*****************************************************************
06/28/05 ****     RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL)       **** VOL 13.148
*****************************************************************
   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 RIA Novosti: IAEA experts arrive in Iran to inspect nuclear faciliti
2 IranMania: N-inspectors back, Iran reassures worried world          
3 ITAR-TASS: Russia cooperating with Iran with regard to nonproliferat
4 Mos News: Russia to Continue Nuclear Cooperation With New Iranian Pr
5 Korea Times: US to Target North Korea-Linked Firms 
6 US: [NukeNet] Calls Needed Now Re Nuke Terrorism
7 US: [toeslist] US Plans to Resume Plutonium 238 Production - Report
8 US: Guardian Unlimited: Senate Energy Bill Faces GOP Opposition
9 US: Oregon Daily Emerald: The problem with the plutonium plan
10 US: Independent: US resumes production of Cold War plutonium 
11 Moscow Times: Growing Nuclear Blindness
12 Bellona: Ex-Northern Fleet captain sues Russian minister of defence 
13 BBC: Falklands ships had nuclear arms
14 BBC: India urges end to nuclear curbs
 
                         NUCLEAR REACTORS
 
15 US: [progchat_action] Fire at Nuclear Power Plant
16 US: NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc.; Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1; 
17 US: NRC: Department of Energy; Three Mile Island 2 Independent Spent
18 US: NRC: Entergy Operations, Incorporated; Notice of Withdrawal of
19 US: NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Incorporated; Notice of
20 Mos News: Russia Set to Build More Reactors for Iran - 
21 Independent: Don't hold your breath on new nuclear
22 US: BJ: Nuclear change in the wind - 
23 Guardian Unlimited: France Choosen As Site for Nuclear Reactor
 
                          NUCLEAR SECURITY
 
24 US: Paducah Sun: Cylinder security concerns guards 
 
                          NUCLEAR SAFETY
 
25 US: AxisofLogic: The Excessive Use of Weapons and Banned Weapons 
26 US: Guardian Unlimited: US to produce deadly isotope
 
                         NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
 
27 US: [du-list] Cameco Corporation's proposal to make, transport, bu
28 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN FUNDS: Bill offers counties greater fre
29 Las Vegas RJ: Nevadans' legislationaims to help protectDOE whistle-b
30 NRC: Application for a License To Export High-Enriched Uranium
31 US: AU ABC: Uranium mining inquiry may lead to nuclear power inquiry
32 US: BW: US calls on TWI help for nuclear waste work
33 US: Deseret News: No prison for Goshute
 
                           PEACE
 
34 US: The Olympian: Olympia considers nuclear-free zone
 
                        US DEPT. OF ENERGY
 
35 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Don't let DOE review itself
36 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford safety panel to be created
37 DOE: 48 CFR Parts 935, 952 and 970
38 Las Vegas SUN: Amendment to energy bill helps protect whisteblowers 
39 Tri-City Herald: Hanford Concerns Council open for business 
40 Idaho Statesman: Our View: DOE should justify plans to make more plu
41 Idaho Statesman: Proposed plutonium factory has high potential for h
42 Idaho Statesman: Consolidation of plutonium-238 work at INL will imp
43 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern
44 DOE: Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee
45 WATE: ORNL on biggest recruiting campaign in 30 years
46 DOE: U.S. Department of Energy's Fleet Alternative Fuel Vehicle 
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
                         FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
 1 RIA Novosti: IAEA experts arrive in Iran to inspect nuclear facilities
 
28/06/2005

TEHRAN, June 28 (RIA Novosti, Nikolai Terekhov) - Two experts
from the International Atomic Energy Agency arrived in Iran
Tuesday to inspect nuclear facilities, a source in the Atomic
Energy Organization of Iran said. 

The experts came "to inspect nuclear facilities in order to
observe the implementation of the last resolution of the IAEA
Board of Governors and settle contradictions between some IAEA
members and Iranian representatives on plutonium production,"
the source said. "The Islamic Republic insists that it does not
produce weapon-grade plutonium." 

Iran has had the highest number of nuclear inspections in the
last two and half years than any other country, something local
experts say is politically motivated. 

"The U.S. keeps bringing groundless accusations against Tehran
of creating an atomic bomb without concrete evidence and is
using IAEA inspectors to its interests as it did in Iraq," a
local expert said. 

Newly elected President Mahmoud Ahmadi-Nejad said the country
intended to develop peaceful nuclear technologies in its
national interests and maintain mutually beneficial dialogue
with the EU to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem. 

 2005 "RIA Novosti"   
*****************************************************************
 2 IranMania: N-inspectors back, Iran reassures worried world                              

www.iranmania.com
  
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 - ©2005 IranMania.com   				 				 
 										   										 [Archived Picture - Inspectors from the
UN nuclear watchdog were back at work in Iran as Tehran sought
to allay international fears following the election of a
hardliner as its new president, according to AFP. "The
wider principles of our foreign policy will not change,"
said Ali Agha Mohammadi, a spokesman for Iran's top national
security body that is handling the delicate nuclear talks with
Britain, France and Germany.]   										
 										     										 						 						 

LONDON, June 28 (IranMania) - Inspectors from the UN nuclear
watchdog were back at work in Iran as Tehran sought to allay
international fears following the election of a hardliner as its
new president, according to AFP.

