*****************************************************************
06/01/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.125
*****************************************************************
   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 KRN: Now's the time for a clear-eyed look at where we are in Iraq
2 Xinhua: Iranian lawmakers urge resuming nuclear activities   
3 Irna: German, Iranian MPs discuss Tehran nuclear program - 
4 Korea Herald: N.K. asks for smaller Seoul delegation at summit event
5 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Pyongyang tells Seoul to limit June delegatio
6 Korea Times: US Intercepted Two NK Shipments 
7 Korea Times: S. Korea Sees Bush Softening Toward NK 
8 US: Nukes/Climate: 2 Easy Ways You Can Help
9 US: National Intel Estimates of Nuclear Proliferation Problem
10 US: NRC: NRC Adds Syria to List of Embargoed Destinations
11 BBC: Drawing uncovered of 'Nazi nuke'
12 IPS: Nukes-Against-Global Warming Strategy Scored as Too Costly
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
13 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessments for Salem and H
14 Bellona: Bulgaria shuts down Kozloduy NPP
15 The Local: Nuclear reactor shuts down after thirty years
16 US: Eureka Reporter: PG provides NRC with final report in missing fu
17 Xinhua: Sweden decommissions disputed nuclear plant   
18 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Joint Meeting of t
19 US: York Daily Record: NRC finds fault with TMI exam - 
20 MSNBC.com: Sweden shuts nuclear plant in shift to wind - Environment
21 US: csmonitor.com: Simpler - and safer 
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
22 US: Seattle Times: Opinion: Radioisotopes too important to leave to 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
23 U.N. Training Iraqis in Jordan to Measure Radiation from
24 AU ABC: Marshalls in stepped up nuclear compensation bid
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
25 Bellona: UK allocates ฃ16m for onshore storage facility for spent nu
26 BBC: Sweden's nuclear waste headache
27 US: GCO: Watchdog Group Urges Nuclear Materials’ Storage Be Consolid
28 US: Portland Press Herald: Lawmakers deny 'crazy' nuclear waste dump
29 US: NRC: The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
30 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, Meeting on Planning an
31 Pahrump Valley Times: Nye gets a larger slice of oversight funding p
32 Corporate Watch: ATOMIC WASTE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE GARDEN
33 asahi.com: Monju plant OK'd, but safety not guaranteed
34 asahi.com: EDITORIAL: Ruling on Monju reactor
35 US: NEWS.com.au: ERA fined $150,000 over water contamination 
36 US: Brattleboro Reformer: House OKs bill on VY storage
 
                           PEACE
 
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
37 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford Reservation: Waste not, glow not
38 Tri-City Herald: Fluor stops cleanup protest 
39 sfweekly.com: Remember Los Alamos!             
40 The Daily Texan: UT to settle partnership for Los Alamos bid - 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 KRN: Now's the time for a clear-eyed look at where we are in Iraq

Posted on Wed, Jun. 01, 2005  
   
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY

 Knight Ridder Newspapers

	WASHINGTON - In a Memorial Day interview, Vice President Dick
Cheney told Larry King that the Iraqi insurgency is in its death
throes, Osama bin Laden "is on the run," we've dealt a major
blow to al-Qaida and the terror suspects detained at Guantanamo
Bay, Cuba, have been "treated humanely and decently." 

	Wait a minute. What did he say? That sounded suspiciously like
a "light at the end of the tunnel" speech. 

	President Bush echoed his No. 2's conclusions the next day,
declaring that the upsurge in violence in Iraq is evidence that
the insurgency is on its last legs. 

	We haven't heard the like since July 3, 2003, when the
president told those misguided souls who thought they saw an
opportunity to kill Americans in Iraq: "Bring 'em on!" 

	Since the last good news in Iraq, the Jan. 30 elections, and a
resulting but brief pause in the pace of attacks on Americans
and Iraqis, more than 700 Iraqis have been slaughtered in a wave
of terrorist bombings and attacks that are increasing in
sophistication and viciousness. The death toll among American
troops in Iraq is 1,665 and rising. 

	Rising while the president is "staying the course" and Dick
Cheney still believes that Saddam Hussein was in cahoots with
bin Laden, on the verge of building a nuclear weapon and
preparing to unleash clouds of chemical and biological agents on
the world in general and Americans in particular. 

	Meanwhile, Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld marches
stubbornly on with his crackpot ideas about how to transform the
military so it's lighter, faster and more agile. So far, he's
succeeding only in breaking the Army and the Marine Corps. 

	As Knight Ridder's Tom Lasseter reported this week, U.S. field
commanders say we have so few troops along the Syrian border
that the area has remained wide open for the free transit of
Holy War folks from all over the Muslim world who come to drive
cars packed with explosives to kill themselves and fellow
Muslims in the name of God. 

	We arrived in Iraq more than two years ago knowing that more
than a million tons of bombs, artillery shells, land mines,
grenades, bullets, portable anti-aircraft missiles, mortars,
rocket-propelled grenade launchers and AK-47 rifles were sitting
in more than 600 ammunition dumps all over the country. 

	But because there aren't enough American troops on the ground,
we've secured only about 25 percent of those ammo dumps. Some
others have a frightened Iraqi security guard, armed with a
rusty pistol, on the gate. 

	When a dump truck driven by heavily armed terrorists pulls up
and they offer him a choice of a $100 bill or death, he waves
them through. They load the dump truck with 500-pound bombs and
155 mm artillery shells to make the ubiquitous IEDs - improvised
explosive devices - that kill American soldiers and Iraqis the
next day or the next week. 

	In pursuit of Rumsfeld's holy grail of fast and light, Army
divisions have been ordered to leave home half or more of their
tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles. Tank and artillery crews
have been dismounted, turned into light infantry and sent out in
light transport vehicles, Humvees, to patrol the deadliest roads
and streets in the world. 

	They've paid the price, and they continue to pay it. 

	These fine young soldiers, many of them National Guardsmen and
Reservists, get only six or nine or 12 months between combat
tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Most are on their second or third
time around. 

	There's an answer to this, if our intention is to stay in Iraq
as long as it takes: Increase the size of the Army and Marine
Corps so the burden can be shared and lightened. 

	This Rumsfeld refuses to do, even as he watches the force begin
to crack and recruitment fall 25 percent and more below target.
In Army towns in Georgia and Texas and North Carolina,
headhunters are holding well-attended seminars on the
opportunities for young captains and majors who leave the
service. 

	Private contractors offer veteran Special Forces sergeants and
warrant officers $20,000 a month to do the same jobs they've
been doing in Iraq for much less, and the backbone of the force
is leaving in droves. The Army offers a re-enlistment bonus of
$197,000 - about what a senior enlisted soldier can make in 10
months with a private contractor - to some of the same people in
an effort to keep them. 

	This would be a good time to conduct a thoughtful review of
where we are in this war, where we're going, what our exit
strategy should be and what can be done to prevent a
Vietnam-style disaster in the Middle East. 

	The answer isn't staying the course, if the course we're on
points us in the wrong direction. 

	The answer isn't the false optimism of those who argue that
more insurgent attacks are proof that the insurgency is dying,
or that Iraqi boys will soon be doing what until now American
men and women have had to do for them. 

	Their military and civilian superiors owe our soldiers - and
all of us - more than political spin. They, and we, deserve
realism and the truth. 

ABOUT THE WRITER 

Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for
Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national
best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may

About KRWashington.com 
*****************************************************************
 2 Xinhua: Iranian lawmakers urge resuming nuclear activities   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-06-02 06:23:29   

    TEHRAN, June 1 (Xinhuanet) -- Iranian lawmakers on Wednesday
pressed the government to resume uranium enrichment activities
suspended last November, semi-official Mehr news agency
reported. 

    A letter to President Mohammad Khatami signed by 175 of the
290 Majlis (parliament) members called on the government "to
implement the law passed by the Majlis and approved by the
Guardian Council as quickly as possible," the report said.
The Majlis on May 15 passed a law demanding the government
continue its efforts to get access to peaceful nuclear
technology, including uranium enrichment. 

    In the letter, the lawmakers said the current negotiations
with the European Union (EU) was "only a waste of time." 

    "Promise by the European trio of Britain, France and Germany
to present new proposals to Iran on solving the nuclear
stand-off in the coming months is a victory for Tehran, but the
EU could also waste more time by making an unacceptable
proposal," said the letter. 

    Meanwhile, Majlis Speaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel said the
Majlis would make the necessary decision if Europe wasted time
in nuclear negotiations. 

    Iran held a key round of talks with the EU on May 25, in
which the two sides just prevented the deadlocked nuclear
negotiations from going further into crisis by virtually
prolonging the talks to wait for the result of Iran's
presidential elections on June 17. 

    During the talks, the EU proposed to present a comprehensive
plan within the next two months for all-out cooperation with
Iran in different areas including technical and nuclear issues,
according to Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Hassan Rowhani. 

    The current deadlock was blamed on EU's repeated rejection
to Iran's demand of keeping restricted enrichment activates. 

    Tehran in late April threatened to resume uranium enrichment
activities, which it suspended last November to pave the way for
talks with the EU. 

    The EU responded by warning to back US call for referral of
Iran's nuclear case to the UN Security Council, which might lead
to sanctions. 

    The United States has accused Iran of seeking nuclear
weapons. 

    Iran rejects the charge and insists that its nuclear program
is entirely for peaceful purposes. Enditem

  Copyright ฉ2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 3 Irna: German, Iranian MPs discuss Tehran nuclear program - 

Berlin, June 1, IRNA                                                                                                             

Germany-Iran-MPs 

An Iranian parliamentary delegation, led by the vice-chairman of
the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Commission
Mahmoud Mohammadi, met here Tuesday evening with the chairman of
the Foreign Affairs Committee of the German parliament, Volker
Ruehe.

 Mohammadi lashed out at the slow pace of nuclear talks between
the three European countries and Iran.

 "The continuation of uranium enrichment suspension may lead to
a lack of trust of the Iranian society toward Europe," added
Mohammadi.

 He also pointed to plans for the construction of some 20
nuclear plants throughout Iran.

 Ruehe stressed Iran's right to peaceful use of nuclear energy,
but he urged Tehran to carry out confidence-building measures to
alleviate international security concerns.

 OT/2325/1432

*****************************************************************
 4 Korea Herald: N.K. asks for smaller Seoul delegation at summit event   

By Joo Sang-min 

2005.06.02

The Nation's No.1 English Newspaper
 
Citing U.S. hostility, North Korea asked South Korea to slash
its planned delegation next month to Pyongyang at a ceremony
that marks the fifth anniversary of their historic 2000 summit
accord. 

The two Koreas agreed last Saturday that Seoul would send 70
government officials and 615 civilian representatives for the
joint celebrations. 

But the North requested the South send only 30 government
officials and 190 civilian members. 

"In a telephone message, North Korea claimed that new hindrances
have been encountered regarding the celebration, as the United
States criticizes the North Korean regime regarding the nuclear
issue," said the Seoul's Unification Ministry in a statement. 

The agreement on the joint celebration came two weeks after the
first senior-level inter-Korean talks in 10 months, when the two
Koreas agreed to normalize strained relations by resuming
cabinet-level talks in Seoul June 21-24. 

Ministry officials held an emergency meeting to assess the
North's intention. 

Pyongyang has been raising the stakes in the last few months. On
Feb. 10 it announced it possesses nuclear weapons and will
boycott the six-party talks indefinitely. 

Media reports speculated that the North may be preparing for its
first nuclear weapons test and Pyongyang has also announced it
unloaded 8,000 spent fuel rods from its Yongbyon nuclear power
plant, a move that will help it increase its supply of
weapons-grade plutonium. 

Amid negative evaluations that North Korea is not likely to
return to the six-party talks with the United States, China,
Japan, Russia and South Korea, Washington recently took steps
which could be seen as isolating Pyongyang. 
(smjoo@heraldm.com) 

 
*****************************************************************
 5 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Pyongyang tells Seoul to limit June delegation
 
June 2, 2005 KST 14:49 (GMT+9)

  June 02, 2005 คั North Korea told the Unification Ministry in
South Korea yesterday that Seoul needed to cut back the number
of people it wishes to send to the commemoration in Pyongyang of
the 2000 summit meeting between then-President Kim Dae-jung of
South Korea and Kim Jong-il, the leader of the North. 

Kim Hong-jae, a spokesman for the Unification Ministry, said
North Korean officials said a new deployment of 15 U.S. Stealth
fighter jets to the Korean Peninsula and recent criticism from
Washington aimed at the North had prompted the request to reduce
the number of South Korean visitors to the event. 

Seoul wants to send an official delegation of 130, but Pyongyang
said it would accept no more than 70. In addition, the more than
600 South Korean civilians who hoped to go should be cut to 190,
the North said. 

The celebration is scheduled to be held from June 14 to 17 and
will include performances and sporting events. Mr. Kim said that
the government would urge Pyongyang to honor a May 19 agreement
related to the celebrations that the two sides made.

 The South Korean delegation is expected to be headed by
Unification Minister Chung Dong-young while the two Koreas
agreed also last month to hold ministry level talks in Seoul
from June 21 to 24. Seoul officials had hoped that these two
events would help thaw relations between the two Koreas and lead
to a breakthrough in the impasse over North Korea's nuclear arms
program. North Korea has refused to return to nuclear
disarmament talks since the last round of talks was held last
June, accusing Washington of taking a hostile approach towards
its regime. 

The demand by Pyongyang came at the same time South Korean
Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon told reporters in Seoul that the
North needed to focus less on rhetoric from officials in
Washington and return to the nuclear disarmament talks. 
At a press conference in Washington, U.S. President George W.
Bush, commenting on how to deal with the North Korean nuclear
crisis, said, "We want diplomacy to be given a chance to work.
And that's exactly the position of the government." 

But in an earlier speech at the U.S. Naval Academy, Mr. Bush
made a lightly veiled remark that the United States had the
capability of "targeting a regime, not a nation."

 Mr. Ban said, "Recently inappropriate remarks have been made,
but rather than bothering with them, it is important to
understand the position of South Korea and the United States."

Pointing out that Pyongyang also had frequently resorted to
harsh rhetoric in the past, he said, "It's important to create
an atmosphere for the six-party talks." 

Separately, Richard Boucher, spokesman for the U.S. Department
of State, said Tuesday that in the past nine months through
cooperation with several governments Washington had "prevented
North Korea from receiving materials used in making chemical
weapons and cooperation with another country blocked the
transfer to North Korea of material useful in its nuclear
programs." 


by Brian Lee africanu@joongang.co.kr>   
	  
Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use |
*****************************************************************
 6 Korea Times: US Intercepted Two NK Shipments 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Biz/Finance   

WASHINGTON (Yonhap) _ The United States and its allies have
intercepted two deliveries of materials useful in making nuclear
and chemical weapons by North Korea, the State Department said
Tuesday.

 State Department spokesman Richard Boucher made the disclosure
in remarks to reporters, citing 11 successful efforts in the
past nine months by the United States and its allies in an
anti-proliferation campaign, called the Proliferation Security
Initiative (PSI).

 `I have cited two cases involving North Korea. Iกฏve cited
several cases involving countries of proliferation concern,
including Iran,กฏกฏ Boucher said in a press briefing.

 ``In addition, we worked to impede the progress of North Korean
weapons of mass destruction and missile programs, for example,
bilateral cooperation with several governments prevented North
Korea from receiving materials used in making chemical weapons
and cooperation with another country blocked the transfer to
North Korea of a material useful in its nuclear programs,กฏกฏ he
said.

 The disclosure comes amid signs that the United States is
toughening its stance toward North Korea which remains unmoved
in its refusal to rejoin stalled six-nation talks on its nuclear
weapons program. 

Two weeks ago, the United States halted recovery operations in
North Korea of the remains of U.S. soldiers killed in the
1950-53 Korean War and has since decided to temporarily deploy
15 F-117 stealth bombers in South Korea.

 U.S. President George W. Bush is scheduled to meet South Korean
President Roh Moo-hyun at the White House on June 10 which
officials of both sides say would focus on North Korea.

 U.S. officials have recently grown more impatient with the
Asian communist country, with some openly warning that ``other
optionsกฏกฏ should be considered. A likely U.S. choice is a
referral of the issue to the U.S. Security Council for possible
sanctions.

 The PSI, launched two years ago, brings together the U.S. and
some 60 allies in a joint effort to intercept the transportation
of equipment and materials that can be used to manufacture
chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

 Also on Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said
the PSI provided the ``frameworkกฏกฏ for interdicting centrifuge
components bound for Libya and said it helped end the African
stateกฏs nuclear weapons program.

 ``PSI partners, working at times with others, have prevented
Iran from procuring goods to support its missile and WMD
(weapons of mass destruction) programs, including its nuclear
program,กฏกฏ Rice said in a speech marking the second
anniversary of the PSI.

 Bush said the PSI is playing a major role in helping to stop
the trafficking of WMDs.

 ``We are working in common cause with like-minded states
prepared to make maximum use of their laws and capabilities to
deny rogue states, terrorists and black marketers accessกฏกฏ to
illegal weapons, Bush said in a statement. 

06-01-2005 19:23         
  
*****************************************************************
 7 Korea Times: S. Korea Sees Bush Softening Toward NK 

Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

By Reuben Staines 
Staff Reporter

 South Korea Wednesday praised U.S. President George W. Bush for
comments defending Washingtonกฏs diplomatic approach toward the
North Korean nuclear standoff against domestic calls for
military action.

