nation would ask us, beg us to do this
job. But this is not in the political winds today, Preuss said.
This should not stop us from pushing ourselves to do that. 

Student protesters traveled from as far as UC San Diego to shout
their disapproval at the regents and urge the school to cut its
ties to the nuclear-weapons business. 

What I want to pass on is the anger, the disgust of my student
body, student Ryan Wadsworth told the regents. 

Several students were enraged that the university plans on
teaming up with private industry for the Los Alamos bid,
including an arm of privately held Bechtel Corp., which has 
reconstruction contracts in Iraq. Bechtel and UC will form a 
limited liability corporation, with three board members apiece 
and a chairman selected by the university. 

Its absolutely unacceptable for you to partner with Bechtel who
has been responsible for murdering thousands of children in
Iraq, and its absolutely unacceptable for you to be spending
money making weapons, said UC Santa Cruz student Clara Ackerman. 

Santa Cruz undergraduate Aaron Dankman conceded one university
rationale for staying in the weapons business — that the public
will know more about management of the U.S. nuclear arsenal than
if a private defense contractor were in charge — but argued that
university scientists have a higher obligation. 

If we want to be the moral guidance to the rest of the world on
nuclear weapons, Dankman said, isnt the answer to refuse this
work? 

Students shutdown 				 				 					 					 					 				 				 				
					 					 				 the regents meeting for 20 minutes with chants
of We will not be silenced in the face of UC violence! Regents
left the room, and the students were confronted by 14 uniformed
UC police and a handful of plain-clothes security officers. 

A truce was arranged allowing the students to remain in exchange
for silence during the debate, prompting students to wrap strips
of turquoise cloth over their mouths in protest. 

They suggested at least one regent, Blum, has a conflict of
interest. He is a board member of URS Corp., which has a
construction contract at Los Alamos. Blum said he has consulted
the regents general counsel, Jim Holst, and will recuse himself
from todays vote if a conflict exists. 

Los Alamos scientists are responsible for more than 60 percent
of the warheads and bombs in the U.S. nuclear arsenal and 90
percent of the U.S. weapons kept on alert. 

I, for one, have questioned whether we should continue with this 
program, Blum said Wednesday to applause from students. 

But nuclear weapons are a fact of the real world, Blum added,
and Im not sure the competitors have the wherewithal or even the
integrity to manage this property the way we can. 

After the unanimous decision, 45 student protesters surged to
their feet, shouting, We vote no! 

© 2005 ANG Newspapers 
*****************************************************************
 58 lamonitor.com: UC panels OK LANL bid plan 

The Online News Source for Los Alamos
 

ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor

Committees of the University of California Board of Regents
decided jointly and unanimously today to recommend that the full
board formally approve pursuing the contract to manage Los
Alamos National Laboratory. 
A final vote by the full board will be taken Thursday.

UC officials who recommended going forward with the bid
emphasized science and national service, but heard a number of
concerns expressed by the regents who participated in the
discussion. 

UC President Robert C. Dynes outlined the approach that the
university has taken, including a partnership with an industrial
team led by Bechtel National Inc. and a competition team led by
Michael Anastasio, current director of Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, who he said would become the next director
of LANL, should the bid be successful.

Dynes emphasized the importance of maintaining the high level of
science and technology under UC, casting even the industrial
teaming arrangement as "unique in the primacy it accords the
scientific mission at Los Alamos." 
The choice, he said, was whether the laboratory would have
science or defense contracting at its core.

Regents probed the officials for assurances about the future
mission of the laboratory and whether it would include pit
manufacturing or working on new weapons proposals like the
robust nuclear earth penetrator. The so-called "bunker-buster"
is one of the weapons concepts that the National Nuclear
Security Administration have asked the nuclear laboratories to
study. 
Anastasio responded by saying that Congress was still debating
appropriations for next year.

He said the statement of work in the new request for proposal
was consistent with current activities at the laboratories and
that the administration had not asked for a change in that role.

Questions were also raised about the mechanics of the separated
pension plan required under the new contract, the composition of
the board of directors of the corporate entity that would govern
the laboratory, the role of the regents in the decisions that
board would make and the additional liabilities the corporation
would assume under the new arrangement.

On the pension issue, board chairman Robert Parsky responded
that there were still questions that had not been answered about
how the pension benefits for current employees would be
separated from the overall pension fund, and whether that would
include over-funded liabilities in the UC retirement system.

"The message we want to send today," said Parsky, assuming UC
was successful, "is that we will do everything we can as regents
to have the new plan mirror existing plan within the law."

Bob Foley, UC VP for laboratory affairs, said he expected the
current LANL contract to be extended for about eight months, so
that the new contract would take place on or about June 1, 2006.

"We expect to see the extension quite soon," he said.

Appearing before a joint meeting of the Committee on Finance and
the Committee on Oversight of the DOE Laboratories today, Dynes
introduced key representatives of the proposed alliance between
UC and a partnership led by Bechtel.

The regents are meeting at the University of California San
Francisco Laurel Heights.

Committee chair Peter Preuss said at an engineering facility
dedication last week, "I have to do what's good for the nation.
We will decide and vote our vote for what's good for the nation."

During a 30-minute public comment period before the committee
meeting, student opposition to nuclear weapons and the
university's proposed partnership with the Bechtel Corp. heavily
outweighed any other input. Several students, citing moral and
political opposition urged the regents to end the university's
participation in nuclear weapons research.

The comment period ended in shouting and chanting, "We will not
be silent in the face of UC violence." The chairman called a
recess and asked that the room be cleared.

In a statement yesterday in the House of Representatives, Rep.
Tom Udall, D-NM, objected to provisions of the final RFP.

In a written statement of his remarks, he noted that two key
provisions in the final document, those calling for a separate
corporate entity and a stand-alone pension plan were not
included in the draft document.

"By mandating a specific corporate structure from the outset,
the NNSA has eliminated the proposition of an entirely different
and perhaps more creative and effective management structure,"
he said.

Udall pointed out that the recent contract competition for
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory resulted in the laboratory
remaining a nonprofit entity participating in a pension plan
offered by the University of California, an option that is no
longer available in the case of Los Alamos.   

  © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.   
    
*****************************************************************

NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this 
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who 
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for 
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more 
information go to: 
<http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml> 
    
*****************************************************************