"The wider principles of our foreign policy will not change,"
said Ali Agha Mohammadi, a spokesman for Iran's top national
security body that is handling the delicate nuclear talks with
Britain, France and Germany.

His comments came as state television reported that two
inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
were back in the country "within the framework of regular
inspections of designated sites."

The visit is the first since Iran's presidential election Friday
which saw ultra-conservative Mahmood Ahmadinejad thrash the more
moderate cleric Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, sparking renewed fears
over Iran's weapons drive.

Mohammadi said the team was in Iran to "sort out" a controversy
over plutonium experiments here, which Tehran has been accused
of covering up.

Like enriched uranium -- which Iran wants to make for reactor
fuel -- plutonium is a bomb-making ingredient, but Mohammadi
said the issue was "nearly sorted out" with the Vienna-based
IAEA.

Iran has since last year frozen its fuel cycle work -- which can
be diverted to bomb-making -- and has entered into talks with
Britain, France and Germany, which are trying to convince Iran
to abandon such activities altogether in a "Libya-style deal"
that offers incentives in return.

But the clerical regime insists it has a "right" to make nuclear
fuel for peaceful purposes and is refusing to give up uranium
enrichment technology -- but at the same time is sticking with
the negotiations.

"The Iran-EU working groups will very probably resume their
activities in early July," Mohammadi said.

The European Union reiterated its commitment to nuclear talks
with Iran after the election of Ahmadinejad, while British Prime
Minister Tony Blair warned that the EU was not about to "go
soft" on Tehran on the nuclear front.

"We expect Iran to honour its obligations," Blair said.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said the United States
supported the European diplomacy but voiced scepticism.

"We will see on the negotiations. We have reason to be
sceptical, we've stated that before," he said. "It remains to be
seen what the true intentions of the unelected few that run
(Iran) really are."

Mohammadi told the ISNA news agency that the election of
Ahmadinejad would certainly see changes in government
departments -- but said talk of a purge was far-fetched.

Iran's team of nuclear negotiators are widely seen as loyalists
of Rafsanjani.

"There will be fresh blood in the executive but that does not
mean all directors will change," Mohammadi said.

"The new president will be kept abreast (of the nuclear dossier)
before he takes office, and when his government is formed will
be informed of everything."

Ahmadinejad formally takes over from outgoing reformst President
Mohammad Khatami on August 3. The president is officially Iran's
number-two after supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

In his first press conference since his stunning election win,
Ahmadinejad said he would continue the nuclear talks, denied
Iran was seeking nuclear weapons but stuck by the wish of the
country to one day resume enrichment. 				   				 				 
				     				 					 				 
				   							   				 				 				 
*****************************************************************
 3 ITAR-TASS: Russia cooperating with Iran with regard to nonproliferation

28.06.2005, 15.51

THE HAGUE, June 28 (Itar-Tass) - Russia cooperates with other
countries in peaceful use of atomic energy in the context of its
international obligations and commitments, Foreign Minister
Sergei Lavrov said here Tuesday after talks with his Dutch
counterpart, Bernard Bot. 

“Russia builds its nuclear cooperation with Iran on precisely
those grounds,” Lavrov said. 

Cooperation with Iran similar to that in the Busher nuclear
plant project will continue, he said. 

“This format of cooperation won’t change,” Lavrov indicated. 

© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
store in any medium (including in any other websites),
distribute, transmit, re-transmit, broadcast, modify or show in
public any part of the ITAR-TASS website without the prior
written permission of ITAR-TASS. 


*****************************************************************
 4 Mos News: Russia to Continue Nuclear Cooperation With New Iranian President 

- NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM
 
President Putin / Photo: AFP 
 
Created: 26.06.2005 19:37 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 17:38 MSK 

MosNews

Russia is ready to continue cooperating with Iran in the atomic
energy sector following the victory of hardliner Mahmood
Ahmadinejad in presidential elections, but will meet obligations
to prevent nuclear weapons proliferation, AFP reported Saturday
citing President Vladimir Putin. 

“We are ready to continue cooperation with Iran in the atomic
energy sector, while taking into account our international
obligations in the area of non-proliferation, (and) to cooperate
on finding a mutually acceptable political solution to existing
questions,” Putin said in a statement on Saturday.

Putin congratulated Ahmadinejad, saying his resounding win was
an “expression of the will of the Iranian people” and that
Russia looked forward to developing relations with the Islamic
state.

Construction work on a new Russian nuclear power station at
Bushehr in Iran is almost complete. Officials there said this
week that the first deliveries of Russian nuclear fuel should be
made within a few months, AFP adds.

In an attempt to allay U.S. and EU concerns that the civilian
power station is part of a secret weapons development programme,
Moscow and Tehran brokered a deal in which Iran must send spent
fuel back to Russia.