 ``President Bushกฏs remarks are meaningful in that he
reaffirmed the principle of resolving the Northกฏs nuclear issue
peacefully and diplomatically,กฏกฏ Minister of Foreign Affairs
and Trade Ban Ki-moon said during a briefing.

 ``I think this will play a helpful role in creating a healthy
atmosphere for resolving the issue through the six-party
talks,กฏกฏ Ban said.

 During a news conference at the White House on Tuesday, Bush
said he believes North Korea can be convinced to give up its
nuclear weapons programs without the United States resorting to
military force.

 ``Itกฏs either diplomacy or military. And I am for the
diplomacy approach,กฏกฏ Bush said, responding to criticism over
a lack of progress in disarming the North. ``For those who say
that we ought to be using our military to solve the problem, I
would say that while all options are on the table, weกฏve got a
ways to go to solve this diplomatically.กฏกฏ 

The vernacular media in Seoul also placed importance on Bushกฏs
use of the honorific ``Mr.กฏกฏ when referring to the North
Korean leader.

 The U.S. president has frequently expressed contempt for Kim
Jong-il, calling him a ``tyrantกฏกฏ who starves his people.

 Bushกฏs comments come amid signs of growing U.S. frustration
with North Korea, which has boycotted the six-nation nuclear
talks for nearly a year.

 Experts said they are also an important gesture toward South
Korea ahead of a summit between Bush and President Roh Moo-hyun
on June 10.

 ``It shows that at least at this moment there is not a very
serious conflict between Seoul and Washington on how to deal
with the nuclear issue,กฏกฏ said Park Ihn-hwi, professor at Ewha
Womans University.

 South Korea and China have urged the U.S. to soften its
approach toward North Korea in order to woo the reclusive
communist country back to the nuclear bargaining table.

 Despite diplomatic efforts, however, North Korea ratcheted up
tensions in the nuclear standoff last month, declaring it is
moving ahead with the reprocessing of 8,000 spent fuel rods from
its Yongbyon reactor into weapons-grade plutonium.

 Bush stressed North Korea should listen to international calls
to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

 ``We want diplomacy to be given a chance to work กฆ And
hopefully it will work,กฏกฏ he said.

 He also downplayed the U.S. Defense Departmentกฏs decision to
halt a program for recovering from North Korea the remains of
U.S. soldiers who went missing in action during the Korean War.

 Bush said the recovery program was suspended pending a safety
assessment for U.S. soldiers and was not due to any specific
threat by the North, as some reports had speculated. 

rjs@koreatimes.co.kr 06-01-2005 18:58         
                                
*****************************************************************
 8 Nukes/Climate: 2 Easy Ways You Can Help
 
Date: Wed, 01 Jun 2005 18:28:59 -0700

 
<x-flowed>

TELL CONGRESS NUCLEAR POWER HAS NO ROLE IN ADDRESSING CLIMATE CHANGE!





TWO EASY STEPS YOU CAN TAKE TO HELP!



image00118.jpgJune 1, 2005



Dear Friends:



Here are two quick and easy things you can do to help stop the 
congressional rush to fund construction of new atomic reactors in a 
wrongheaded and ineffective effort to address global climate change.



First, Sens. McCain (R-Ariz.) and Lieberman (D-Conn.) introducedas 
fearedtheir new version of climate change legislation which includes 
authorization of taxpayer subsidies for construction of up to three nuclear 
reactors, among other goodies for the industry. It is our understanding 
that McCain and Lieberman intend to offer this bill as an amendment to the 
Senate energy bill when it reaches the floor, probably later this month.



Please call your Senators and urge them to oppose the McCain/Lieberman bill 
if it is introduced in its current format, and to oppose any and all 
taxpayer subsidies for nuclear power.  Note: NIRS does not oppose 
introduction of the original McCain/Lieberman bill (S 372), which does not 
take any position on nuclear power. Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121. We 
are told the following toll-free numbers may also work to reach your 
Senators: 1-888-355-3588 or 1-877-762-8762.



You can find background material on nuclear power and climate change on our 
website, <http://www.nirs.org/>http://www.nirs.org and more information is 
being added regularly.



Second, environmental groups in DC have crafted the following statement 
which will be used to demonstrate to Congress and the media that we are 
united in our opposition to nuclear power as a means of addressing climate 
change. While it isnt perfect, it makes the key points, and we hope your 
group will sign on quickly (organizations only, pleaseindividuals: please 
call your senators!). We want as many signatures from national, regional 
and local groups as possible! To sign on, please send your name, title, 
organization, city and state to <mailto:nirsnet@nirs.org>nirsnet@nirs.org. 
While the statement is US-oriented, international groups are welcome to 
sign on as well, please include your country. We believe a broader, 
international statement would be appropriate for all of us in the near 
future, and we will begin working on that. Thanks for your help!





Michael Mariotte

Executive Director

Nuclear Information and Resource Service







Environmental Statement on Nuclear Energy and Global Warming



As national and local environmental, consumer, and safe energy 
organizations, we have serious and substantive concerns about nuclear 
energy.  While we are committed to tackling the challenge of global 
warming, we flatly reject the argument that increased investment in nuclear 
capacity is an acceptable or necessary solution.  Instead we can 
significantly reduce global warming pollution and save consumers money by 
increasing energy efficiency and shifting to clean renewable sources of energy.



For at least thirty years, the public, policymakers and private investors 
have viewed nuclear power as uneconomical, unsafe, and unnecessary.  As a 
result no new reactors have been ordered in this country.  With respect to 
these serious concerns, nothing has changed. While we urgently need to 
reduce our global warming emissions, nuclear power still remains the least 
attractive, least economic, and least safe avenue to pursue.



*Nuclear Power is Unnecessary:  We can meet our future electricity needs 
and reduce global warming pollution without increasing our reliance on 
nuclear energy.  For example, a 2004 study by Synapse Energy Economics 
found that the US could reduce carbon dioxide emissions from electricity 
generation by more than 47% by 2025 compared to business as usual and meet 
projected electricity demand, while saving consumers $36 billion 
annually.  In fact, we can do this while cutting our reliance on nuclear 
power by nearly half.



The states are moving forward with clean energy solutions.  Nineteen states 
have passed renewable electricity standards requiring an increasing 
percentage of energy to be generated by renewable energy 
sources.  Replicating this effort nationally would increase our ability to 
reduce global warming emissions, while benefiting public health, consumers 
and the environment.  Several states are working to increase efficiency 
standards for appliances, while many are working to reduce global warming 
pollution from cars. The states are demonstrating that there is an 
effective arsenal of clean energy solutions that can significantly curb our 
global warming emissions; it is these ideas that we need to draw upon.



*Nuclear Power is Too Expensive:  The economics of nuclear power remain so 
unattractive that without additional federal subsidies, no new plants will 
be built.  Despite fifty years and more than $150 billion in federal and 
state support, the nuclear power industry is still seemingly incapable of 
building a new plant on its own.  In fact, the U.S. DOEs Energy Information 
Administration stated in its 2005 Annual Energy Outlook that new [nuclear] 
plants are not expected to be economical.



Dominion CEO & Chairman Thomas Capps has stated that:

If you announced you were going to build a new nuclear plant, Moodys and 
Standard & Poors would assuredly drop your bonds to junk status, hedge 
funds would be bumping into each other trying to short your stock.





Not surprisingly, private investors have shown such disinterest in 
supporting new nuclear power plants that the industry is, yet again, at the 
mercy of federal handouts.  Last year, Senator Domenici included extensive 
federal incentives in his original energy bill, including loan guarantees 
and power purchase agreements covering up to half the cost of building a 
new plant, as well as clean air credits and federal lines of 
credit.  Despite this, Standard & Poors concluded:



  Standard & Poors Ratings Services has found that an electric utility with 
a nuclear exposure has weaker credit than one without and can expect to pay 
more on the margin for credit.  Federal support of construction costs will 
do little to change that reality. Therefore, were a utility to embark on a 
new or expanded nuclear endeavor, Standard & Poors would likely revisit its 
rating on the utility.



Due to the lack of private investment, it is the inevitable that any new 
nuclear construction will result in significant public cost to taxpayers. 
Between 1950 and1998, the federal government spent 56% of the energy supply 
research and development on nuclear energy, while only 11% was invested in 
all renewable technologies.  If the federal government is going to spend 
any money on energy, those dollars should be focused on clean and safe 
technologies.



*Nuclear Energy is Too Dangerous:  Nuclear energy has never been safe, but 
post 9-11 nuclear power plants and radioactive waste storage facilities y 
have become terrorist targets as well.  Al-Qaeda operatives were surveying 
nuclear power plants as potential terrorist targets; in the post 9-11 world 
these risks are only elevated.  The National Academy of Sciences has raised 
serious concerns about the safety of irradiated nuclear fuel storage 
facilities from terrorist attacks in its report entitled Safety and 
Security of Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage. Furthermore, protecting the fuel 
from terrorists as it is moved to longer term storage facilities, if they 
are ever built, will be nearly impossible.



Reactors in the U.S. are also deteriorating with age and inadequate 
oversight by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission provides further reason for 
concern.  Just three years ago, for example, a nuclear reactor in Ohio came 
within one-fifth of an inch of stainless steel from a rupture that would 
have vented radioactive steam into the reactors containment building and 
could have led to a meltdown.



*Nuclear Power is Too Polluting: Beyond operating concerns remains the 
unsolved and disturbing issue of waste disposal.  Some 95% of the 
radioactivity ever generated in the US is contained in the nations civilian 
high-level atomic waste. Despite almost two decades of pushing to make 
Yucca Mountain in Nevada the nations high-level waste repository, it has 
not been shown scientifically to be suitable to safely store the waste. The 
Yucca Mountain project is further thrown into doubt by the recent 
revelations of the falsification of scientific data by USGS scientists, as 
well as the court ruling that found EPAs public health standards for the 
site to be illegal. No country in the world has solved its nuclear waste 
problem. It makes little sense to begin building new reactors when we dont 
know what to do with the lethal waste from the ones we have.



*Using Nuclear Power to Address Climate Change Would Exacerbate the Problems:

Major studies, such as those by MIT, agree that using nuclear power to have 
any significant effect on climate change would require building at least 
1,000 new reactors worldwide. This would exacerbate all of the problems of 
the technology: more terrorist targets, more cost (potentially trillions of 
dollars), less safety, need for a new Yucca Mountain-sized waste site every 
4 or 5 years, more proliferation of nuclear materials and technologies, 
dozens of new uranium enrichment plants, and even then, a severe shortage 
of uranium even within this century--while displacing the resources needed 
to ensure a real solution to the climate change issue.



*Conclusion:  We believe that the financial and safety risks associated 
with nuclear power are so grave that nuclear power should not be a part of 
any solution to address global warming.  There is no need to jeopardize our 
health, safety and economy with increased nuclear power when we have 
cleaner, cheaper solutions to reduce global warming pollution.



Signers to date:



National:  Center for Health, Environment and Justice;, Clean Water 
Action;, Friends of the Earth;, Greenpeace;, Nuclear Information and 
Resource Service;, Public Citizen;, Sierra Club;, U.S. Public Interest 
Research Group (U.S. PIRG)





</x-flowed>


Attachment Converted: image001181.jpg: 00000001,6a36ad76,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
 9 National Intel Estimates of Nuclear Proliferation Problem
 
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 12:43:23 -0500 (CDT)

 
National Security Archive Update, June 1, 2005

Nuclear Weapons Capability Cost Under a Billion, CIA Estimated;

Treaties and Test Bans Would Not Prevent a Determined Government;

First Ten Years of Proliferation Intelligence Posted by National
Security Archive

http://www.nsarchive.org

For more information contact:

William Burr - 202/994-7032

Washington, D.C., June 1, 2005 - Recently declassified intelligence
estimates from the 1950s and 1960s show that a minimal capability
to produce two nuclear weapons a year would be a relatively inexpensive
investment - $911 million in today's dollars - for a country that
sought a nuclear weapons capability. Moreover, the U.S. intelligence
community concluded that a country that sought a nuclear weapons
capability for prestige reasons or to deter the United States would
be difficult to stop even if nuclear test bans and a proliferation
agreement were in place.

Beginning in the late 1950s, the U.S. intelligence community began
preparing National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs) on the problem of
nuclear proliferation. This briefing book is the first ever publication
of the first ten years of NIEs on nuclear proliferation obtained
by the National Security Archive through FOIA and mandatory review
requests. The failure last week of the Non-Proliferation Treaty
Review Conference makes publication of the estimates especially
timely. Besides the estimates themselves, it includes documents,
obtained through archival research and FOIA requests, which shed
light on the context for the production of the NIEs. Newly declassified
documents show how NIEs were requested and produced, how they were
followed up, the role of embassies in the estimating process, and
the contributions of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence
and Research (INR) to the NIEs. Among the findings in this collection:

- a basic capability to build two nuclear weapons a year was
relatively cheap; no more than $180 million in 1963 dollars (about
$911.5 million in todays dollars);

- in the late 1950s, intelligence analysts saw the spread of "nuclear
know-how" around the world as creating widespread capabilities for
"small scale" national nuclear weapons programs;

- countries sought nuclear weapons for "prestige" and "military
effectiveness"; countries like China sought nuclear weapons as a
"deterrent to the use of US nuclear weapons in the Far East";

- multilateral nonproliferation agreements and nuclear test bans
could restrain national nuclear programs but could not stop a
determined government from initiating a nuclear weapons program;

- estimates on Israeli potential found, in 1961, "considerable
evidence" that Israel was "developing capabilities"; by 1966,
analysts believed that Israel had "imported and stockpiled sufficient
unsafeguarded uranium for a few weapons";

- by the mid-1960s, India appeared to be a likely candidate for
nuclear status; if India took a nuclear course, analysts saw Pakistan
likely to follow suit, with possible help from China;

- during the late 1950s, analysts saw France, China, West Germany,
Japan, Sweden, and Israel as among the countries with the greatest
potential to develop nuclear weapons, but that many faced domestic
and international constraints on independent nuclear weapons programs;

- by the late 1950s and early 1960s, analysts worried that proliferation
could "materially increase" the chance of world war and the risk
of an "unintentional or unauthorized detonation." The acquisition
of nuclear weapons by "irresponsible" governments was another risk;

- a CIA report from 1975 shows concern about new "threshold states"
including Iran, Libya, South Africa, and Taiwan acquiring nuclear
capabilities as well as the threat of nuclear terrorism.

Please follow the link below to read the documents posted today:

http://www.nsarchive.org

________________________________________________________

THE NATIONAL SECURITY ARCHIVE is an independent non-governmental
research institute and library located at The George Washington
University in Washington, D.C. The Archive collects and publishes
declassified documents acquired through the Freedom of Information
Act (FOIA). A tax-exempt public charity, the Archive receives no
U.S. government funding; its budget is supported by publication
royalties and donations from foundations and individuals.

_________________________________________________________

PRIVACY NOTICE The National Security Archive does not and will never
share the names or e-mail addresses of its subscribers with any
other organization. Once a year, we will write you and ask for your
financial support. We may also ask you for your ideas for Freedom
of Information requests, documentation projects, or other issues
that the Archive should take on. We would welcome your input, and
any information you care to share with us about your special
interests. But we do not sell or rent any information about subscribers
to any other party.

_________________________________________________________
*****************************************************************
 10 NRC: NRC Adds Syria to List of Embargoed Destinations
 
News Release - 2005-08
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION   
  Office of Public Affairs     Telephone: 301/415-8200   
  Washington, DC 20555-0001     E-mail: opa@nrc.gov  
  No. 05-086     June 1, 2005   
  

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has revised its import/export
regulations to reflect current U.S. law and foreign policy on
Syria. The changes remove Syria from the list of restricted
destinations for exports and add it to the list of embargoed
destinations. These changes are necessary to conform the NRCs
export controls to the Syria Accountability and Lebanese
Sovereignty Restoration Act of 2003. 

The regulations, published in the Federal Register on May 25,
are contained in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 110. They prohibit the export of nuclear material or
equipment to Syria under a general license. A general license
allows for the export of certain nuclear equipment and material
without the filing of an application with the NRC. Potential
shipments of nuclear material to Syria will now require the
filing of an application requesting a specific license. 

Publicly available documents related to this rule may be viewed
electronically via the NRCs rule making Web site at
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov, or at the NRCs Public Document Room,
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, June 01, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 11 BBC: Drawing uncovered of 'Nazi nuke'
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 1 June, 2005
 
The diagram appears in an undat report about nuclear weapons work 
in Nazi Germany       

Historians working in Germany and the US claim to have found a
60-year-old diagram showing a Nazi nuclear bomb. 

It is the only known drawing of a "nuke" made by Nazi experts
and appears in a report held by a private archive. 

The researchers who brought it to light say the drawing is a
rough schematic and does not imply the Nazis built, or were
close to building, an atomic bomb. 

But a detail in the report hints some Nazi scientists may have
been closer to that goal than was previously believed. 

The Nazis were far away from 'classic' atomic bomb. But they 
hoped to combine a 'mini-nuke' with a rocket Rainer Karlsch          

The report containing the diagram is undated, but the
researchers claim the evidence points to it being produced
immediately after the end of the war in Europe. It deals with
the work of German nuclear scientists during the war and lacks a
title page, so there is no evidence of who composed it. 

One historian behind the discovery, Rainer Karlsch, caused a
storm of controversy earlier this year when he claimed to have
uncovered evidence the Nazis successfully tested a primitive
nuclear device in the last days of WWII. A number of historians
rejected the claim. 