However, analysts and diplomats in Tehran say that the victory
of ultra-conservative Ahmadinejad could spell a new hardening in
the country’s negotiating stance over Western demands that Iran
curb its nuclear ambitions.

Russia maintains warm ties with Iran. Putin said in his
statement that other potential growth areas in cooperation
included oil and gas, transport, telecommunications, and civil
aviation.
     
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 5 Korea Times: US to Target North Korea-Linked Firms 

      Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation   

By Reuben Staines Staff Reporter

 The United States is set to adopt an executive order allowing
officials to freeze the assets of companies doing business with
North Korea, Iran and Syria, according to news reports.

 U.S. President George W. Bush is likely to sign the order this
week giving the Treasury Dept. the power to target the assets of
firms believed to be assisting the three nations in their
alleged weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, Reuters news
agency reported. 

The measure is part of recommendations put forward by a
presidential commission on WMDs led by Judge Laurence Silberman
and former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb.

 The White House confirmed that the executive order is likely to
be adopted soon. ``We have been reviewing those recommendations.
That review is nearing completion,¡¯¡¯ presidential spokesman
Scott McClellan told reporters.

 Dubbed the ``WMD Proliferation Financing Executive Order,¡¯¡¯
officials said it will be similar to existing measures that
empower U.S. authorities to freeze the assets of companies
suspected of financing terrorist groups.

 Washington sources said the move will boost efforts to prevent
the proliferation of nuclear, missile, chemical and biological
weapons. 

South Korean government officials contacted by The Korea Times
refused to comment on the plan. But experts in Seoul expressed
concern that it could antagonize North Korea and damage hopes of
the communist nation returning to multilateral talks over its
nuclear weapons program.

 ``While this isn¡¯t a particularly important decision, it could
upset North Korea because of the timing,¡¯¡¯ said Park Ihn-hwi,
professor at Ewha Womans University¡¯s Graduate School of
International Studies.

 In the wake of a rare meeting between a top South Korean
official and North Korean leader Kim Jong-il on June 17, Seoul
has urged the U.S. to preserve the positive atmosphere
surrounding the nuclear negotiation. During the meeting, Kim
signaled that his country will resume the six-party nuclear
talks in July if Washington treats it respectfully. 

Park also noted that as the executive order is a purely domestic
policy, it allows the U.S. to prod North Korea without seeking
consent from South Korea and other nations involved in the
six-party talks, which have been stalled for a year.

 Seoul and Beijing, which hosts the stalled negotiations, have
opposed calls by Washington to take punitive measures against
Pyongyang, such as sending the nuclear issue to the U.N.
Security Council for sanctions. 

On Monday, The Washington Post reported it obtained a document
listing eight firms that the U.S. will initially crack down on
under the executive order. Three North Korean firms were
included, it said.

 The U.S. daily said the order will allow officials to take
action against U.S. companies but is more likely to affect
Chinese and Russian firms, which have frequent business dealings
with the three targeted nations. 

However, it said the decisions to freeze the firms¡¯ finances
will depend on U.S. intelligence and authorities will be wary of
legal challenges.

 Decisions could be complicated because firms often provide the
countries with dual-use components, technologies that have
applications in both civilian and military areas. 

The U.S. already imposes strict economic sanctions on North
Korea, which declared itself a nuclear power in February, and
lists it as a terrorist-sponsoring nation.

 Washington has accused Iran of developing nuclear weapons but
Tehran insists its nuclear programs are only to produce energy.
Officials believe Syria has produced large amounts of the nerve
agent sarin and hundreds of short-range ballistic missiles. 


rjs@koreatimes.co.kr 06-28-2005 18:46         
*****************************************************************
 6 [NukeNet] Calls Needed Now Re Nuke Terrorism
 
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:18:28 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)


    Former Senator Sam Nunn, who now heads "The
Nuclear Threat Initiative" is pro-commercial
nuclear power. He needs to know about CRAC-2:
http://www.mothersalert.org/crac.html   and the
fact that NPPs are stationary radiological nuclear
weapons which can easily be attacked irrespective
of the pronouncements of NRC. He also needs to
look at: http://www.tmia.com/sabter.html

    Please call former Senator Nunn and "The
Nuclear Threat Initiative" and ask him and them to
read these two web sites and then meet with Paul
Gunther of NIRS [ http://www.nirs.org ] Dr.
Bennett Ramberg and/or Scott Portzline.
He/they can be called at: 202-296-4810 . Please
call now and  forward this message to other lists
and interested parties.

   -Bill Smirnow


   http://www.nti.org/a_home/a1_contactus.html

  Nuclear Threat Initiative
1747 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, 7th Floor
Washington D.C. 20006

(T)202-296-4810
(F)202-296-4811

contact@nti.org


Panel members including former Sen. Sam Nunn, a
Democrat who once chaired the U.S. Senate Armed
Services Committee, worried about the pace of
efforts to secure nuclear stockpiles that are
often poorly guarded in 40 countries, including
former Soviet states.

``From my perspective, the terrorists are racing
and we are somewhere between a walk and a crawl,''
said Nunn, who now leads a nonproliferation group
called the Nuclear Threat Initiative.


http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-security-nuclear.html


_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 7 [toeslist] US Plans to Resume Plutonium 238 Production - Report
 
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:49:29 -0500 (CDT)

 
http://www.planetark.com/avantgo/dailynewsstory.cfm?newsid=31437

US Plans to Resume Plutonium 238 Production - Report

NEW YORK - The United States plans to produce highly radioactive 
plutonium 238 for the first time since the Cold War, The New York Times 
reported on Monday.

The newspaper quoted project managers as saying most, if not all, of the 
new plutonium was intended for secret missions. The officials would not 
disclose details, but the newspaper said the plutonium in the past 
powered espionage devices.

The Times said Timothy Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at 
the US Energy Department, vigorously denied in a recent interview any of 
the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or 
weapons in space.

"The real reason we're starting production is for national security," 
Frazier was quoted as saying.

Officials at the Energy Department could not be reached for comment.

The program, which the newspaper said had raised concerns among 
environmentalists, would produce 330 pounds (150 kg) over 30 years at 
the Idaho National Laboratory. The program could cost $1.5 billion and 
generate over 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste, federal 
officials told the Times.

Plutonium 238 is hundreds of times more radioactive than plutonium 239, 
which is used in nuclear arms, according to the newspaper. Medical 
experts say inhaling even a speck posed a serious risk of lung cancer, 
the Times said.

The newspaper said plutonium 238 had no central role in nuclear arms, 
but was valued for its steady heat that could be turned into 
electricity. Nuclear batteries made from it power spacecraft to go where 
sunlight is too dim to energize solar cells.

Federal and private experts not connected to the project were quoted as 
saying the new plutonium would likely power devices for espionage under 
the sea and on land.

The United States last made plutonium 238 in the 1980s and now relied on 
aging stockpiles or imports from Russia, the newspaper said. It added 
that under the agreement with Russia, the United States could not use 
the imports -- about 35 pounds (16 kg) since the end of the Cold War -- 
for military purposes.

Story Date: 28/6/2005

 
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
    http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
 8 Guardian Unlimited: Senate Energy Bill Faces GOP Opposition
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday June 28, 2005 7:46 AM

By H. JOSEF HEBERT 

Associated Press Writer 

WASHINGTON (AP) - For the third time in four years, the Senate
is certain to produce an energy bill embraced by Republicans and
Democrats. But its chance of becoming law depends on hard
bargaining with House GOP leaders more favorable to industry. 

After finishing most work on the Senate bill late last week,
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist scheduled a final vote on the
measure Tuesday. Both Republicans and Democrats predicted
approval. 

But the Senate bill deliberately skirts some of the most
contentious energy issues facing Congress. 

The legislation says nothing about drilling in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, although that's a top
priority of the Bush administration and House GOP leaders. 

And unlike the House bill, it is silent on giving aid to larger
oil companies and refiners who want protection against
environmental lawsuits because one of their products, the
gasoline additive MTBE, has contaminated drinking water in
hundreds of communities. House leaders have insisted an MTBE
waiver be part of energy legislation. 

More environmentally friendly than the energy bill passed by the
House in April, the Senate measure would funnel 40 percent of
some $18 billion in tax breaks over 10 years to boost renewable
energy sources such as wind and biomass. The Senate bill also
would try to reduce energy consumption through tax incentives
for efficient appliances and homes and for gas-electric hybrid
cars. 

Other fights are expected with the House over how much
corn-based ethanol refiners would have to use - 8 million
gallons a year in the Senate version vs. 5 million under the
House bill - and whether utilities should have to produce at
least 10 percent of their electricity from wind, solar or other
renewable energy sources. 

The cost of the Senate package also is expected to be an issue. 

It would cost $16 billion over 10 years, according to a
preliminary analysis by the Congressional Budget Office,
compared to about $8 billion for the House bill. The White House
wanted a $6.7 billion price tag. The House version is somewhat
misleading, however, since it relies on $2.6 billion in revenue,
not yet certain to be approved, from oil leases in the Alaska
wildfire refuge. 

``It's going to be a tough conference (with the House),'' said
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., who was the bill's floor leader and
saw months of tough negotiations go for naught two years ago.
Then, the Senate also passed legislation that differed sharply
from what had been approved by the House. After weeks of
closed-door discussions, a compromise emerged only to have it
fall apart in the Senate over the MTBE issue. 

The Senate also passed energy legislation in 2002, when
Democrats were in the majority, but saw efforts to get a
compromise with the House evaporate when Republicans regained
their majority in the Senate in that's year's November election. 

The Senate bill, cobbled together during months of
behind-the-scenes discussions and two weeks of floor debate, was
viewed by its supporters as an attempt to expand and diversify
the country's energy supply and reduce its reliance on oil. 

How successful the effort will be is anybody's guess. Sen.
Richard Durbin, D-Ill., argued that little progress can be made
to wean Americans off foreign oil unless cars are required to be
more fuel efficient. His attempt to include sharp increases in
auto fuel economy was soundly defeated. 