The drawing is published in an article written for Physics World
magazine by Karlsch and Mark Walker, professor of history at
Union College in Schenectady, US. 

'Mini-nuke' 

The newly uncovered document was discovered after the
publication of Karlsch's book, Hitlers Bombe (Hitler's Bomb), in
which he made the nuclear test claim. 

"The Nazis were far away from a 'classic' atomic bomb. But they
hoped to combine a "mini-nuke" with a rocket," Dr Karlsch told
the BBC News website. 

"The military believed they needed around six months more to
bring the new weapon into action. But the scientists knew better
how difficult it was to get the enriched uranium required." 

The head of Nazi Germany's nuclear energy programme was the
physicist Werner Heisenberg. Though he was highly accomplished
in other areas of physics, Heisenberg failed to understand a key
aspect of nuclear fission chain reactions. 

Heisenberg's uncertainty 

Some researchers say this led him to overestimate the amount of
uranium - the so-called fissile material - required to build a
nuclear bomb. 

[Adolf Hitler, PA]                              
Hitler was desperate for weapons that would turn the tide of the 
war                                                             

                                 
However, the German report contains an estimate of slightly more 
than 5kg for the critical mass of a plutonium bomb. This is 
comparatively close to the real figure and may suggest some Nazi 
scientists had a better grasp of nuclear fission than Heisenberg. 

Professor Paul Lawrence Rose of Pennsylvania State University,
US, and author of a 1998 book about the German uranium
programme, said he had no reason to believe the report was not
genuine, but was dubious about the significance of the critical
mass detail. 

"Though it's wonderful to find the 5kg figure written on the
document, one has to be sceptical about the rationale for it.
Even if it's true and [some scientists] did understand it,
Heisenberg's group wouldn't have accepted it," Rose told the BBC
News website. 

He further speculated it was possible the author arrived at this
figure by reading the Smyth Report into the development of the
US atomic bomb, which was published in July 1945. But Karlsch
and Walker reject this claim. 

Bombshell claim 

In Hitlers Bombe, Dr Karlsch suggests a team of scientists
directed by the physicist Kurt Diebner, which was in competition
with Heisenberg's group, tested a primitive nuclear device in
Thuringia, eastern Germany, in March 1945. 

Rose says that this is unlikely. Transcripts of conversations
taped by MI6 when the scientists were held captive in England
after the war show Diebner lacked the knowledge to have done
this, he claims. 

"Karlsch revealed some very important details in his book, but I
can't go along with the picture he constructs with those details
- of a Nazi nuclear test," said Professor Dieter Hoffmann of the
Max Planck Institute for the History of Science in Berlin. 

But in their Physics World article, Karlsch and Walker point to
evidence of innovations made by Diebner's team, including a
nuclear reactor design superior to that produced by Heisenberg's
group. 

"[Diebner] got the research papers from all other groups and he
could control the information flux. Only a few scientists around
Diebner knew about his bomb project. Heisenberg was not aware of
it," Dr Karlsch explained. 

*****************************************************************
 12 IPS: Nukes-Against-Global Warming Strategy Scored as Too Costly
 
     Inter Press Service News Agency     

Thursday, June 02, 2005 05:51 GMT       

 Stephen Leahy 

BROOKLIN, Canada, Jun 1 (IPS) - Faced with the rising toll of
global warming and soaring petroleum prices, countries like
Canada and the United States are giving nuclear power another
look. But this might be among the most expensive ways to produce
electricity, say experts and environmental advocates. 

Canada has the highest per capita energy use in the world and,
like most industrialised countries, has been unable to cut
emissions of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Under the
Kyoto Protocol, an international pact to rein in global warming,
Canada is committed to making significant reductions in its
emissions of such gases, which are released when fossil fuels
like coal and oil are burned and which contribute to climate
change.

 Motivated by growing energy needs and commitments to close
polluting coal power plants, Canada is now considering building
new nuclear power plants for the first time in 20 years. While
nuclear plants do not produce greenhouse gases, they have a long
history of expensive breakdowns. Additionally, the country faces
the prospect of spending at least 24 billion Canadian dollars
(19.2 billion U.S. dollars) to store radioactive wastes from the
plants.

 The moves come amid a possible resurgence in nuclear power
plant construction in the United States, where industry
expansion has been stalled since a high-profile meltdown in the
late 1970s.

 As in Canada, the U.S. nuclear industry and the administration
of President George W. Bush have said nuclear power will play a
key role in meeting demand for power without contributing to
global warming and the droughts, floods, and disease outbreaks
that have accompanied it.

 The strategy will require massive government subsidies and
likely will prove misguided, according to S.A. Sherif, a solar
energy expert and professor of mechanical and aerospace
engineering at the University of Florida.

 ''Energy from nuclear power plants remains very expensive,''
said Sherif, adding that if U.S. government had not invested
more than 200 billion U.S. dollars in research and development,
there would not be a nuclear industry.

 The problem, he added, is that ''the world's supply of uranium
is limited, while the sun's energy is not.''

 Additionally, new nuclear plants will add to existing problems
of how to deal with nuclear waste, said Dave Martin of the
environmental pressure group Sierra Club of Canada.

 ''Canada already has 40,000 tonnes of highly radioactive waste.
It's an insane idea to build new nuclear plants that will make
even more waste,'' Martin told IPS. ''These wastes will remain
radioactive for a million years.''

 Nuclear power plants produce some 13 percent of Canada's
electricity generation. Another 57 percent comes from dams, 28
percent from geothermal, or under-earth heat, sources as well as
coal, oil and gas, and about 1 percent from renewable sources
including the wind, sun, and tides.

 Canada's Nuclear Waste Management Organisation proposed last
month to bury the spent nuclear fuel from Canada's 22 reactors
in an underground vault carved 1000 metres deep in solid rock.
It recommends spending the next 30-60 years finding a location
and designing an impervious vault for permanent storage.
Estimated cost: 24.4 billion Canadian dollars (19.6 billion U.S.
dollars).

 When it comes to nuclear power, cost estimates can prove
unreliable. Canada's most recent nuclear plant, the
3,524-megawatt Darlington Nuclear Generating Station, cost 14
billion Canadian dollars (11.2 billion U.S. dollars) to complete
in 1993 -- double the budgeted price.

 And rather than having a 40-year life span, Canada's CANDU
reactors require multi-billion-dollar reconstruction after just
20 years of service on average, said Martin. In 1997, eight
reactors had to be shut down for repairs and four of these had
already been rebuilt in the mid-1980s at a cost of billions of
dollars more than their original construction costs in 1971.

 Repair costs have doubled and tripled from their original
estimates and, eight years later, four are still shut down.

 Due to the frequent shut downs that last months and years,
Canada's nuclear power plants operate at about 50 percent
efficiency, said Martin.

 Calculating the 'all-in cost' of producing electricity from
nuclear power is extremely difficult in part because the
industry does not give out detailed cost information. Moreover,
the Canadian government has underwritten research costs while
insurance costs and liability, waste disposal, the need for an
extensive transmission infrastructure and decommissioning of the
plants all are considered external costs.

 ''There is no question today, that alternatives like natural
gas or wind power are both cheaper and better alternatives to
nuclear,'' Martin said.

 Brendan Hoffman, an energy expert with the U.S.-based advocacy
group Public Citizen, endorsed that view.

 ''The cold hard fact is that nuclear is just too expensive, ''
Hoffman said.

 ''The costs of building nuclear plants have been on average 400
percent over budget,'' he added about the U.S. nuclear power
industry.

 No new plants have been approved in the United States since the
partial meltdown of a reactor at Three Mile Island in 1979.

 But now four big power companies are looking to get advance
approval on sites for perhaps six to ten new nuclear power
plants. If built, these would be improved versions of existing
reactors rather than new designs because there has been no
breakthrough in the technology.

 In any case, he said, ''the US will get as many new reactors as
the government is willing to build,'' he said.

 Hoffman argued that a better investment of public money would
be in improvements in energy efficiency and conservation using
simple, existing technologies like energy saving light bulbs,
better house insulation, and replacing electric water heaters
with solar units.

 The Rocky Mountain Institute, a non-profit energy research
organisation, has calculated that improvements in energy
efficiency are six times more cost effective than nuclear power
and eliminate the need for all existing nuclear plants and any
future ones.

 ''All of this could be done without any changes to our way of
life,'' said Hoffman.

 Why the push for nuclear power? In Hoffman's view, because
''the nuclear industry are major donors to Bush Republicans and
have a direct channel to power in Washington.'' (END/2005) 


  Copyright ฉ 2004 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 13 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2004 Performance Assessments for Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Power
                             Plants
News Release - Region I - 2005-03
 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 

Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-05-030                          
May 31, 2005 CONTACT:     Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. 
Sheehan (610) 337-5331                     E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov  

Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with 
representatives of PSEG Nuclear, LLC, on Wednesday, June 8, to 
discuss the agencys annual assessment of safety performance at 
the Salem and Hope Creek nuclear power plants. The period of 
performance to be discussed is Jan. 1 to Dec. 31, 2004. In 
addition, there will be a discussion of PSEG actions aimed at 
improving performance in several areas, including 
safety-conscious work environment, problem identification and 
resolution, procedural adherence and quality of engineering 
products. 

PSEG is the owner of the plants, located in Hancocks Bridge
(Salem County), N.J. 

The meeting, which will be open to the public for observation,
is scheduled to begin at 7 p.m. at the Bridgeport Holiday Inn,
One Pureland Drive in Swedesboro, N.J. The hotel is located off
Exit 10 of Interstate 295. Before the session is adjourned, NRC
staff will be available to answer questions from the public on
the plants safety performance, as well as the agencys role in
ensuring safe operation of the facilities. 

The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Salem and
Hope Creek plants and the nations other commercial nuclear power
facilities, NRC Region I Administrator Samuel J. Collins said.
This meeting will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our
annual assessment of safety performance with the company and
with local officials and residents who live near the plant. Our
goal is to explain the NRC oversight process and make as much
information as possible available to the public regarding our
regulation of these facilities. 

Overall, the Hope Creek and Salem Unit 1 and 2 plants operated
safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection
findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear power
plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase
to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety
significance of the issues involved. 

During most of 2004, a white inspection finding remained open
for Salem Unit 1. The finding involved inadequate corrective
actions that resulted in an emergency diesel generator
turbocharger failure in September 2002. Although such findings
are typically closed within four quarters, this finding stayed
open for a longer period of time to allow PSEG additional time
to complete a root cause evaluation of the problem and implement
corrective actions. A follow-up supplemental inspection
completed on Sept. 30, 2004 determined the companys response was
adequate, leading to the closure of the finding as of early
November. All of the other inspection findings and performance
indicators for Salem Unit 1 were green in 2004. 

In the case of Salem Unit 2, all of the inspection findings and
performance indicators were green last year. 

While the Hope Creek plant had all green performance indicators
during 2004, it received two white inspection findings. One of
the findings, issued in the first quarter, involved inadequate
maintenance on a rotating screen system used to filter water
taken from the Delaware River for cooling purposes at the
facility. The shortcoming led to the systems failure and the
unavailability of an associated cooling-water pump system. A
supplemental inspection performed last September concluded that
the companys corrective actions were appropriate, and the
finding was closed in the fourth quarter of last year. 

The other white finding for Hope Creek was issued in the fourth
quarter and involved inadequate evaluation for a degraded level
control valve on a moisture separator drain tank. The problem
with the valve resulted in the failure of a drain line from the
tank in October 2004 that forced a shutdown of the plant. An NRC
supplemental inspection will be conducted in June in response to
the finding. 

Meanwhile, the NRC staff has determined that a cross-cutting
issue in the area of problem identification and resolution for
the Salem and Hope Creek units will remain open. A cross-cutting
issue is one that affects several different areas of
performance. This decision is based on additional inspection
findings and documented shortcomings in 2004. Specifically,
there were multiple inspection findings at the plants last year
that were attributable, at least in part, to problem
identification, problem evaluation and the effectiveness of
corrective actions. 

Further, a cross-cutting issue in the area of safety-conscious
work environment will remain open for the plants, with the NRC
continuing to monitor the companys progress. The issue, which
involves maintaining an environment in which workers feel free
to raise safety concerns, was noted in the agencys mid-cycle
assessment letter for the plants, issued last Aug. 30. While we
recognize that PSEG has taken significant steps to evaluate the
stations work environment and initiated actions to begin
addressing deep-seated causes, it is too early to assess whether
or not the work environment at the station is significantly
improving, Mr. Collins wrote in the annual assessment letters
for the plants. 

In light of the two cross-cutting issues, the NRC will apply
heightened oversight to the Salem and Hope Creek plants during
the current assessment period. This scrutiny will involve, among
other things, a review of PSEGs detailed improvement plans
related to safety-conscious work environment, periodic
management meetings, an oversight coordination team and enhanced
baseline inspections. 

Routine inspections are performed by four NRC resident
inspectors assigned to the plants and by inspection specialists
from the Region I Office in King of Prussia, Pa., and the
agencys headquarters in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant
operations to be inspected this year are radiological safety,
emergency preparedness and the licensed operator requalification
program. 

Letters sent from the NRC Region I Office to plant officials
address the performance of the plants during the period and will
serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. The letter
regarding the Salem nuclear plant is available on the NRC web
site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/salm_2004q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] . The letter regarding the Hope Creek nuclear plant
is available at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/hope_2004q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] . 

The notice and agenda for the annual assessment meeting are
available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) under accession number ML051290287. ADAMS is
accessible via the agencys web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is
available by contacting the NRCs Public Document Room at
1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail at PDR@nrc.gov. 

Current performance information for Salem Unit 1 is available on
the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SALM1/salm1_chart.html. 

Current performance information for Salem Unit 2 is available on
the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/SALM2/salm2_chart.html. 

Current performance information for Hope Creek is available on
the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/HOPE/hope_chart.html.   



  


 	Last revised Wednesday, June 01, 2005 	   
*****************************************************************
 14 Bellona: Bulgaria shuts down Kozloduy NPP
 
The closure of units 3 and 4 of the Kozloduy nuclear power plant
is scheduled for 2006. 

2005-06-01 19:37

The country is obliged to fulfill its promise about the early
closure if its scheduled EU accession in 2007 is to go ahead.
Units 1 and 2 have already been closed, in the last days of
2002. The Kozloduy plant has two more operating units – 5 and 6. 

Between April 17 and 24, Bulgarians were asked to answer the
question, “Do you think the Government should request that the
Kozloduy nuclear plant issue be reconsidered so as to prevent a
further Draconian increase of electricity prices?” Meanwhile, UK
ambassador Jeremy Hill said in an interview with Bulgarian
national radio that with regard to the closure of the two units
in Kozloduy, the EU had a clear and firm position, and they
should be closed as agreed. 

Bulgaria is currently a major electricity exporter in the
Balkans, sending over 6 billion kilowatt-hours of electrical
power per year but will most probably have to halve its energy
exports after 2007. The EU has earmarked 4.6 billion euros for
Bulgaria in its first three years of membership to compensate
for the closure of two outdated reactors at the Kozloduy nuclear
power plant, help develop rural areas and strengthen border
control. 
  
  Publisher: , President: 
Information: , Technical contact: 
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 15 The Local: Nuclear reactor shuts down after thirty years
           
[Sweden's news in English]                    

Published: 1st June 2005 08:12 CET 

Sweden shut down its Barsebไck 2 nuclear reactor at the stroke
of midnight on Tuesday, the second reactor to be taken out of
service in the country since 1999. The move ends almost thirty
years of electricity production at the plant.
 
"That's that. We have brought Barsebไck's electricity production
to an end," said the plant's Leif ึst.
 
Sweden plans to phase out nuclear power, which still accounts
for nearly half of the Scandinavian country's energy supply,
over the next three decades.
 
The first reactor at Barsebไck was shut down in 1999. Barsebไck
2 accounts for 3.75 percent of Sweden's total electricity
production.
 
Barsebไck's closure was marked by a sentimental countdown
through the day and the media were invited to witness the
"historic industrial event".
 
"It's a sad day, one which we will always remember. We've been
going for thirty years and sixteen days. Now we will deal with
the power station sensibly, right up to putting the nuclear fuel
into safe keeping," said ึst.
 
The reactor cooled through the night. By 8am, noted Svenska
Dagbladet, the temperature had dropped to below 100 degrees
centigrade.
 
"Many employees here would have gladly continued to run the
nuclear power station if the Swedish Administrative Supreme
Court's decision had been contrary to the government's
decision," said Lars-Gunnar Fritz, information officer at
Barsebไck.
 
"At the same time, those who have already planned for a new job
or education can continue with their personal development. So
there are mixed feelings about the decision here at Barsebไck,"
he told Swedish television.
 
The country voted in a non-binding referendum in 1980 to phase
out its 12 nuclear reactors by 2010, but that target was
abandoned in 1997 after officials acknowledged that there would
not be sufficient alternative energy sources to replace the
nuclear output.
 
In October 2004, the minority Social Democratic government
clinched a deal on the Barsebไck 2 reactor in south west Sweden
with the formerly agrarian Centre Party and the Left Party.
 
Under that deal, the government will promote the use of wind
power, biofuels, solar energy and hydro power to replace the
lost nuclear energy, as consumers will be obliged to buy a
pre-determined amount of electricity produced from these
so-called "clean" sources.
 
Natural gas will also be used during a transition period.
 
Yet a poll published just weeks after the October 2004 agreement
was reached showed that a whopping 80 percent of Swedes were in
favour of maintaining or expanding the country's nuclear
facilities.
 
Only 16 percent of those questioned said they wanted the nuclear
plants to be dismantled.
 
The pro-nuclear sentiment in Sweden is thought to be linked to
worries that ridding the country of nuclear power would further
boost electricity prices, which have sky-rocketed by 50 percent
on average since the deregulation of its energy market eight
years ago.
 
Including Barsebไck 2, Sweden's 11 nuclear reactors, located at
four separate plants, currently make up about half of the
country's electricity production. Experts say nuclear production
is likely to fall to 44 percent by 2010, or 31 percent of total
energy consumption.
 
Modelled on Germany's plans to phase out nuclear energy, the
programme says existing plants should continue running as long
as they "contribute economically", which means, in effect, until
the end of their normal operating lives.
 
In a few years the government will begin to look at the oldest
reactors to determine which should be shut down next.
 
Tippee Hendry | 1st June 2005 | 07.18 | Report Comment
Everything in ones house gives off something that is offensive
and as for the U.K. nuclear industry being distorted - where
have you got that from? I have friends in the industry and it
couldn't be more regulated and these people have worked in like
industries overseas and say ours is one of the best. There will
be always be accidents but at least we admit to them and do
everything to stop it happening again. Life isn't all a bed of
roses in any industry. Cars kill people but it doesn't stop us
driving.

Jeremy Slawson | 1st June 2005 | 13.54 | Report Comment
Looks like the do gooders in power are out of touch with the
aspirations of the people. "Who cares how much electricity costs
anyway, the scummy voters dont have a choice, they can pay for
it".
 
This is the unaceptable side of socialism, the imposition of
inflexible dogma on people. The deliberate moulding of society
without societies consent. The failure of the European Union
that is snoballing at the momment is another case where the
voters have been ignored. It is time that the political classes
made more of an effort to sell their ideas rather than assuming
that ideological correctness is some sort of moral force before
which we should all bow. 

Nuclear power is a manageable risk with known ecological
benefits to carbon emissions. Rather than raise the issue now
with the electorate the government took the easy option and
decided to keep to the schedule and burn more coal and oil in
other countries whilst building a headline wind turbine farm.
Pretty pathetic.
[Add Comment]  Add a comment ปAdd Comment (Members Only) 


*****************************************************************
 16 Eureka Reporter: PG provides NRC with final report in missing fuel rod investigation                   

Wed. June 1, 2005

Pacific Gas and Electric Co. has now provided the federal Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission with a final report on the investigation 
into the location of segments of a used nuclear fuel rod at its 
Humboldt Bay Power Plant in King Salmon.

The investigation began last June, when the utility reported to 
the NRC the discovery of conflicting records on the location of 
three, 18-inch long cut segments, according to a PG&E news 
release. These records indicate that the segments were either 
stored in the used fuel pool in 1968 or were shipped to a 
licensed nuclear waste facility in 1969.

The final report to the NRC details the work that has been 
conducted over the past year to determine the possible location 
of the segments and to rule out unlikely locations and 
scenarios.

PG&E said these activities included:

1) a meticulous review of the records, record-keeping processes 
and reporting associated with the used fuel pool and with 
shipments of used fuel and other radioactive materials;

2) interviews of former and current plant personnel and
contractors;

3) a physical search of the used fuel pool and the rest of the
HBPP site;

4) an analysis of the possibility of theft or diversion; and

5) an analysis of the cause of the problem.

In the process, PG&E also established a more accurate inventory
for all special nuclear material onsite, and reaffirmed there
are solid controls for storing and accounting for these
materials in place today, the news release stated.

PG&E said its exhaustive investigation points to two
reasonable possibilities regarding the location of the fuel
segments:

1) they remain in the used fuel pool; or

2) they were shipped offsite to one of three licensed
facilities. 

Only one of those possibilities is supported by physical
evidence, which indicates the three segments have been found in
the used fuel pool, but in broken, fragment form rather than as
intact, 18-inch cut segments, said Greg Rueger, PG&Es senior
vice president for generation and chief nuclear officer. 

Unfortunately, the condition of the apparently cut fuel rod
fragments  after nearly 40 years of storage in a container
within the used fuel pool under other irradiated material 
makes conclusive positive identification very difficult, the
news release stated.

Given that identification of the broken segments in the used
fuel pool is not conclusive, PG&E has come to the conclusion
that it is also possible that the segments could have been
shipped offsite to the Nuclear Fuel Services in New York. That
facility is a fuel-reprocessing facility.

Or, they could have been shipped to Barnwell, S.C., or Hanford,
Wash., both of which are licensed low-level radioactive waste
facilities, where they would not have posed a threat to the
health and safety of the public, according to PG&E.

Although there is no evidence that offsite shipment occurred,
we cannot say with 100 percent certainty that it did not,
Rueger said.

PG&E said that all other possibilities have been determined to
be implausible or highly unlikely.

The conclusion that the fuel fragments may have been found in
the used fuel pool over the last year is supported by an
independent expert analysis, according to the news release.
This analysis found evidence that some of the fuel fragments in
the pool appeared to be mechanically cut, which would associate
them with the three 18-inch cut fuel segments. This analysis
also determined that it is likely that the three 18-inch
segments were broken into smaller pieces during movement of fuel
and equipment inside the pool during the late 1960s. 

The comprehensive investigation also found no evidence to
support the possibility that the fuel segments were stolen from
the facility. Such a possibility was shown to be highly unlikely
because of barriers in place from 1968 through the present to
deter, prevent and detect any attempted theft.

As part of the investigation, PG&E also conducted what it said
was a comprehensive physical inventory of nuclear material and
handling processes at the site and documented and securely
stored all fuel fragments that were found.

A cause analysis of the events leading to the loss of control
over the cut fuel rod segments was performed to help assure that
special nuclear materials handling, inventorying and control
processes and procedures going forward are strong and capable of
handling all nuclear material at the HBPP site, the news
release continued.

The final report also documents findings related to four small
pieces of non-fuel nuclear material that could not be located
during the comprehensive physical inventory, according to the
utility.

These four pieces of nuclear material consist of one intact and
three partial incore detectors, the news release stated. The
2ฝ-inch-long incore detectors were part of the instrumentation
used to measure the level of reactivity inside the reactor when
it was operating. The four pieces included about 0.006 of an
ounce of nuclear material which was required to be controlled.
The report concludes that it is very likely that these portions
of incore detectors were shipped to a low level radioactive
waste facility. Shipment of these detectors to such a facility
would have been appropriate since low-level radioactive waste
facilities are licensed to contain this material.

PG&E said it has kept the NRC apprised of developments in the
comprehensive investigation leading up to this report.

From this point, PG&E said the NRC will critically review the
report, complete its own comprehensive inspection and issue its
findings.

PG&E said it will work with the NRC to resolve any issues. 

Copyright (C) 2005, The Eureka                                                        
Reporter. All rights reserved.                                                                                                                        
*****************************************************************
 17 Xinhua: Sweden decommissions disputed nuclear plant   

  www.xinhuanet.com

  www.chinaview.cn 2005-06-01 10:35:46   

    STOCKHOLM, June 1 (Xinhuanet) -- Sweden decommissioned at
midnight Tuesday (2200 GMT) a controversial nuclear power
station in the southwest of the country, putting an end to its
30-year history of power production. 

  [ Sweden decommissioned at midnight Tuesday (2200 GMT) a
controversial nuclear power station in the southwest of the
country, putting an end to its 30-year history of power
production. ]   

  Sweden decommissioned at midnight Tuesday (2200 GMT) a
controversial nuclear power station in the southwest of the
country, putting an end to its 30-year history of power
production. (Photo: Xinhua/AFP)  

The shutdown of the final reactor at the Barseback plant, across
a narrow waterway from the Danish capital Copenhagen, is part of
a government program to decrease dependency on atomic power. The
plant's first reactor was closed in 1999. 

    Nuclear power has been a charged political issue in Sweden.
Swedish anti-nuclear campaigners have pressed for the plant to
be shut down after Swedes voted in 1980 to stop using nuclear
power and phase out all nuclear plants across the country over
the coming decades. 

    For the 348 employees of the station, the moment was still
uneasy though the shutdown had long been determined, according
to a report of the Swedish News Agency. 

    "It's sad that the plant will not be allowed to run as long
as it's profitable," said Hans Andersson, a shift manager at
Barseback. 

    In Sweden, where recent opinion polls show that a majority
of people are in favor of keeping nuclear power, many have
expressed concern that the shutdown will increase electricity
prices. 

    But the decommissioning has been celebrated by residents of
Copenhagen, only a narrow waterway from the plant, as the
30-year-old power station had angered residents there and the
plant's closure had long been demanded by nuclear-free Denmark. 

    Nuclear power generates about 50 percent of Sweden's
electricity. Barseback, with a capacity of 600 megawatts, could
cover 30 percent of southern Sweden's electricity consumption.
Enditem   

  Copyright ฉ2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 18 NRC: Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards Joint Meeting of the 
 
                         FR Doc E5-2764 
[Federal Register: June 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 104)] 
[Notices] [Page 31547] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01jn05-149]                         
 
ACRS Subcommittees on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk 
Assessment and on Plant Operations; Notice of Meeting The ACRS 
Subcommittees on Reliability and Probabilistic Risk Assessment 
(PRA) and on Plant Operations will hold a joint meeting on June 
15, 2005, Room T-2B1, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: 
Wednesday, June 15, 2005--8:30 a.m. Until 12:30 p.m. The purpose 
of this meeting is to discuss the status of the development of 
risk management technical specifications. The Subcommittees will 
hear the status of the Risk Management Technical Specifications 
Initiative 4b, which proposes to rely on PRA and risk monitors to 
calculate technical specification completion times for returning 
structures, systems, and components to operable status.
 
The Subcommittees will hear presentations by and hold discussions 
with representatives of the NRC staff, Nuclear Energy Institute, 
South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company, Southern 
California Edison, and Electric Power Research Institute 
regarding this matter. The Subcommittees will gather information, 
analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed 
positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the 
full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Michael R. Snodderly (telephone: 301-415-6927) or the 
Cognizant Staff Engineer, Mr. John G. Lamb (telephone: 
301-415-6855), five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so 
that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted. Further information regarding this meeting can 
be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official or the 
Cognizant Staff Engineer between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (ET). 
Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact one 
of the above named individuals at least two working days prior to 
the meeting to be advised of any potential changes to the agenda.
 
Dated: May 24, 2005.
 
Michael L. Scott, Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E5-2764 Filed 5-31-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 19 York Daily Record: NRC finds fault with TMI exam - 

[ydr.com]

Two violations of low safety significance were found during a
recent inspection. 

By SEAN ADKINS 

Daily Record/Sunday News Wednesday, June 1, 2005 


Inspectors with the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have
determined the level of difficulty for a small section of an
annual operator requalification exam performed at Three Mile
Island Unit 1 is potentially inadequate and overly simplistic.

 	The inspectors found that a section of the exam, job
performance measures, did not obligate the plant's senior
operator to demonstrate an understanding of and ability to
perform the required task, according to a recent NRC inspection
report.

 	TMI administered the job-performance measures section of the
exam to the plant's control room supervisors as part of its
annual requalification exam. The weeklong, three-part exam is
composed of multiple sections including a written test,
simulator scenarios and several job-performance measures.

 	Earlier this year, the commission performed an inspection of
Three Mile Island Unit 1 in Dauphin County and found two "green"
violations of very low safety significance.

 	One infraction referred to two fire barrier doors that had
been left open and another involved a piece of safety-related
equipment damaged by the placement of seismic scaffolding.

 	The plant built the scaffold above a valve so workers could
inspect and replace a hydraulic snubber — a piece of equipment
that resembles a large shock absorber designed to handle seismic
stresses.

 	As part of its function, the valve's metal position-indicating
rod travels in and out of the equipment. With the valve open,
the rod made contact with scaffolding and became bent.

 	Despite the damage, plant engineers determined that valve was
operable and functioned smoothly in both directions.

 	The NRC has yet to determine a level of enforcement in regard
to the job-performance-measures section of the operator
requalification exam.

 	"We will have our risk analyst look at the safety significance
of the issue to see what would have happened if the problem
would have gone unchecked," said Neil Sheehan, an NRC spokesman.

 	The inspectors' review found that the job performance measure
in question tested how plant operators would properly classify a
plant emergency.

 	The NRC has four stages of emergency: an unusual event, an
alert, an on-site area emergency and a general emergency.

 	Commission inspectors determined the specific part of the
job-performance-measures section of the exam involved only a
single challenge and had been "overly simplistic," according to
the report.

	"One challenge," said Ralph DeSantis, spokesman for AmerGen
Energy. "That's the way (an event) happens sometimes. These
tests are very challenging."

 	Sheehan said plant operators must be able to make timely
emergency classifications.

 	"We found that they came up short in that area," he said. "We
found that this job-performance measure could have been more
challenging."

 	Three Mile Island operators have had problems passing exams in
the past.

 	In February 2004, the NRC penalized TMI Unit 1 with a green,
or base-level, violation when two of its control-room operator
crews failed simulator exams that evaluated how licensed workers
would respond to multiple plant emergencies.

 	In December, the National Nuclear Accrediting Board discovered
similar concerns at TMI and put the plant's
control-room-operator training program on probation.

 	AmerGen plans to go before the board this month to renew its
accreditation.

 	While the NRC did not penalize TMI for current issues with
respect to its job-performance measures, AmerGen did respond to
the training inefficiency within its corrective-action program.

 	"We will continue looking at the (job-performance measures) to
make sure they meet the standards," DeSantis said. "We are
always looking to improve everything we do."

 Reach Sean Adkins at 771-2047 or sadkins@ydr.com.

Copyright ฉ York Daily Record 2005 122 S. George St., P.O. Box 
15122 York, PA 17405, (717) 771-2000
 				
*****************************************************************
 20 MSNBC.com: Sweden shuts nuclear plant in shift to wind - Environment -
          
  Voters backed move in 1980, before global warming became
factor  

  [IMAGE: SWEDISH NUCLEAR POWER PLANT]   
  Stig-ake Joensson / EPA via Sipa Press  
    
  Sweden has shut this nuclear power plant as part of its
voter-mandated shift to other sources of energy, especially
wind.  

>Updated: 9:13 a.m. ET June 1, 2005

STOCKHOLM, Sweden - A Swedish nuclear reactor has produced its
last watt, shut down at the stroke of midnight Tuesday as part
of a citizen-sanctioned shift to more environmentally friendly
power.

The Barseback-2 nuclear reactor was Sweden's oldest, accounting
for three percent of the country's total electricity output.
Nuclear power provides 40 percent of Sweden's electricity.

The closure is part of nuclear phase-out program backed in a
referendum in 1980. The first reactor at Barseback closed in
1999.

In the short term, the Barseback-2's output will be replaced by
increased production at other reactors, which have been
overhauled and modernized in recent years.

$1 billion wind investment
Longer term, Sweden is planning a big increase in renewable
energy. State-owned Vattenfall, which operates Barseback, said
it would invest $1 billion in building northern Europeโ€s
biggest wind farm.

Vattenfall said it hoped to begin construction of 100-150 wind
power turbines in 2009, generating more than 2 terawatt hours of
electricity per year from 2010.

Barseback produced around 4 terawatt hours out of Swedenโ€s
total 148 in 2004.

It also plans to invest $218 million to build an offshore wind
power park in the Oresund sound near the bridge between southern
Sweden and Denmark.

However, some in the industry don't feel wind will be as
reliable as nuclear power since power can fluctuate depending on
the weather.

Less support due to warming fears
In addition, public support of the shutdown has waned due to
growing worries about the carbon dioxide emissions that many
scientists fear are tied to global warming. Unlike power plants
that run on fossil fuels, nuclear power does not emit CO2.

Swedenโ€s neighbor Finland is building its fifth reactor, which
is to come on line in 2009.

And critics say that closing Barseback goes against the
governmentโ€s policy of promoting environmentally friendly
energy as the shortfall will have to be made up by importing
energy produced from fossil fuel power stations.

โ€It will increase carbon dioxide emissions,โ€ said Kalle
Lindholm, spokesman for Swedenโ€s power industry group
Swedenergy.

But the closure was met with relief in Denmark, which has
lobbied Stockholm for years to close the plant due to its
proximity to Copenhagen.

In a statement, Denmark's Defense Ministry said the closure
"ends several years of a political tug-of-war between Denmark
and Sweden and the people of Copenhagen can now look forward to
a life without a nuclear power plant in their line of
sight."Copyright 2005 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.
Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters.

ยฉ 2005 MSNBC.com
*****************************************************************
 21 csmonitor.com: Simpler - and safer 

from the June 02, 2005 edition 	
 
STREAMLINED:                    

New reactors would simplify controls at nuclear power plants, but 
other safety challenges remain. Ohio's Davis-Besse plant (left) 
shut down after inspectors found a hole in the housing containing 
the reactor. DANIEL MILLER/AP
 		   	 	
 In its comeback bid, US nuclear industry eyes a new generation
of reactors. Will they ease Americans' worries?

 By Peter N. Spotts | Staff writer of The Christian Science
Monitor 

It's a simple proposition: Make electricity by boiling water and
letting the steam drive turbines to crank the generators. But
when the heat needed to boil water comes from splitting atoms,
the technology is anything but simple. 