The bill would, however: 

-Provide government backing for new energy technologies, like
next-generation nuclear reactors, clean coal systems and devices
that capture carbon from burning fossil fuels. 

-Provide $1 billion to help states repair coastlines and
estuaries damaged by offshore oil drilling. 

-Launch an inventory of Outer Continental Shelf oil and gas
resources including those protected by a drilling ban. 

-Establish federal authority over the location of terminals for
importing liquid natural gas. 

^--- 

On the Net: 

Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee:
http://energy.senate.gov/public 

White House Council of Environmental Quality:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/ceq/index.html 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 9 Oregon Daily Emerald: The problem with the plutonium plan
 
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 	 
Commentary
 
Further from perfection
 
Ailee Slater 

On a scale of one to idiotic, the Bush administration just
nabbed themselves a place at the top. It was revealed yesterday
that the U.S. is planning produce plutonium 238for the first
time since the Cold War as if any other evidence were needed to
prove that developing nuclear weapons technology is a giant step
backward. For about $1.5 billion, our nation will be left with
more than 50,000 drums of radioactive waste. Considering the
budget deficit America is currently experiencing, it seems just
a little strange to spend money creating lethal trash. 

The plutonium project is currently being touted as a classified
national security project. Plutonium could be used for nuclear
weapons, nuclear space weapons (both of which the Energy
Department has denied) or espionage equipment. All we know for
sure is that the plutonium technology will be developed for the
purpose of creating a safer America. 

It is amusing that the United States still believes nuclear
technology and security are in some way related. To begin with,
even if the U.S. government is not planning to use plutonium 238
to create weapons, the raw material can easily be turned into a
killing machine by someone else. The Bush administration is not
shy about accusing rogue nations of stealing and harboring
weapons of mass destruction; surely someone at the White House
must realize that developing a weapon for the United States can
be just as deadly as handing that same weapon over to the enemy
on a silver platter. 

In fact, in an obscenely hypocritical move, Bush recently
expressed the following sentiment in response to an Iranian plan
to develop plutonium technology: 

The development of a nuclear weapon is unacceptable and a
process which would enable Iran to develop a nuclear weapon is
unacceptable. 

The United States government still believes that our nation is
somehow a superior species to the rest of the world; technology
in the hands of Iranians is unacceptable, but technology in the
hands of Americans is necessary to our national security. It
pains me to mention the fact that the United States has been a
historic supplier of nuclear technology for Iran, including a
research reactor capable of producing plutonium. Why does our
nation fall prey to the ethnocentric assumption that nuclear
technology is safer in hands of a lighter skin color, or that
Americas decisions regarding the economic or defense purposes
of nuclear programs are always correct? The simple fact that the
United States once supplied plutonium technology to Iran, but is
now demanding that the Iranian nation refrain from developing
such items, shows that the United States is hardly accountable
when it comes to making global decisions. 

The time has come for the leaders of the world to get their
heads out of their arses and call for a change. With each
nuclear development, the paradigm of mutually assured
destruction comes closer and closer. Instead of building up
arsenals of plutonium, the United States especially should be
using its resources to foster some kind of communication or plan
of action toward the eventual goal of eradicating nuclear
warfare. America can be neither the land of the free nor the
home of the brave if protecting our nation means creating a
substance so dangerous that a single speck will cause cancer.
When was diplomacy replaced with the Cold War ethic of secrecy
and a nuclear arsenal? It boggles ones mind that governmental
communication and compromise have become the exception rather
than the norm. 

Nations of the world, especially those hosting nuclear
technology, have given up on one another but not on the utopian
promises of technology. Every country may believe that nuclear
components are making them safer, but stockpiling weapons and
technology will lead to nothing besides the parallel stockpiling
of weapons and technology in the fists of opposing nations. The
United States cannot expect to announce its own development of
plutonium 238 without seeing similar production in countries who
fear that the only way to deter Americas technology is to delve
into dangerous technology of their own. 

As long as nuclear weapons exist, the threat of nuclear winter
will exist as well. The only way to prevent nuclear war is to
stop creating nuclear technology and concentrate upon
dismantling the weapons already created. Maybe well have to
look for new energy sources; maybe well have to search for a
different way to secure our nation. But, for what its worth
(i.e. billions of dollars), I wouldnt mind seeing at least a
glimpse of the pretense that world peace is possible. 

aileeslater@dailyemerald.com
 
© 2005 Oregon Daily Emerald | Accessibility
*****************************************************************
 10 Independent: US resumes production of Cold War plutonium 

www.independent.co.uk

By Andrew Buncombe in Washington 

28 June 2005

The US is poised to begin production of highly radioactive
plutonium 238 - used previously to power spy satellites and
space probes - for the first time since the Cold War. Officials
say that the plutonium is being produced for "national
security". 

The isotope, many hundred times more radioactive than plutonium
239 which is used in nuclear arms, is to be produced at the
Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site close to the
Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming. Local environmental and
anti-nuclear groups are concerned about possible contamination
from radioactive waste: plutonium 238 is so powerful that even a
speck of it is enough to cause cancer. 