Now, in its bid to make a comeback in the United States a
generation after the Three Mile Island accident, the
nuclear-power industry is addressing two of its major bugaboos -
safety and cost - through technology. Its answer: a new
generation of reactors that are simpler to operate and maintain
than today's models.	 	 	

The move is already under way. 

Over the past two months, one major US utility and a separate
consortium of utilities have signed agreements with the US
Department of Energy (DOE) to split the cost of testing a
streamlined federal program for licensing the construction and
operation of new nuclear plants. The goal is to begin installing
these new reactors by 2010. 

Over the longer term, 11 nations including the US are working on
so-called fourth-generation reactor designs that proponents say
have the potential to be safer, cheaper, and more reliable than
older models. At one end of the size scale, some alternative
designs aim to produce electricity for major utilities along
with the hydrogen needed for President Bush's "hydrogen
economy." At the other end of the scale, some designs are being
tailored to power and heat small rural communities. Last
December, for example, the tiny Alaskan town of Galena accepted
an offer from Toshiba to build and install a small reactor some
have dubbed a nuclear "battery." It would supply the town with
electricity and heat. The town now is in the early stages of
seeking approval from the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission to
install the reactor. 

The twin drivers behind these efforts are projections of
increasing demand for electricity and rising concerns about
greenhouse gases - something that nuclear power doesn't produce. 

In the US alone, utilities will need to build 281 gigawatts of
new generating capacity by 2025 as demand rises and older coal-
and oil-fired plants are closed, the DOE estimates. 

Climate scientists trace warming temperatures largely to
greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere from burning fossil
fuels such as coal, oil, or natural gas. The nuclear industry
has long argued that nuclear energy must remain an option to
reduce those emissions. But it's been a tough sell. Accidents at
Three Mile Island in Pennsylvania in 1979 and Chernobyl in the
Ukraine in 1986 still echo in public discussions. These memories
are kept fresh by many environmental groups who see nuclear
energy as too dangerous and too expensive. They push instead for
greater energy efficiency and increased reliance on renewable
energy sources. 

Yet faced with global warming, some groups, such as the Pew
Center on Global Climate Change and Environmental Defense,
appear willing to give nuclear energy a reluctant second look. 

Support for new reactors also appears in a bill introduced last
Thursday in Congress. Sens. Joseph Lieberman (D) of Connecticut
and John McCain (R) of Arizona offered the Climate Stewardship
and Innovation Act of 2005. It would require the Environmental
Protection Agency to set limits on emissions of greenhouse gases
and set targets for achieving them. The duo has introduced
similar bills in the past. But the latest measure outlines a
mechanism to fund the development of new technologies to help
achieve those targets. Among those technologies: three
unspecified new nuclear-reactor designs. 

"Nuclear has a lot of problems, and only if it can solve its
problems should it be part of the mix," says Judith Greenwald,
director of innovative solutions for the Pew Center. The list
she cites includes cost, public concerns over safety,
nuclear-waste disposal, and nuclear proliferation. 

But, she adds, the industry's emerging reactor designs appear to
address some issues. In addition, the industry "seems to be
coalescing around a small number of standard designs," compared
with its current collection of 104 essentially custom reactors.
Such standardization could make it cheaper to build them and
easier to train people to operate them. 

The latest designs likely to hit the grid come from US
manufacturers Westinghouse and General Electric, as well as
foreign companies such as Areva in France. 

These designs make extensive use of natural processes, such as
convection and gravity, in their emergency cooling systems
instead of the mammoth pumps and series of valves found in older
reactors, which are prone to failure or operator error, says Per
Peterson, who chairs the nuclear engineering department at the
University of California at Berkeley. Only a small number of
battery-operated valves need to open for the emergency cooling
systems to kick in. The combination not only reduces the amount
of internal plumbing at the plant, he says, it also reduces the
need for diesel generators that keep the cooling system
operating in case the plant is shut down for maintenance or an
emergency. 

Overall, "the new, simplified designs eliminate an enormous
amount of equipment inside the reactor building," he says. That
reduction leads to plants that are much cheaper to build and
maintain, he adds. These designs first emerged about four years
ago as "third-generation" designs. They have evolved into what
many are calling third-generation-plus designs. 

In January, the US signed a cooperative agreement with Japan,
Canada, France, and Britain to begin development of
fourth-generation designs that use a variety of exotic materials
- liquid sodium, molten salt, lead, or helium gas - as coolants.
Fuel for some of these designs comes in the form of assemblies
filled with coated uranium pellets, each about half a millimeter
across. Coatings would be designed to withstand high
temperatures in case a reactor loses coolant, thus providing a
first line of defense against leaks. 

As part of this effort, the US is working on a high-temperature
reactor using a helium coolant, says Kathryn McCarthy at the
Idaho National Laboratory near Idaho Falls. The reactor would
use the pellet-like fuel and materials that turn the laws of
physics into an automatic shutdown mechanism if the reactor
loses its coolant. 

The design, which aims to sustain sufficiently high temperatures
to produce hydrogen as well, will push the envelope on new
materials that can withstand the harsh environment, she
acknowledges. From the range of reactor concepts being examined
by the international group, which also includes Argentina,
Brazil, the European Union, South Africa, South Korea, and
Switzerland, the DOE hopes to narrow the choices by 2012, then
settle on one or two standard designs. 

Many remain skeptical that new reactors will solve many of
nuclear energy's current conundrums. For one thing, many of
these designs could be run as breeder reactors, generating
plutonium as a byproduct and thus raising nuclear-weapons
proliferation concerns. 

Moreover, reliance on passive systems could undermine the
multilayer, defense-in-depth approach to radiation containment,
says Edwin Lyman, a scientist with the Union of Concerned
Scientists. "We're still learning about how stainless steel
degrades" in current reactors. 

In 2002, workers at the Davis-Besse plant in Ohio discovered a
football-size hole in the top of the steel housing containing
the reactor. The corrosion was traced to dry boric acid that had
collected atop the reactor vessel. A study later conducted by
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory concluded that had the
condition - overlooked for six years - gone unnoticed much
longer, the hole would have opened wide enough to trigger a loss
of coolant worse than Three Mile Island. 	 

  www.csmonitor.com | Copyright ฉ 2005 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
 22 Seattle Times: Opinion: Radioisotopes too important to leave to foreign suppliers
 
Wednesday, June 1, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 a.m. 	 	
 	
Guest columnist 		

By Michael R. Fox               

A view inside the Fast Flux Test Facility at the Hanford site
near Richland, Wash., in this March 22, 1999, file photo. 				
				 				  
Imagine an aircraft manufacturer that finds it is unable to
inspect the welds or key castings on the wings of a commercial
jetliner because it can't obtain the tools  industrial
radiation materials  necessary to do the job. Now you have an
idea of some of the threats to the U.S. economy, because of our
nation's almost total dependence on foreign sources for
radioisotopes that are produced in nuclear reactors. 

Radioisotopes are necessities not only in the aircraft industry
but in almost every sector of the U.S. economy. In medicine,
agriculture, industry, science, homeland security and
interplanetary space probes, radioactive materials perform
countless tasks more quickly and efficiently, more precisely and
cheaply, than other materials. 

For instance, technitium-99  which decays from molydenum-99 
is well-known to physicians as the "workhorse" of nuclear
medicine. It is used in millions of diagnostic imaging
procedures at U.S. hospitals every year. 

But the precursor molybdenum-99 is one of a number of critically
important radioisotopes that must be imported from Canada and
other countries. Because it has a short half-life of less than
three days, molybdenum-99 begins to decay rapidly and must be
used within a week. It cannot be stored, so the supply must be
constantly replenished. 

If our nation's borders were suddenly closed in a
homeland-security "code red" emergency, shutting off the supply
of molybdenum-99 and other radioisotopes, it would be impossible
to perform medical treatments and diagnostic tests. And that
could have serious consequences for many people. Every year,
more than 12 million Americans  including one of every three
hospital patients  are exposed to radiation or radioactive
materials as part of their medical treatments. 

This is not a matter of what could conceivably happen. There is
cause for real alarm. Some medical research laboratories have
put clinical trials of new cancer therapies on hold because the
laboratories have been unable to obtain radioisotopes. Research
and development in chemistry, metallurgy, genetics and
biotechnology have been curtailed. 

The problem has become especially acute because all but two
production reactors in the United States have been shut down,
largely because of opposition from nuclear opponents and
"not-in-my-backyard" (NIMBY) activists. 

The two remaining reactors  one at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in Tennessee and the other at the University of
Missouri  are old and need to be modernized. 

Regrettably, the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) at Hanford 
which has been used for nuclear research and might have been put
to good use producing radioisotopes for science and medicine 
is being jettisoned. Keeping it open would have been a lot less
expensive than building a new reactor elsewhere in the country. 

The government must reverse America's growing dependence on
foreign suppliers of radioactive isotopes. The possibility of
supply interruptions is too staggering to contemplate. Without
radioisotopes, homeland security itself would collapse, since
radioisotopes are used in airport scanners to detect explosives
and radioactive materials. 

It's possible to foresee the day when the demand for
radioisotopes greatly increases as a result of a breakthrough in
treatments for cancer, heart disease, AIDS or other diseases. If
and when that happens, it's likely that foreign countries would
keep the materials for their own use or seek higher prices on
the international market. 

We have a serious problem on our hands, with potentially harmful
effects on everything from the diagnosis and treatment of
diseases to aircraft safety and homeland security. 

As a nation, we must respond quickly to the challenge posed by
our dependence on foreign countries for materials that are
essential to our health and safety, and unite behind a plan that
meets the need for a reliable and affordable supply of
radioisotopes made in the United States. 

Michael R. Fox is a retired nuclear scientist who held
engineering and management positions at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation. He is an industry consultant on issues pertaining
to weapons of mass destruction. He also provides training in the
physics of radioactivity. He is currently based in Kaneohe,
Hawaii. 	 		 		

Copyright ฉ 2005 The Seattle Times Company                                              
*****************************************************************
 23 U.N. Training Iraqis in Jordan to Measure Radiation from
 
Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2005 11:26:22 -0500 (CDT)

 
ENN: Environmental News Network
U.N. Training Iraqis in Jordan to Measure Radiation from Depleted Uranium

June 01, 2005 b By Dale Gavlak, Associated Press

http://www.enn.com/today.html?id=7853

AMMAN, Jordan b Concerned about depleted uranium and what they say are 
increasing cancer rates, Iraqi officials are receiving training from U.N. 
experts on techniques to measure radiation levels according to international 
standards, a U.N. official Tuesday.

Pekka Haavisto, chairman of the U.N. Environment Program's Iraq Task Force, 
said the Iraqis were especially concerned about the southern city of Basra 
and the surrounding area. He said the Iraqi government approached UNEP for 
help.

"They did their own studies and found that the cancer risk has increased by 
two to three times since the 1991 Gulf War," Haavisto told The Associated 
Press. "These are local studies and have not been internationally verified 
so it is difficult to say if the picture is so black."

Depleted uranium is a heavy metal used in armor-piercing weapons. The 
Pentagon maintains that depleted uranium is safe and is about 40 percent 
less radioactive than natural uranium.

The British government has given UNEP detailed information on locations 
where it used 1.9 tones of depleted uranium in the south of Iraq, but UNEP 
says the U.S. government hasn't come forward with the same information 
despite U.N. requests.

UNEP is instructing 16 officials from the Iraqi Ministry of Health and 
Environment, including both vice-ministers, in how to detect depleted 
uranium.

"The UNEP is currently providing training and equipment to Iraqi scientists 
to measure Beta and Gamma radiation from depleted uranium sources," Haavisto 
said.

He said UNEP has carried out studies on depleted uranium found in munitions 
used in Kosovo and the Balkan wars but "due to the security situation in 
Iraq, we are training Iraqis to conduct the studies themselves."

Haavisto said the UNEP is concerned that "there has been no proper clean up 
in Iraq since wars in 2003 and 1991. There is still depleted uranium and 
other chemicals on the ground. Looting has contributed to the problem," he 
said.

"Usually hazardous materials must be cleaned up as rapidly as possible," he 
added.

He said the UNEP had several other concerns about Iraq, such as the presence 
of toxic materials, heavy metals and oil spills that present environmental 
and health hazards.

UNEP's studies in the Balkans called for monitoring depleted uranium 
affected areas, cleanup efforts and clearly marking affected sites.

It concluded that that localized contamination can be detected at 
contaminated sites and so precaution is needed, while in general, levels are 
so low that they do not pose an immediate threat to human health and the 
environment.

But the Balkans studies also identified a number of uncertainties requiring 
further investigation, according to UNEP. These include the extent to which 
depleted uranium on the ground can filter through the soil and eventually 
contaminate groundwater, and the possibility that depleted uranium dust 
could later be re-suspended in the air by wind or human activity, with the 
risk that it could be breathed in.

UNEP is also involved in environmental management of the Iraqi marshlands.

Source: Associated Press 
*****************************************************************
 24 AU ABC: Marshalls in stepped up nuclear compensation bid
 
Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online

02/06/2005, 05:16:41 

The Chairman of the Marshall Islands Nuclear Claims Tribunal
believes his group has a strong claim to increased compensation
from the United States for damage caused by nuclear testing.

Judge James Plasman testified before an American Congressional
Committee hearing in Washington on Wednesday.

The committee heard that the Marshall Islands faces more than
500 additional cases of cancer as a result of fallout from US
nuclear tests on Bikini and Enewetak atolls in the 1940s and
1950s.

Judge Plasman says the 150 million US dollars offered in
compensation by the US in 1986 is not enough considering the new
evidence.

"New circumstances have come to light in terms of learning about
the effects of radiation on people and the extent that radiation
spread throughout the Marshall Islands that constitute these
changed circumstances warranting the Government of the Marshall
islands to approach congress for additional funding." 

      HomeContact UsLegalsNews Sourcesฉ ABC 2005   
*****************************************************************
 25 Bellona: UK allocates ฃ16m for onshore storage facility for spent nuclear fuel 

Great Britain will allocate ฃ16m for the construction of the
spent nuclear fuel long-term storage facility at the Atomflot
base in Murmansk, British Embassy Naval Attache Jonathan
Holloway said to Interfax in April. 

2005-05-31 18:30

The Russian-British project will be presented by the British
company Crown Agents and the Murmansk Shipping Company and
Atomflot Federal Company. At the moment, the ฃ4.6m contract for
all construction works is signed at the Atomflot. Earlier a
ฃ2.6m contract was signed for non-standard equipment delivery.
According to the project, the facility should be ready in April
2006. 

The Atomflot officials also said to Interfax about ongoing
negotiations regarding UK financial participation in
construction of 50 containers TUK-120 for spent nuclear fuel
storage and shipment. They said the state commission would never
accept the facility if containers for spent nuclear fuel were
not ready. 

The onshore storage facility will be used for the spent nuclear
fuel stored currently onboard service ship Lotta. Then Lotta
will get place for 14 additional reactor zones from the laid up
submarines. 

  
  Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge
Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact:
webmaster@bellona.no
Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62  * P.O.Box
2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway
*****************************************************************
 26 BBC: Sweden's nuclear waste headache
 
Last Updated: Wednesday, 1 June, 2005
 
By Lars Bevanger 
BBC News, Forsmark nuclear power plant   


[Forsmark nuclear power plant (BBC)]                            
The Forsmark plant: Sweden is phasing out nuclear                                                           

As Sweden begins decommissioning its nuclear power plants, time 
is running out to find a way to make 9,000 tonnes of spent 
nuclear fuel safe for the next 100,000 years. 

The nuclear industry says it has the answer, but
environmentalists dismiss it as old and unsafe technology. 

A 1980 referendum held in the country decided nuclear power
should be phased out. The first reactor came offline in 1999,
the second this week. 

The remaining 10 reactors will all be shut down in the next few
years, bringing to an end 40 years of nuclear history. 

'Safe for 100,000 years' 

Some 60m under the sea outside the Forsmark nuclear power plant
just north of Stockholm, I am shown into a complex network of
tunnels. 

This is where contaminated equipment and clothing from the
nearby power plant is stored. But it is also a showroom for what
the industry hopes can be a final solution for a much bigger
problem: the highly radioactive spent fuel. 

Kai Ahlbom heads the geological research of the bedrock here,
which he thinks would be suitable for permanent storage of the
world's most toxic waste. 

"This rock is 1,800 million years old. Not much has happened to
this bedrock during that time," Mr Ahlbom explains. He is
confident this geology will not change much for at least another
100,000 years. 

That is how long spent nuclear fuel remains dangerous to the
environment. It is the responsibility of the nuclear power plant
operators here to make sure their waste remains safe until it is
no longer radioactive. 

Digging it down 

The plan is to construct a deposit some 500m underground, where
the fuel can be permanently stored. Today, spent nuclear fuel
sits in temporary storage in the south of the country. 

[Kai Ahlbom (BBC)]                              

Kai Ahlbom believes disposal can be done safely                                                              

"We will encase the waste in 5cm-thick copper canisters, to 
protect against corrosion," Mr Ahlbom says. 

"Then, we want to encase the cylinders in bentonite clay. It's 
basically like cat sand; it absorbs humidity very efficiently, 
and swells when wet." 

After all nuclear waste has been stored, the site would be filled 
in, and safe enough to be left without human intervention until 
the radiation risk has gone, Mr Ahlbom believes. 