Officials involved in the $1.5bn (£800m) programme, which is
intended to produce around 300lb of the material in the next 30
years, say the bulk of the plutonium will be used in secret
projects but refuse to provide further details. The material has
previously been used in batteries to power deep space probes
such as Cassini as well as underwater surveillance and espionage
equipment. 

"The real reason we're starting production is for national
security," Timothy Frazier, head of radio-isotope power systems
at the Energy Department, told The New York Times. 

The US has not made plutonium 238 since the 1980s when
production was based at the Savannah River plant in South
Carolina with some other work done in New Mexico and Tennessee.
Since then it has relied on ageing stockpiles of the material or
else on imports from Russia. The new programme will concentrate
production at the Idaho facility in an effort to minimise the
risk of leakage or contamination involving the 50,000 drums of
hazardous and radioactive waste it is expected to make. 

Local groups fear the programme will present considerable public
health risks. Mary Woollen-Mitchell of Keep Yellowstone Nuclear
Free said: "They are concentrating all this production in just
one place but it has never really been done safely anywhere.
We're sceptical when they say, 'We know enough to make sure it's
safe and to avoid an accident'. When they have spoken to us they
say the majority of it will be for secret missions but they
don't talk about the remainder. I worry about whether it will be
involved in the weaponisation of space." 

In his interview, Mr Frazier adamantly denied that the plutonium
would be involved in military projects in space, though it has
previously been used to power vessels that have travelled to
those parts of space where there is insufficient sunlight to
power solar panels. One unidentified federal scientist who helps
the military plan space missions told the newspaper that the
plutonium might be used in future projects to power compact spy
satellites that would be difficult to detect. "It's going to be
a tough world in the next one or two decades and this may be
needed," he said. "Technologically, it makes sense." 

The Snake River Alliance, a nuclear watchdog in Idaho, said:
"Idaho is once again in the bull's eye for a dangerous nuclear
programme that will create more nuclear waste and increase the
contamination risks for our people, economy, and environment." 	
          
©2005 Independent News &Media (UK) Ltd.   
*****************************************************************
 11 Moscow Times: Growing Nuclear Blindness
 
Tuesday, June 28, 2005. Issue 3196. Page 11.     

By Pavel Felgenhauer 

Last week, the launch of a military communications satellite
from the Plesetsk Cosmodrome in the Archangelsk region ended in
a crash six minutes into the flight. This disaster has put
additional strain on a military space program that was already
in deep trouble. 

Russia's military sputniks have traditionally been less
sophisticated and reliable than their U.S. counterparts. Russian
satellites continue to be operational in orbit for smaller time
spans. Spy satellites drop exposed film containers to earth to
be developed. To compensate for lower quality, during the Cold
War, Russia generally launched 10 times more military satellites
into orbit than the United States. 

After the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, the number of military
space launches began to dwindle and with it, the number of
operational military sputniks in orbit. The decline in space
capability was not abrupt because during the Soviet era a
substantial emergency stockpile of military communication, early
warning and spy satellites were accumulated, along with dozens
of extra space launch rockets. According to Soviet battle plans
for World War III, as many as 100 new military satellites would
have been launched in the immediate run-up to global nuclear
hostilities. 

The Cold War stockpile has been partially depleted by now, while
the newly built military sputniks and rockets tend to be of
inferior quality. There have been fewer space launches as well
as a higher percentage of accidents and failures, while
satellites already in orbit have often stopped functioning
prematurely. 	

Taken together, these realities deprive the Defense Ministry of
vital capabilities. 

Operational, high-altitude early warning satellites must be
constantly maneuvered in orbit and aimed at particular areas on
the earth's surface. When a satellite goes out of control, it
begins to drift unchecked, so an operational sputnik is easy to
distinguish from a faulty one. 

According to Western intelligence sources, of the six
high-altitude, elliptical orbit Oko satellites that detect
possible U.S. intercontinental ballistic missile launches using
infrared boost period detectors, four are apparently out of
control at present. Of the early warning satellites that are
designed to detect ICBM launches from U.S. Trident submarines at
sea, only one is operational, and it is watching the
mid-Atlantic. 

The U.S. Pacific Trident deployments are currently not being
watched by nuclear attack early warning satellites at all, while
the observation of the Atlantic Ocean is partial. The two
still-operational Oko sputniks observe the United States for six
hours a day each. The rest of the time, the Russian Defense
Ministry is blind and would only know of an attack when the
incoming warheads were detected by land-based early warning
radars. 

Four of the eight early warning radars Russia operates today are
based abroad in CIS countries such as Ukraine, Azerbaijan and
Belarus. CIS nations exploit Moscow's eagerness to use these
radars as a bargaining chip to press for various political and
economic concessions. The two radars in Ukraine and the one in
Azerbaijan are legally the property of those nations and provide
Moscow with online data on contract, which means their continued
use is constantly in question. 

If the present deficiencies of the Russian early warning system
continue and there is a sudden emergency, military and political
leaders in Moscow would have just a couple of minutes to decide
if an ICBM attack is indeed in progress and Russia should launch
its own ICBMs in response before the U.S. warheads hit Russian
bases. A mistake in judgment could cause a global nuclear war,
which makes a Russia with nuclear warheads but without
satellites the worst nightmare Western military planners could
imagine. 

In Moscow, partial nuclear blindness has caused much less
tension. The satellite early warning system is less
sophisticated than the American one. In the Soviet era, it
issued false ICBM attack warnings several times. Russian
generals never really believed that a sudden global nuclear war
was possible and took any early warning panic signals with a
pinch of salt. The pragmatism and professionalism of our
military decision-makers kept us all alive during the Cold War
and continue to do so today. But as the crisis of the unreformed
military deepens, early warning devices are decaying and the
competence of our military decision-makers is declining. The
time when nightmares come true may indeed be approaching. 

Pavel Felgenhauer is an independent defense analyst based in
Moscow. 

© Copyright 2005 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved.           
*****************************************************************
 12 Bellona: Ex-Northern Fleet captain sues Russian minister of defence 

Sergey Zhemchuzhnov, the Northern Fleet captain who headed the
fatal towing operation of the K-159 submarine in August 2003,
intends to sue Russian Minister of Defence Sergey Ivanov, the
Barents Observer reported.

2005-06-28 10:20

Zhemchuzhnov was convicted by the Russian Military Prosecutor's
office for having neglected maritime regulations, which resulted
in the sinking of K-159 and the drowning of 9 of the
decommissioned subs 10 crew members. Zhemchuzhinov intends to
fight back against the Navy commanders and the Defence Ministry
in a court case. 

Zhemchuzhnov headed the Ostrovnoy division of retired nuclear
submarines at Gremikha, from where the K-159 departed on August
29th, 2003 to the Nerpa shipyard outside Murmansk for full
dismantlement. The sub sank, with 800 kilograms of spent uranium
nuclear fuel on board in 280 metres of water off the coast of
Kildin Island in the Barents Sea. 

Gennady Suchkov, commander of the Northern Fleet, was also
convicted for negligence in the accident. He received a four
year suspended prison sentence. He was later hired as an advisor
to minister of defence, Sergey Ivanov, the Barents Observer
reported. 

The court case against Sergey Zhemchuzhnov has dragged out, and
in March this year the case was officially closed. Zhemchuzhnov
now intends to clear his name and reputation in court. He
stressed however, that he is no longer interested in resuming
his post as a submarine captain, said the paper.   

  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
*****************************************************************
 13 BBC: Falklands ships had nuclear arms
 
Last Updated: Tuesday, 28 June, 2005
 
[HMS Antelope]                                  

The book draws on public evidence and secret documents                                                            

Nuclear weapons were on board Royal Navy ships dispatched from 
Gibraltar to the Falklands in 1982, the official history of the 
conflict reveals. 

Professor Sir Lawrence Freedman's book commissioned by the 
government draws on public evidence and secret documents. 

There were no plans to use the depth charges but removal could 
have delayed the Task Force by 36 hours, he said. 

His research also rejects claims that the cruiser the Belgrano 
was sunk to scupper a possible peace deal. 

Three hundred and twenty-three Argentines died in the attack on 
the Belgrano - the single largest loss of life during the 
conflict and its most controversial event. 

Naval threat 

Professor Freedman told BBC Radio 4's Today programme there was 
"absolutely no truth whatsoever" in the theory. 

They decided they had bett take them and get them off later Prof 
Sir Lawrence Freedman      

	 

He said the Belgrano was heading away from the exclusion zone 
which the UK had imposed around the Falklands. 

Initially commanders wanted to sink it because they were worried 
about a pincer movement. 

"Although by the time it was sunk that pincer movement was no 
longer in train, they wanted it sunk because they were worried 
about the Argentines' general naval threat and wanted to deter 
the Argentines," he said. 

Diplomatic impact 

The Ministry of Defence said in December 2003 that some vessels 
were carrying nuclear weapons but Professor Freedman's book goes 
into specific details. 

Mrs Thatcher's government was "desperate" to take them off the 
vessels, but they were trying to make the "biggest diplomatic 
impact", Professor Freedman said. 

"They decided they had better take them and get them off later," 
he said. "They put them in the safest places possible. There was 
no intention to use them, but they certainly went." 

The frigates Brilliant and Broadsword were each said to be 
carrying a normal complement of two nuclear depth charges. 

[Falklands conflict]                            

Removing the weapons would have caused delays, Prof Freedman says                                                          
                                

Ministers opted to store the depth charges on the nuclear 
weapon-equipped carriers Hermes and Invincible, the book recalls. 
But the carriers were kept out of Falklands' territorial waters 
to avoid potential allegations of violation of international law. 

Fears over a potential attack eventually lead to the nuclear arms 
being ordered out of the area. 

The 1,102-page two-volume book is the result of eight years of 
research by Professor Freedman, of the department of war studies 
at King's College, London. 