'Old technology' 

But environmentalists are not happy with the solution. Kenneth 
Gunnarsson, from the Swedish NGO Office for Nuclear Waste Review, 
told the BBC News website the waste problem was far from being 
solved. 

"No one in the world has a solution. And the Swedish nuclear 
industry's solution is an old one they came up with in the 1970s. 
This is old technology," he says. 

The president of Sweden's Society for Nature Conservation, Mikael 
Karlsson, agrees, and says the industry for too long has 
concentrated on one solution, and has made compromises on safety 
when its model has run into problems. 

"Swedish legislation requires an assessment of alternative 
methods and locations, and that is something which the operators 
have not conducted yet. 

"So they won't get any permits from the government for storing 
the waste according to their present proposals, if the 
legislation is to be followed," he said. 

But while environmentalists are critical of the industry's 
failure to come up with alternative storage solutions, they have 
yet to present any alternatives themselves. And time is running 
out. 

The temporary storage for spent nuclear fuel was designed to 
operate for 40 years. It is already half way through its 
lifespan. 
*****************************************************************
 27 GCO: Watchdog Group Urges Nuclear Materials’ Storage Be Consolidated At 7 Sites

Greene County Online

Technical Support: 888-323-1142 125 West Summer Street - 
Greeneville, TN - (423) 798-0545

By: By BILL JONES/Staff Writer
Source: The Greeneville Sun
06-01-2005      

A government watchdog group has recommended that U.S. storage of 
"bomb-grade" nuclear materials be consolidated at seven sites 
around the nation, including one in nearby Erwin, to boost 
security and save money.

In a report issued on May 19, the Project on Government Oversight 
(POGO) recommended that the Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS) plant in 
Erwin be among seven sites in the United States at which highly 
enriched uranium and plutonium would continue to be stored.

Currently, according to a POGO press release, 13 sites around the 
country house "hundreds of metric tons of plutonium and highly 
enriched uranium in quantities large enough to make nuclear 
bombs."

Among those sites, according to the POGO report, is the Nuclear 
Fuel Services plant in Erwin. That facility, according to the 
report, is one of only two commercially run facilities in the 
nation that store such materials.

Terrorist Threat Raised

"Security experts' greatest concern is that a suicidal terrorist 
group would reach its target at one of the facilities and, in an 
extremely short time, create an improvised nuclear bomb on site," 
the POGO report says.

"It is only now becoming known outside DOE (U.S. Department of 
Energy) how easily this could be accomplished: using a critical 
mass (about 100 pounds) of highly-enriched uranium, a terrorist 
could trigger a detonation of a magnitude close to that which 
devastated Hiroshima," referring to the Japanese city destroyed 
by a U.S. atomic bomb in 1945 near the end World War II.

"One site alone stores 400 metric tons of this material," the 
POGO reports says. "The possibility of this scenario was a 
primary motivation for the DOE's decision to significantly 
increase security requirements at nuclear weapons facilities last 
year."

NFS Discounts Report

During a telephone interview Tuesday, NFS spokesman Tony Treadway 
called the POGO report "speculation" and said he had heard 
nothing from U.S. government regulators that would lead him to 
believe that NFS would be designated a storage site for 
additional special nuclear material.

Treadway said NFS does use enriched uranium in the production of 
fuel for nuclear powered U.S. Navy submarines and surface ships. 
But he said the focus of NFS "is on processing, not storage."

NFS also is involved in "down-blending" highly enriched uranium 
from U.S. Department of Energy stockpiles to a low-enriched 
state, suitable for conversion into fuel for Tennessee Valley 
Authority nuclear reactors that generate commercial electric 
power.

Treadway also said during the telephone interview that discussion 
of consolidating the storage of highly enriched uranium and 
plutonium has been ongoing since the mid-1990s.

He also said a Department of Energy committee is expected to make 
a recommendation about consolidation "in 30 to 45 days."

An advisory task force to current (U.S.) Energy Secretary Samuel 
Bodman is scheduled to complete a report by late June, 
"evaluating the potential cost savings and security enhancements 
from consolidating the nation's stockpiles of highly enriched 
uranium and plutonium," the Associated Press reported in mid-May.

But Treadway said he could not comment on what recommendations 
that report might contain. Once that report is issued, he said, 
NFS would comment, if any recommendations apply to the 
Erwin-based company.

The other commercial facility at which special nuclear materials 
are stored and used, according to the POGO report, is the Nuclear 
Products Division of BWXT Corp., in Lynchburg, Va.

Both NFS and BWXT "contain weapons-grade nuclear materials, (but) 
have not been required to meet the security standards set for 
similar facilities by the Department of Energy," according to the 
POGO report.

NFS and BWXT are overseen by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, "which has less stringent security standards" than 
does the U.S. Department of Energy, according to the POGO report.

In addition, the POGO report says, security has not been tested 
at NFS since 1998.

NFS Data Reported

The POGO report states that the NFS complex in Erwin spans more 
than 60 acres and has a "21-acre protected area."

"NFS contains tons of highly-enriched uranium for the production 
of naval reactor fuel, and down-blends highly enriched uranium 
(HEU)," the Project on Government Oversight report says.

"The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses this site and 
is responsible for testing security, but it has not tested the 
site's security since 1998. Although problems with security were 
identified at that time (1998), the Office of Naval Reactors 
reportedly fixed them quickly."

In October 2004, the NRC announced that this site had started 
down-blending 33 metric tons of highly enriched uranium from the 
Department of Energy's Savannah River Site to produce fuel for a 
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) nuclear power plant, the POGO 
report notes.

NFS Recommendations

The POGO report recommends holding the NFS facility to the same 
"upgraded Design Basis Threat (standards)" that apply to U.S. 
Department of Energy sites.

The report also recommends shifting responsibility for testing 
security from the NRC to the U.S. Department of Energy's Office 
of Safety and Security Performance Assurance.

The Project on Government Oversight's report estimates the cost 
of tripling the size of the security force at the NFS site to 
bring the facility up to Department of Energy standards to be "at 
least $180 million" over three years.

The report also lists as "unknown" the cost of improving the 
security infrastructure at NFS.

Two Oak Ridge Sites

Two other Tennessee sites where special nuclear materials are 
stored and used now, according to the POGO report, are the Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory and the Y-12 National Security Complex 
in Oak Ridge.

In 2004, according to the report, the U.S. Department of Energy 
(DOE), which oversees most U.S. facilities where "bomb-grade" 
nuclear materials are stored (but not the NFS plant), announced 
enhanced security requirements for facilities where enriched 
uranium and plutonium are stored.

The security enhancements, according to the POGO report, will 
require that 11 of the 13 existing storage sites by 2008 be able 
"to protect against more than triple the number of armed 
attackers and more lethal weapons, than did pre-9/11 standards," 
according to a POGO release.

As a result, the DOE security costs will increase dramatically, 
POGO says.

Could Be Terrorist Targets

Peter Stockton, a POGO senior investigator, said during a Tuesday 
telephone interview that his organization's aim is to see a 
reduction of the amount of highly enriched uranium being stored 
and to improve security for the special nuclear material that 
remains in storage.

"Any high school student knows what you can do with highly 
enriched uranium," he said.

The May 19 POGO release indicates that "interviews with experts 
throughout the nuclear weapons complex" have led to the 
conclusion that some U.S. sites no longer need to house nuclear 
materials.

POGO also has concluded, according to its release, that special 
nuclear materials, including plutonium and highly enriched 
uranium, should be moved to other locations.

"In addition, efforts to immobilize or down-blend excess nuclear 
materials would also help save taxpayer dollars," the POGO report 
says.

Sites Urged To be Closed

Topping the list of sites that should be immediately 
de-inventoried (of special nuclear material) "is Lawrence 
Livermore National Laboratory located outside San Francisco," 
according to the POGO report.

"Department officials have confirmed POGO's assertion that 
weapons protecting Livermore are not as lethal as they should be 
due to encroaching neighborhoods surrounding the facility, making 
it more vulnerable to an attack," a POGO release says.

Other sites needing to be immediately "de-inventoried" of highly 
enriched uranium and/or plutonium, according to the POGO report, 
include:

 the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which has "almost no 
security to protect 1,000 cans of Uranium-233, an attractive 
material for terrorists intent on building an improvised nuclear 
device;"

 the Sandia National Laboratory and Los Alamos National 
Laboratory Technical Area 18 in New Mexico, "which have serious 
safety or security risks that merit speeding up existing 
relocation plans;" and

 the Hanford Reservation in Washington, "which failed a security 
exercise after 9/11 and has no plan for relocating plutonium from 
the Los Alamos Molten Plutonium Reactor Experiment."

POGO Described

POGO, according to its Web site, "investigates, exposes, and 
seeks to remedy systemic abuses of power, mismanagement, and 
subservience by the federal government to powerful special 
interests."

Founded in 1981, POGO says it is "is a politically-independent, 
nonprofit watchdog that strives to promote a government that is 
accountable to the citizenry." 

 ฉ 2005 East Tennessee Network - R.A.I.D. (Regionalized Access
Internet Database). All rights reserved.   
*****************************************************************
 28 Portland Press Herald: Lawmakers deny 'crazy' nuclear waste dump rumor

 Maine's delegation says closed military bases are not at risk
of becoming nuclear waste facilities. Tell Us: Would you support
storing nuclear waste on Maine land vacated by a military base?

  Wednesday, June 1, 2005 

By JEN FISH , Portland Press Herald Writer

Members of Maine's congressional delegation said Tuesday there
is no chance that the state's military bases, if closed, could
become nuclear waste repositories. 

That possibility began circulating several days ago after the
U.S. House of Representatives passed a spending bill for energy
and water development. Tucked in the bill is $15.5 million in
funding for reprocessing nuclear waste from power plants and
building an interim nuclear waste dump. 

The actual bill does not specify where the temporary dump would
be, but a report attached to the bill suggests the Department of
Energy investigate other federally owned sites, including closed
military bases. 

Maine officials, who are in the midst of fighting against the
closure of the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard and the realignment of
the Brunswick Air Naval Station, called any future plans for the
bases premature and added that the mere suggestion of a nuclear
waste facility at either location was ridiculous at best. 

Rep. Tom Allen, D-Maine, called the provision "crazy" and stated
emphatically that there would be no such site in Maine. 

"This is an outrageous suggestion," Allen said Tuesday. "First
of all, no bases have been closed yet. I think more likely than
not, this is coming from members of Congress who haven't been
able to solve the Yucca Mountain issue yet." 

The federal government has chosen Yucca Mountain in Nevada as a
central, permanent nuclear waste repository. But various legal
challenges and other problems have delayed the opening of Yucca
Mountain until at least 2010. 

In the meantime, the government has stored its nuclear waste at
129 different interim sites scattered around the country. But a
spokesman for the Department of Energy said Yucca Mountain
remains the "right policy for America." 

"The department is currently reviewing the proposal," said Mike
Waldron of the Department of Energy. "However, we remain
committed to the opening of the Yucca Mountain repository in the
Nevada desert where spent nuclear fuel can be permanently,
safely stored away from population centers or other sensitive
environmental areas." 

Antonia Ferrier, spokeswoman for Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine,
said the senator would never allow the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard
to be converted into a repository for nuclear waste. 

"The possibility of having a nuclear waste repository there is
reprehensible," Ferrier said. "Sen. Snowe would ensure that no
such language is included in the Senate version of the bill." 

Ferrier went on to say that the shipyard - which is located on
Seavey Island at the mouth of the Piscataqua River - would be
"completely ill-suited to house nuclear waste." 

Her sentiments were echoed by representatives of Sen. Susan
Collins, R-Maine, who said the senator would vigorously oppose
any efforts to put a nuclear waste facility in Maine. 

Staff Writer Jen Fish can be contacted at 282-8229 or at: 

*****************************************************************
 29 NRC: The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Notice of Meeting
 
                         FR Doc E5-2762 
[Federal Register: June 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 104)] 
[Notices] [Page 31546] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01jn05-147]                         
 
The Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste (ACNW) will hold its 
160th meeting on June 15-17, 2005, Room T-2B3, Two White Flint 
North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The date of 
this meeting was previously published in the Federal Register on 
Wednesday, December 8, 2004 (69 FR 71084).
 
The schedule for this meeting is as follows: Wednesday, June 15, 
2005 The Working Group Chairman will state the objectives for 
this Working Group Meeting and provide an overview of the planned 
technical sessions. Invited experts will also be introduced at 
this time. The purpose of this Working Group Meeting is to allow 
the Committee to comment on draft guidance that is being prepared 
to implement the License Termination Rule.
 
Thursday, June 16, 2005 10:15 a.m.-10:30 a.m.: Opening Statement 
(Open)--The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks regarding the 
conduct of today's sessions.
 
10:30 a.m.-12 Noon: Discussion on International Commission on 
Radiation Protection (ICRP) Foundation Documents (Open)--The 
Committee will provide comments to the staff on the Committee's 
review of the latest ICRP Foundation Documents.
 
1:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.: Preparation of ACNW Reports/Letters 
(Open)--The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW reports on 
matters considered during this meeting.
 
3:45 p.m.-5 p.m.: Risk-Informing NMSS Activities (Open)--The 
Committee will be briefed on NMSS staff approach to risk-inform 
decision-making for nuclear materials and waste applications.
 
5 p.m.-5:20 p.m.: Draft White Paper on High-Level Waste 
Transportation Issues (Open)--The Committee will discuss the 
elements of a proposed White Paper on the transportation of spent 
nuclear fuel and other high- level waste.
 
5:20 p.m.-5:40 p.m.: Draft ACNW White Paper on Low-Level Waste 
(Open)-- The Committee will comment on the draft outline for the 
proposed White Paper on low-level radioactive waste management 
issues.
 
Friday, June 17, 2005 8:30 a.m.-8:40 a.m.: Opening Remarks by the 
ACNW Chairman (Open)--The ACNW Chairman will make opening remarks 
regarding the conduct of today's sessions.
 
8:40 a.m.-10 a.m.: Report on Review of Center for Nuclear Waste 
Regulatory.
 
Analyses' (CNWRA) Research Program (Open)--The Committee will 
hear a report from Committee members on the CNWRA Research 
Program based on their visit to, and discussions with, the Center 
in April 2005.
 
10 a.m.-11 a.m.: Discussion of Possible Letters (Open)--The 
Committee will discuss prepared draft letters and determine 
whether letters would be written on topics discussed during the 
meeting.
 
11 a.m.-12 Noon: Miscellaneous (Open)--The Committee will discuss 
matters related to the conduct of ACNW activities, and specific 
issues that were not completed during previous meetings, as time 
and availability of information permit. Discussions may include 
future Committee Meetings.
 
Procedures for the conduct of and participation in ACNW meetings 
were published in the Federal Register on October 18, 2004 (69 FR 
61416). In accordance with these procedures, oral or written 
statements may be presented by members of the public. Electronic 
recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the 
meeting that are open to the public. Persons desiring to make 
oral statements should notify Ms. Sharon A. Steele, (Telephone 
301-415-6805), between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. ET, as far in advance 
as practicable so that appropriate arrangements can be made to 
schedule the necessary time during the meeting for such 
statements. Use of still, motion picture, and television cameras 
during this meeting will be limited to selected portions of the 
meeting as determined by the ACNW Chairman.
 
Information regarding the time to be set aside for taking 
pictures may be obtained by contacting the ACNW office prior to 
the meeting. In view of the possibility that the schedule for 
ACNW meetings may be adjusted by the Chairman as necessary to 
facilitate the conduct of the meeting, persons planning to attend 
should notify Ms. Steele as to their particular needs.
 
Further information regarding topics to be discussed, whether the 
meeting has been canceled or rescheduled, the Chairman's ruling 
on requests for the opportunity to present oral statements and 
the time allotted, therefore can be obtained by contacting Ms. 
Steele. ACNW meeting agenda, meeting transcripts, and letter 
reports are available through the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) 
at pdr@nrc.gov, or by calling the PDR at 1-800-397-4209, or from 
the Publicly Available Records System component of NRC's document 
system (ADAMS) which is accessible from the NRC Web site at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html or 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ doc-collections/ (ACRS & ACNW Mtg 
schedules/agendas).
 
Video Teleconferencing service is available for observing open 
sessions of ACNW meetings. Those wishing to use this service for 
observing ACNW meetings should contact Mr. Theron Brown, ACNW 
Audiovisual Technician (301-415-8066), between 7:30 a.m. and 3:45 
p.m. ET, at least 10 days before the meeting to ensure the 
availability of this service.
 
Individuals or organizations requesting this service will be 
responsible for telephone line charges and for providing the 
equipment and facilities that they use to establish the video 
teleconferencing link. The availability of video teleconferencing 
services is not guaranteed.
 
Dated: May 25, 2005.
 
Andrew L. Bates, Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. E5-2762 Filed 5-31-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste, Meeting on Planning and 
 
                         FR Doc E5-2763 
[Federal Register: June 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 104)] 
[Notices] [Page 31547] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01jn05-148] [[Page 31547]]
 
Procedures; Notice of Meeting The Advisory Committee on Nuclear 
Waste (ACNW) will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on June 
16, 2005, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. 
The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the 
exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel 
matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and 
practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
 
The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Thursday, 
June 16, 2005--8:30 a.m.-10 a.m. The Committee will discuss 
proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this 
meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and 
facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as 
appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee.
 
Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or 
written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, 
Mr. Richard K. Major (Telephone: 301/415-7366) between 8 a.m. and 
5:15 p.m. (ET) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so 
that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings 
will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that 
are open to the public.
 
Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by 
contacting the Designated Federal Official between 8:30 a.m. and 
5:15 p.m. (ET). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged 
to contact the above named individual at least two working days 
prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in 
the agenda.
 
Dated: May 25, 2005.
 
Michael R. Snodderly, Acting Branch Chief, ACRS/ACNW.
 
[FR Doc. E5-2763 Filed 5-31-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 31 Pahrump Valley Times: Nye gets a larger slice of oversight funding pie 

June 1, 2005

ENERGY DEPARTMENT PROVIDES MONEY FOR REPOSITORY STUDY 

PVT 

Nye County staff met several weeks ago with representatives of
the nine counties that are adjacent to the Nevada Test Site for
final agreement on how the oversight funds provided by Congress
would be allocated this fiscal year. The 10-county group is
called the Affected Units of Local Government (AULG). This group
is authorized to officially "oversee" work that the U. S.
Department of Energy (DOE) conducts on the Yucca Mountain
Project. The state of Nevada also receives oversight funds but
its budget allocation is identified separately from the group.

 This year, Nye County requested a larger portion of the
allocated funds. This request was prompted by the fact that the
Energy Department will shortly be submitting its license
application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for the Yucca
Mountain repository this year.

 This action will result in a significant workload on county
staff and consultants as they must critique the technical
accuracy of the application and submit formal contentions during
the license review process. Nye County has special status due to
the fact that this is the site county for the repository.

 Nye County staff is pleased to report that the 10-county group
agreed that Nye's percentage of the total distribution should
increase. In addition, the group agreed to support Nye's efforts
to establish funding through Section 117 of the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act. 

This provision authorizes the Department to fund on-site
representative functions that apply only to Nevada, American
Indian tribes and the host county. 

The third important agreement reached is the groups should work
more cooperatively with the Energy Department and our
congressional representatives to assure the annual appropriation
for oversight funds is adequate for each county's needs. 

For comment or questions, please e-mail
webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com
Copyright ฉ Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2005 
*****************************************************************
 32 Corporate Watch: ATOMIC WASTE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE GARDEN
 	
The Earth is not dying, it is being killed, and those who are
killing it have names and addresses. - Utah Phillips--> 

Chris Grimshaw

 Britain holds hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of lethal
radioactive waste. The stockpile of plutonium alone totals 4300
cubic metres. More than once plutonium has been known to go
missing from Sellafield. But very rarely is plutonium found
again. 

So what happens when anomolous levels of plutonium are
discovered in a back garden in suburban middle England,
apparently having escaped from a site owned by a well-known
multinational with documented links to the nuclear industry?

Answer: absolutely nothing

 Raymond Fox's life has been wrecked by chemical and radioactive
pollution leaking from a former Shell petrochemicals depot
behind his old home in Earley, Reading [1]. Since being made
critically ill by the pollution, three surveys of the property
have been conducted by independent scientists. Two were
conducted by Dr Kartar Badsha on behalf of Fox's insurers, Royal
Sun Alliance and one by Dr Chris Busby of the Low-Level
Radiation Campaign. All three investigations found raised levels
of radioactive contaminants, far in excess of background levels.

Although well below national safety limits, both scientists
considered them major long term health hazards and recommended a
full investigation of the area in order to find the source of
the pollution. Fox's own investigations indicate that nuclear
materials were stored on the site, possibly including a small
reactor, and that the site caught fire in 1986, distributing
radioactive materials across the area.

 Fearful of a cover up Fox has imposed a condition on the
Environment Agency's testing of his land: that each sample
should be split in two, with one going for independent analysis.

The Agency refused this condition and had their consultants
Harwell Scientifics, test the garden next door. This test found
only normal background levels of radioactivity. On this evidence
DEFRA (the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs) decided to do nothing.

 A Clandestine Meeting 

With the backing of Caroline Lucas MEP, Fox had hoped that the
European Commission would be able to help him. However the
European investigation was moved from the Directorate General
for the Environment, to that for Energy, which has quietly
dropped his case. They seem to be using it as little more than a
bargaining piece to pressure the UK government into implementing
parts of the 'Euratom' radiation treaty that should have been
ratified into British law many years ago.

 Whilst Corporate Watch was investigating the case last summer,
the Commission and DEFRA were holding a meeting regarding the
case. The Commission was not satisfied with DEFRA's report on
the matter due to the discrepancies between the data in the
Environment Agency's survey and those conducted by independent
scientists. So the commission sent experts to meet with
representatives of DEFRA. The DEFRA team was Chris Wilson, Steve
Allen and Fiona Shand. Corporate Watch attempted to interview
Wilson and Shand in August of 2004. Both of them refused. Shand
claimed then that she knew very little about the case.

 Ultimately the August 19th meeting concluded that Fox's case
was 'unsubstantiated', and that the 'results of the different
analyses were not completely concordant (e.g. regarding the
isotopic ratios of some radionuclides), due to differences
between measurement methods.' After two letters of inquiry as to
progress with the case, Commissioner Piebalgs finally informed
Caroline Lucas of the meeting and its outcome on 2nd February
2005.

 More Unanswered Questions 

Corporate Watch approached DEFRA and Piebalg's office in April
2005 to ask why no one was informed of the meeting for so very
long, and why Fox and others were not asked to attend it or
given any input to it. DEFRA simply replied that it was because
it was a 'technical' meeting. The Commission, on the other hand,
took over three weeks to answer and told us that Fox, Busby,
Badsha and Lucas had not been informed of the meeting because it
did not directly concern the Fox's case. We got back in touch
with the Commission to ask how this could be, when Commissioner
Piebalgs himself had told Lucas, in his February letter, that
the meeting concerned the discrepancies in the survey data from
Fox's garden and apparently provided their reason to drop the
case. Although an answer has been promised several times, at the
time of writing they have yet to reply. Spokeswoman Marilyn
Carruthers refused to comment on the case by telephone.

 Dr Chris Busby, one of the two scientists to test Fox's land,
has a different explanation of the data: 'The differences,' he
says, 'were due to the fact that the measurements showing the
anomolous high plutonium levels and strange isotope ratios were
made on Mr Fox's property and the ones that were made by the
Environment Agency were made somewhere else... What would Mr
Piebalgs say if the reactor collapsed next week and
concentrations of Cobalt-60 or Plutonium-239 in the Thames began
suddenly to rise, contaminating millions...?' he added.

 Legal Liabilities 

Fox continues his struggle through the courts. His adviser told
us that the case should have been referred to the European Court
of Justice when Ray first went to court in 1999. Under the
Nuclear Installations Act, he said, UK courts have no
jurisdiction in dealing with any claim for damage from
radioactive contamination causing personal injury and property
damage. Under the Brussels Convention (supplementary to the
Paris Convention on Third Party Liability in the Field of
Nuclear Energy) twelve European governments contribute to a fund
to compensate 'if a nuclear incident were to cause damage
totalling more than... approximately ฃ150 million'. Fox argues
that damages to himself, his family and property, and to many
hundreds or thousands of others in the surrounding area would
certainly exceed ฃ150 million and would set a precedent for many
more claims. This may explain the European Commission's
reluctance to properly investigate.
 
[1] see Corporate Watch Newsletters 11, 14, 16 &20 

  + Newsletter 24 June/July 2005   
  + 1 - THE G8 SUMMIT: BETTER LIVING THROUGH CORPORATE RULE? 
The G7 was established in 1976 with the stated objective of
stabilising the world economy. Providing a stable framework for
global economic growth is still the main priority for the G8
today. With corporate control over the democratic process
reaching unparalleled levels in all the G8 countries, what this
'stability' increasingly means in policy terms for the G8, is
making life easier for transnational corporations. 
  + 2 - Diary  Diary June-July 2005 
  + 3 - LONG LUNCHES, DRINKS AND DINNERS  Editors of the Sun
have long maintained a very cosy relationship with Downing
Street, David Yelland, former editor of the Sun and now Senior
Vice Chairman of Weber Shandwick UK, has revealed. Indeed the
secret of great media manipulation is the personal touch.
Improving the reputation of the Metropolitan Police, he said,
was due to 'long lunches, drinks and dinners'. 
  + 4 - GLASGOW'S SOUTHSIDE FACES MOTORWAY THREAT  Construction
is scheduled to start this summer on Britain's biggest new
roadbuilding scheme: the M74 northern extension in Glasgow.
Costing at least ฃ500 million and due for completion in 2008,
the proposed route includes homes, businesses and historic
buildings in Glasgow's southern suburbs. One MSP has described
it as a 'five-mile, six-lane monster defacing Glasgow'. 
  + 5 - SCOTLAND PLC: THE SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE'S CORPORATE LINKS 
July 1st 1999 marked the return of a Scottish parliament after
almost 300 years. For most of its history, Scotland was an
independent country, a separate European nation with its own
economy, foreign policy, monarchy and armed forces. After the
Act of Union in 1707, Scotland became part of Great Britain, but
a demand for self-government has existed ever since, with the
campaign for devolution gaining momentum in the 1980s across the
political spectrum. 
  + 6 - CLIMATE CHANGE  Oil and the G8 governments
 Oil is the key commodity for most national economies, and the
G8 countries are no exception. The importance of oil for the US
economy and the links between the Bush family and oil
corporations are well known. 
  + 7 - AFRICA  At the 2001 G8 summit in Genoa, the world
leaders announced the creation of the Africa Action Plan (AAP) –
dubbed a 'Marshall Plan for Africa' by the media. This was an
implicit suggestion that these governments were going to rebuild
Africa in the same way that, after the Second World War, the
U.S. rebuilt a shattered Europe (in a programme outlined by
Secretary of State George Marshall). 
  + 8 - UK AID: TEACHING TANZANIA TO WANT WATER PRIVATISATION 
'Young plants need rain, businesses need investment. Our old
industries are like dry crops and privatisation brings the rain.
When the harvest comes, there is plenty for everyone.' 
  + 9 - HYDRATING THE G8  The G8 Summit is keen on bottled
water, if the location of its summits is anything to go by. The
2003 Summit was held at Evian, home to French company Danone's
major brand. This year the G8 is coming to Gleneagles, source of
the water for Highland Spring. 
  + 10 - THE ALCOPOP SUMMIT  During the G8 summit in July, as
Tony Blair beds down in the Gleneagles Hotel, owned by drinks
company Diageo, is he aware that his host is accused of forcing
products into the African market, undermining labour rights and
lobbying for free trade? Well, yes. As we see, Diageo is the
very model of a modern Neo-Liberal, New-Labour company... 
  + 11 - ATOMIC WASTE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE GARDEN  Britain holds
hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of lethal radioactive
waste. The stockpile of plutonium alone totals 4300 cubic
metres. More than once plutonium has been known to go missing
from Sellafield. But very rarely is plutonium found again. 
  + 12 - BABYLONIAN TIMES     
*****************************************************************
 33 asahi.com: Monju plant OK'd, but safety not guaranteed

06/01/2005 

In Egyptian mythology, the phoenix is a symbol of immortality.
It is said the holy bird sets itself on fire every several
hundred years to rise anew from the ashes to start another long
life. 

More than 20 years ago, I visited the the Super-Phoenix
fast-breeder nuclear reactor near the French city of Lyons on
the Rhone river. 

This type of reactor is said to yield more nuclear fuel than it
consumes. I had a strong sense that the officials who explained
how things worked were very proud to be on the cutting edge of
nuclear technology. 

At that time, the Super-Phoenix was the sole demonstration
fast-breeder reactor in the world. But its operation was later
halted because of a sodium-coolant leak and other accidents. 

In 1998, a decision was made to dismantle it. It signified a
policy change by France, which was known around the world for
promoting the use of nuclear power. 

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government in
a lawsuit on the Monju prototype fast-breeder reactor in
Tsuruga, Fukui Prefecture. The ruling scrapped a lower court
decision that had invalidated state authorization to build it. 

For residents of Tsuruga who filed the suit in 1985, the
eventual outcome of their 20-year court battle must be hard to
accept after contradictory court rulings. 

The top court ruled that authorization to build the Monju
reactor was not given illegally because no serious errors were
committed when safety inspections were performed. 

I wish to point out, however, that the court's endorsement of
the government's contention that it acted legally in approving
the Monju's construction is not the same thing as whether the
reactor can be operated without problems. 

The name Monju is said to come from Monju Bosatsu, a Buddhist
saint of wisdom and intellect. This is an exalted name, just
like ``Super-Phoenix.'' The wishes underlying these names given
to the fast-breeder reactors in France and Japan are
understandable. But the nuts and bolts of daily operation are
left to mere humans. 

Harnessing nuclear energy is a difficult undertaking with many
unknowns. Those who tackle it must always take a careful and
humble approach. 

--The Asahi Shimbun, May 31(IHT/Asahi: June 1,2005) 
*****************************************************************
 34 asahi.com: EDITORIAL: Ruling on Monju reactor

06/01/2005 

Ten years have passed since the prototype Monju fast-breeder
reactor stopped operations because of a sodium coolant leak.
Monju is sometimes called ``a dream reactor'' because it
generates more plutonium than it consumes. 

The Supreme Court abrogated a ruling by the Kanazawa branch of
the Nagoya High Court, which had invalidated the government's
approval to build the reactor. The branch said the safety
screening of a government agency before the reactor's
construction was inadequate. 

The high court's decision, handed down in 2003, was the first
time residents had won a lawsuit concerning a nuclear reactor.
If the government had lost the case at the Supreme Court, it
would have been forced to scrap Monju. 

As it turned out, the nation's top court completely reversed the
decision of the lower court. 

Nevertheless, the Monju project will be confronted with
difficulties, both in terms of funding and safety. 

The Supreme Court and the high court branch reached completely
opposite conclusions because they viewed the government's
screening of the reactor's construction plan for safety
differently. 

The high court recognized the possibility of serious accidents
occurring at the Monju reactor, the main concern of residents
who filed the lawsuit. The branch said in its ruling that the
government screening process of the Monju plan was seriously
flawed because it had overlooked such a possibility. 

In contrast, the Supreme Court said: ``The basic design of the
plan, which was subject to safety screening, cannot be said in
broad terms to have failed to be up to standards. Accidents
could be prevented by designs in subsequent stages.'' 

The Supreme Court thus rebutted the high court's finding of the
possibility of serious accidents and paid respect to the
judgment of the government's Nuclear Safety Commission. 

The courts' traditional approach has been to trust the judgment
of administrative agencies in matters concerning nuclear power
generation. The Supreme Court on Monday followed this tradition. 

What will become of Monju in the days ahead? The Japan Nuclear
Cycle Development Institute, which runs Monju, has started
preparations for reinforcing weak spots that came to light in
the 1995 sodium-leak accident. Now that the decision of the
Supreme Court has been given, efforts will increase to start
full-blown construction work and resume operations in two years. 

But the Supreme Court's ruling will not get rid of the problems
bedeviling Monju and the nuclear fuel cycle in general. Since
fast-breeder reactors are hardly cost-effective, many countries
have given up hopes of using them for practical purposes. 

In Japan, as much as 2.8 trillion yen has already been spent on
the fast-breeder reactor and its related projects. Still, there
are no plans to build a demonstration reactor in the next stage
of Monju. 

The next Long-term Plan on Nuclear Energy, which the government
is now preparing to revise, is expected to state that operations
of fast-breeder reactors on a commercial basis will start
``around 2050, or possibly later.'' 

Electric power companies want the same type of reactors as the
existing ones for cost reasons, even when the existing ones
become unusable because of aging. 

The fast-breeder reactor is based on technology whose viability
remains unknown. If there are no hopes that the fast-breeder
reactor can be put to practical use, it is conceivable to scrap
Monju. 

Because nobody knows what the supply-and-demand equation of
energy will be in Japan and the world, retaining the reactor and
handing down its technology to later generations is also a valid
proposition. 

At any rate, the government must carry out work for Monju in a
way satisfactory to society and local residents. The Supreme
Court's ruling has done nothing to dispel fears among the
residents. 

The lawsuit over the Monju reactor took too much time. If a
single suit over the safety of a nuclear reactor takes as many
as 20 years to conclude, the courts cannot keep watch over the
safety of the government's projects. 

--The Asahi Shimbun, May 31(IHT/Asahi: June 1,2005) 
  
*****************************************************************
 35 NEWS.com.au: ERA fined $150,000 over water contamination 

By Karen Michelmore 
June 01, 2005                       
From: AAP                                               

URANIUM miner Energy Resources Australia (ERA) has been fined 
$150,000 after its workers drank and showered in water 
contaminated with uranium last year. But the decision against ERA 
- which made a $38.6 million profit in 2004 - has sparked calls 
for harsher penalties to be introduced.

 Darwin Magistrate Vince Luppino convicted ERA on two charges
and dismissed a third following the company's guilty plea last
month.

 The first charge related to the water contamination at the
Ranger mine in World Heritage-listed Kakadu National Park.

 The second stemmed from a series of incidents in which
contaminated vehicles were driven off the mine site.

 On one occasion, children built sandcastles from mud
contaminated with uranium that had leaked from one of the
vehicles left at a mechanic's workshop.

 ERA was fined a total $150,000 plus costs, which include
$25,000 in prosecution costs.

 Twenty-eight workers fell ill with spontaneous vomiting,
gastric upsets, headaches or skin rashes after drinking or
showering in the water in March last year.

 A total of 159 workers were exposed to the contamination after
the process water - used during the uranium extraction process -
was mistakenly connected to the drinking water supply on March
23.

 The error was not discovered for 10 hours until a supervisor
drank bitter-tasting water from a cooler in the lunchroom and
suspected it was tainted.

 The plant was shut down for two weeks while investigations were
carried out.

 Magistrate Luppino said the contamination was foreseeable and
could easily have been avoided by "basic and inexpensive
equipment".

 No long-term physical damage had been done but Mr Luppino said
the potential for harm - both to workers and to the sensitive
Kakadu environment - was serious.

 He conceded the penalties available to him - a maximum fine of
$300,000 on the three charges - was small compared with ERA's
wealth.

 "Even if I was to impose the maximum fine ... there would be
very little bearing on ERA's bottom line," Mr Luppino said.

 ERA chief executive Harry Kenyon-Slaney said the company deeply
regretted the incidents, which had resulted in ERA's first
prosecution in 25 years of operation.

 "In conjunction with our regulators, we have introduced a wide
range of measures designed to prevent incidents of this nature
from ever occurring in the future," he said.

 The Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF) welcomed the
conviction against ERA but said the penalty was not harsh enough.

 "We are looking at a situation where 150 people were affected
by poisoned and contaminated water," ACF spokesman Dave Sweeney
said.

 "That's $1000 per person. It's not a lot of sorry money."

 He demanded the federal Government act on a 2003 Senate
Committee report that found there had been 110 pollution
incidents and numerous breaches of environmental requirements at
the Ranger mine since 1981.

 Mr Sweeney said the report had recommended improved regulation
and monitoring of the mine.

 Comment was being sought from the federal Government. 		  		 		
*****************************************************************
 36 Brattleboro Reformer: House OKs bill on VY storage

June 01, 2005 Brattleboro, VT                                                                                 
 			 								 					
By ROSS SNEYD 
Associated Press

MONTPELIER -- The House approved a bill Tuesday that would allow
Vermont Yankee to apply for Public Service Board permission to
store spent nuclear fuel on the grounds of its Vernon plant.

 The 113-5 approval of the bill belied the monthslong
negotiations among legislative leaders and Yankee owner Entergy
Nuclear that led to the deal.

 In return for the opportunity to store more nuclear waste in
casks in Vernon, Entergy would pay the state $2.5 million per
year through the 2012 end of its current operating license.
Those payments would happen only if the company also wins
approval to increase by 20 percent the amount of power it can
produce at Yankee. 

Combined with a deal earlier negotiated by the Douglas
administration, Entergy would pay an estimated $28 million into
a new "clean energy fund" that would pay for the development of
renewable electric-generating sources to replace the Yankee and
Hydro-Quebec power that currently represents two-thirds of the
state's energy supply.

 Despite the wide vote of approval, the issue was not an easy
one for many lawmakers, especially those from Windham County.
Rep. Sarah Edwards, P-Brattleboro, reluctantly supported it
because of the clean energy fund.

 "I voted yes on this bill, trying to salvage something, because
of the clean energy fund which will be created, helping us to
get further away from our addiction to nuclear power," she said.
"The further we move away, the less likely it will be that we
are held hostage when this issue of storage of high-level
nuclear waste re-emerges in 2012."

 Some Republicans were reluctant to support the bill because
they believed that legislative leaders forced Entergy to pay
into the newly created fund as a cost of being allowed to
continue doing business in Vermont.

 The Vermont Yankee nuclear plant will run out of a place to
store its waste as early as 2007 and needs the dry cask storage
to continue operating.

 "I do not believe in forced agreements where one party faces an
ultimatum if they do not agree," said Rep. Kevin Endres,
R-Milton, although he ultimately voted in favor because he said
the low-cost electricity produced by Yankee was needed for the
state.

 Others were angry that the deal had been negotiated in secret
among Entergy and legislative leaders.

 "This bill was gutted and rewritten behind closed doors with
Entergy and without the public," said Rep. Steve Darrow,
D-Dummerston, who voted against it.

 The House acted swiftly, completing its consideration of the
bill in just a single afternoon and sent it on to the Senate,
where it's likely to win approval later this week. 


Copyright ฉ 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This
*****************************************************************
 37 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford Reservation: Waste not, glow not
 
[seattlepi.com]     

        [OPINION] 
Wednesday, June 1, 2005 

SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD

Washington voters are sick of the federal government's abuse of
the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. Now, the feds are considering a
plan for storing more waste at Hanford, which could literally
make Washingtonians ill with cancer. 

The U.S. House of Representatives last week approved a spending
bill that includes money for the Energy Department to consider
storing spent nuclear fuel at Hanford or other sites. Democratic
U.S. Rep. Jay Inslee of Bainbridge Island unsuccessfully tried
to strip the offending language from the measure. 

Surprisingly, three Republicans from Washington -- U.S. Reps.
Dave Reichert, Cathy McMorris and Doc Hastings -- didn't join in
voting for the amendment. Hastings, who missed the vote because
of a family illness, said in a statement that the energy and
water bill won't change the lack of overall authority for the
Department of Energy to store commercial nuclear waste at
Hanford temporarily. 

As Hastings noted, the underlying problem pushing a new look at
interim storage sites is the lack of a permanent national
repository. The proposed Yucca Mountain storage site has been
plagued with problems, raising giant questions whether it will
be the solution Hastings and others envision. 

If Yucca can't move forward, any interim storage site could
become permanent. The House spending bill directs the Energy
Department to look at interim storage at existing nuclear
facilities in Hanford, Idaho and South Carolina, as well as
closed military bases. 

As Heart of America Northwest warns, there are good legal and
political reasons to fear that Hanford will be selected. State
leaders need to work hard to prevent further storage of waste
until existing problems are cleaned up. Shipping highly
radioactive waste to Hanford will cause some illnesses, Heart of
America says, especially if an accident occurs along routes
through Bellevue or other cities. 

The Senate has yet to pass an energy spending bill. It should
reject any efforts to add waste at Hanford or slow the cleanup. 


  [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
ฉ1996-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 38 Tri-City Herald: Fluor stops cleanup protest 

This story was published Wednesday, June 1st, 2005 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

Hanford appears finally to have a new contractor for cleanup of
the river corridor after Fluor Corp. announced Tuesday that it
has withdrawn its protest to the $1.9 billion contract award. 

The status of the contract to clean up the Hanford nuclear
reservation along the Columbia River has been in limbo since
2003. 

Most recently, Washington Closure was awarded a seven-year
contract to clean up the 210 square miles of the Hanford nuclear
reservation along the Columbia River in March. But the
transition of the work to Washington Closure was halted in early
April after losing bidder Fluor questioned whether the contract
had been properly awarded. 

The Department of Energy told Hanford employees late Tuesday
afternoon that Washington Closure, a limited liability
corporation led by Washington Group International, will resume
work toward the transition of the contract. That's expected to
happen Monday. 

"We've been standing by since April, and we're ready to resume
exactly where we left off," said Jack Herrmann, a spokesman for
Washington Group International. 

Washington Closure will take over from Bechtel Hanford. Bechtel
Hanford's contract has been extended 11 times to continue clean
up while the Department of Energy worked to get a new contract
awarded. 

Fluor Corp., one of three finalists for the contract, concluded
that DOE had conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the bids
for the project, the company announced in a written statement
Tuesday. 

The protest made to the Government Accountability Office had
questioned whether DOE made factual errors, treated bidders
differently and departed from its announced evaluation criteria. 

But after filing the protest, Fluor received substantially more
information and more detailed information from DOE on the bid
award, Fluor said. 

"While Fluor does disagree with elements of the evaluation and
ultimate award decision, Fluor has decided to withdraw its
protest," Fluor said in a prepared statement. Fluor declined to
elaborate on the statement, which also was sent to its employees
Tuesday. 

The price Fluor bid for the project was very close to Washington
Closure's bid, and the technical and management proposals also
were "extremely close," Fluor said. 

"Having completed the review of the additional record provided
as a result of the protest, Fluor believed it to be in the best
interests of all concerned, and in particular, the Washington
stake holders anxious for the risk reduction offered by this
important cleanup work, to withdraw the protest," Fluor said. 

Hanford produced plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons
program for more than 40 years. 

The river corridor contract includes cleaning up reactor areas
in northern Hanford and cleaning up the 300 Area just north of
Richland where fuel was fabricated and processes tested for use
at the production scale. Hundreds of contaminated buildings need
to be torn down and waste sites and burial grounds dug up. 

The contract includes placing several plutonium production
reactors in safe storage. The reactors will be torn down to
their radioactive cores, roofed and closed up. The contractor
also will operate a huge landfill for radioactive waste in
central Hanford. 

DOE's goal is to clean up the river corridor by 2015, and the
contract award includes incentives for Washington Closure to
accelerate work and finish in 2012. 

Washington Group International has teamed with Bechtel National
and CH2M Hill to form Washington Closure. All three have a long
history of doing work at Hanford. 

The March award to the Washington Closure team was the
Department of Energy's second attempt to award the contract. It
named a contractor for the work in 2003, but that contract was
successfully protested on the grounds that the award was based
on unrealistic cost calculations. DOE then prepared a new bid
solicitation and awarded the contract to Washington Closure this
spring. 

In 2003, the contract had been awarded to Washington Group,
which had then teamed with Fluor Federal Services and Earth
Tech. The successful protesters on the project were Washington
Group's new partners on the work, Bechtel and CH2M Hill. 

"We're glad the protest of the River Corridor contract has been
resolved," said Nick Ceto, Hanford project manager for the
Environmental Protection Agency. "It will take away all the
uncertainty plaguing us the last two years." 

EPA has had no position on which contractor should be given the
work, but it has pushed for work to move forward. 

"Moving forward with cleanup along the Columbia River is
critical to achieving the environmental and human health
protection goals of all of Hanford's stake holders," Ceto said. 

A 90-day transition to Washington Closure was announced in
April, and the transition was several days under way before
Fluor's protest was filed and the transition stopped. Bechtel
Hanford's latest contract extension is through the end of July. 

ฉ 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 39 sfweekly.com: Remember Los Alamos!             

| 2005-06-01
                               			
So some computers, disk drives, keys, and uranium have been 
"misplaced." Don't you still think UC should run the top-secret 
Los Alamos nuclear lab? Take quiz, find out. 

By Matt Palmquist

 Published: Wednesday, June 1, 2005
 



 	Week of Wednesday, June 1, 2005

It's been a rough couple of years at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, the remote New Mexico facility established during
World War II to help build the first atomic bomb. Last year,
most classified work at the lab was shut down in response to a
series of embarrassing safety and security lapses, the latest in
a line that reaches back to 2000 and the scandal surrounding Wen
Ho Lee, the scientist who took home classified data, was accused
by the government of spying, and eventually served all of nine
months after a five-year investigation. Since then, two lab
employees have been found guilty of embezzlement; more than 200
computers have been stolen or gone missing, in addition to
numerous lost or misplaced disks and drives; the keys to a
nuclear research center vanished for 16 hours; and, last summer,
as staffers were searching for two more missing Zip disks, they
were also investigating the transmission of classified
information over unsecured e-mail. The University of California
system has operated the lab since its opening in 1943 but,
because of the recent problems, now faces fierce competition
from the University of Texas to win the contract again. Of
course, the lab also has its defenders, who argue that the
unique science of nuclear research makes ordinary safety
precautions moot, and that the scientists must be free from
government hassles to move the field forward. 

Are you an apologist for Los Alamos? Take our quiz and find out! 


1) In 2000, two hard drives with detailed descriptions of known
weapons designs went missing at the laboratory. A few weeks
later, amid an FBI investigation, the drives reappeared behind a
copy machine in the same area from which they'd vanished. How do
you explain the phenomenon? 

A) It's obvious: A staff member spirited away the hard drives
long enough to copy the information, then returned them to the
lab when the FBI showed up. 

B) Looking behind the copy machine? See, that's why you call in
the FBI. 

C) Nuclear physics. 

2) Many have blamed the ongoing security lapses at Los Alamos on
an insular culture at the isolated facility, where safety
precautions are often regarded as secondary to scientific
pursuits. Some physicists, according to news reports, even sport
sarcastic bumper stickers that protest government oversight by
declaring, "Support a work-free safety zone." Is it fair to
blame scientists for the security lapses? 

A) Absolutely. Even if you're a genius, you should be able to
label a floppy disk. 

B) Hey, man, do you think Einstein was safe? 

C) Define "lapse." Meanwhile, has anyone seen my centrifuge? 

3) Last summer, Los Alamos suffered its most humiliating
safety-related embarrassment: A 20-year-old student intern,
working on experiments involving a class-4 pulsed laser that she
(mistakenly) believed to be turned off, allowed the intense,
invisible rays to penetrate her left eye, causing hemorrhaging
and a lesion to her retina. How can Los Alamos avoid such
incidents in the future? 

A) Stop hiring interns at a top-secret nuclear facility. 

B) Let folks from Texas run it; I'm sure that'll cut down on the
weapons-related mishaps. 

C) "Misplace" the laser. 

4) Which of these quotes do you think most accurately describes
the atmosphere at Los Alamos? 

A) Rep. Joe Barton (R-Texas), chair of the House Committee on
Energy and Commerce, at a Washington hearing on the lab's
security failures: "[T]here's probably better security at the
... public library over CDs and videos that are on the
Blockbuster top- 10 list." 

B) Los Alamos spokesman Jim Fallin: "[Employees] have a sense of
institutional embarrassment. They understand that what we're
talking about today is the survival of the institution." 

C) Harold Agnew, who helped develop the first atomic bomb and
was director of Los Alamos from 1970 to 1979, and who is an
adviser to the UC president on lab issues: "I'm just baffled." 

5) It's June 2003. You're an employee at Los Alamos. You've lost
two glass vials of plutonium-239, the highly carcinogenic
ingredient in nuclear bombs. Where do you look for them? (Note:
This is NOT a hypothetical question.) 

A) In the on-site waste-disposal drums; someone must have
mislabeled the vials and thrown them away, and that someone
should be fired. 

B) Behind the copy machine. (Bonus point for adding: "Hey, it
worked before.") 

C) eBay. 		
 		 		 	 		 			1 		 			 	 		 			2 		 			NEXT 			 
ฉ2005 All rights reserved. |     |       |      RSS                      
*****************************************************************
 40 The Daily Texan: UT to settle partnership for Los Alamos bid - 

Top Stories | 6/1/2005 
 
The System will sign a teaming agreement with Lockheed-Martin
 By Zachary Warmbrodt 

The UT System is expected to finalize a partnership this week
with Lockheed Martin to bid on Los Alamos National Laboratory,
according to UT System spokesman Michael Warden. 

"The work of Los Alamos is fundamental to our national
security," said James R. Huffines, chairman of the Board of
Regents in a written statement. "As one of the finest
institutions in the country, we have a duty to pursue this
proposal."
 
On May 12, The UT System Board of Regents authorized Chancellor
Mark Yudof to sign a teaming agreement with Lockheed Martin, the
defense-contractor leading the bid for management and operation
of the nuclear weapons lab. 

The University of California's board of regents announced
Thursday their intention to submit a proposal to manage the lab
jointly with Bechtel Group, Inc. The UC/Bechtel-led team also
includes Washington Group International, BWXT and a consortium
of New Mexico universities. Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory Director Michael Anastasio will lead UC/Bechtel's bid
proposal group, and if they win, he will also lead lab
management.
 
Lockheed Martin has signed on partners CH2M Hill and Fluor, with
UT System remaining the largest partner, said Lockheed Martin
spokesman Don Carson. Lockheed Martin has selected Sandia
National Laboratories' President C. Paul Robinson as its choice
for lab manager and bid team leader. Robinson also led the
weapons program at Los Alamos, which consists of 80 percent of
the laboratory's $2.2 billion budget, Carson said. 

In order to finance the UT/Lockheed bid proposal, UT System
regents also approved budgeting $1.2 million from the Available
University Fund, Warden said. The total includes salaries,
consultants, travel and supplies for participation in the
proposal.
 
The money will be taken out of the UT System administration's
budget and will not affect any distribution to UT-Austin, but
will influence how much money is available for the System's 14
other universities and health institutions. Constitutionally,
UT-Austin is the first to receive income from the Permanent
University Fund, followed by System administration and the other
institutions. 

The budgeting will span two fiscal year pay-offs Warden said,
and would be reimbursed out of the Department of Energy fee
awarded to UT System if it wins.
 
The student government of UT-San Antonio disapproves of the
System's expenditure. 

"The student government association of UTSA does not support the
funding for the Los Alamos bid to come from our share of the
Available University Fund given that we are underfunded and the
fastest growing UT institution in Texas," said UTSA SG President
Jason Palasota.
 
UC will be paying for its share of its bid proposal with part of
the management fee it receives from DOE, Harrington said.
 
A week after the UT System regents made their decision, the
National Nuclear Security Administration released its final
request for proposals, which stated that the winning team must
establish a separate, dedicated corporation to run the lab for
seven years, beginning a year from today. In return, the
management team will receive a fee of up to $79 million per
year. Thirty percent of the fee will be fixed, according to the
proposal, with the rest to be awarded based on performance. UC
currently receives a yearly fee as large as $8 million per year,
said UC spokesman Chris Harrington. 

After reviewing the RFP, defense contractor Northrop Grumman
announced its intention to drop out of the race May 26. 

Proposals are due July 19, and NNSA will award the contract by
Dec. 1, according to the RFP. 	   	 

    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************