"My basic objective was to provide an account of what happened 
that people would trust and not think that I had any sort of 
political agenda of my own," he said. 

The book also covers "poor communications" between different 
parts of the Task Force which lead to blunders and explores the 
relationship between the UK and the US during the conflict. 

"There was a Pentagon policy which was incredibly supportive of 
the United Kingdom, giving a lot of material support," he said. 

"But the political policy from the Secretary of State and from 
President Reagan was much more equivocal. 

"I think Prime Minister Thatcher found this very hard to take, 
very hard to understand."                                                        



*****************************************************************
 14 BBC: India urges end to nuclear curbs
 
Last Updated: Tuesday, 28 June, 2005
 
[Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee]                              

Mr Mukherjee says India and US share common values                                                                 

Indian Defence Minister Pranab Mukherjee has urged the United 
States to lift curbs on nuclear technology transfers to India. 

The US imposed the restrictions in the wake of India's nuclear 
tests in 1998. 

Mr Mukherjee was speaking in Washington on his first visit since 
assuming his post last year, following the Congress party victory 
in India's elections. 

There has been a significant transformation in relations between 
the two countries in recent years. 

Speaking at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on
Monday, Mr Mukherjee said Washington and Delhi shared "common
values and security concerns". 

"Our nuclear energy and security programmes are separate," he
said. 

"We can assure you that it [sensitive technology] will never
fall in the wrong hands," the Associated Press quotes him as
saying. 

India is keen for access to US civilian nuclear technology. 

Growing ties 

The Indian defence minister met US Vice President Dick Cheney
and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. 

On Tuesday, he is due to meet his counterpart, Donald Rumsfeld. 

Next month, Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is to hold
talks with President George W Bush during a visit to the United
States. 

Economic ties have grown between the two countries, once on
opposite sides of the Cold War fence, and the US is now India's
biggest trading partner. 

India and the US have also overseen increased military ties,
holding joint exercises and expanded civilian, space and hi-tech
contacts. 		 	 		 	 	 



*****************************************************************
 15 [progchat_action] Fire at Nuclear Power Plant
 
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 00:31:57 -0500 (CDT)

 
Fire extinguished at Turkey Point nuclear plant

The Associated Press June 27. 2005 11:14AM

<http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050627/APN/506270761>

A fire at the Turkey Point power plant was extinguished Monday with
no damage to the plant's two nuclear units, according to Florida
Power and Light.

No injuries were reported, officials at Miami-Dade County Fire
Rescue said.

The plant's sprinkler system put out the fire.

The blaze started about 3:15 a.m. in a transformer in the plant's
number four unit, an area that was not near the nuclear facilities,
FPL spokesman Bill Swank said. The company's power customers were
not affected.

The affected unit was taken offline while the cause of the fire was
investigated. Swank said the extent of damage was not yet known.

The nuclear facilities, located inside domes and protected by
concrete barriers, were never endangered, Swank said.

The fire caused a 30-to-40 gallon mineral oil leak, Miami-Dade Fire
Rescue reported. The oil, a coolant, was contained with no biohazard
at the plant, officials added. Turkey Point is located on Biscayne
Bay, 24 miles south of Miami, east of Homestead.

This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
*****************************************************************
 16 NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc.; Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1; 
 
                         FR Doc E5-3339 
[Federal Register: June 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 123)] 
[Notices] [Page 37126] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn05-101] [[Page 37126]]
 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact The 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance 
of an exemption from title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(10 CFR) 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K for Renewed 
Facility Operating License No. DPR-51, issued to Entergy 
Operations, Inc. (licensee), for operation of the Arkansas 
Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1), located in Pope County, Arkansas. 
Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this 
environmental assessment and a finding of no significant impact.
 
Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action: 
The proposed action would provide an exemption from the 
requirements of: (1) 10 CFR 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria for 
emergency core cooling systems for light- water nuclear power 
reactors,'' which requires that the calculated emergency core 
cooling system (ECCS) performance for reactors with zircaloy or 
ZIRLO fuel cladding meet certain criteria, and (2) 10 CFR part 
50, Appendix K, ``ECCS Evaluation Models,'' which presumes the 
use of zircaloy or ZIRLO fuel cladding when doing calculations 
for energy release, cladding oxidation, and hydrogen generation 
after a postulated loss-of-coolant accident.
 
The proposed action would allow the licensee to use the M5 
advanced alloy in lieu of zircaloy or ZIRLO, the materials 
assumed to be used in the cited regulations, for fuel rod 
cladding in fuel assemblies at ANO- 1.
 
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated September 30, 2004. The Need for the Proposed 
Action: The Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR 
part 50, Appendix K require the demonstration of adequate ECCS 
performance for light-water reactors that contain fuel consisting 
of uranium oxide pellets enclosed in zircaloy or ZIRLO tubes. 
Each of these regulations, either implicitly or explicitly, 
assumes that either zircaloy or ZIRLO is used as the fuel rod 
cladding material.
 
In order to accommodate the high fuel rod burnups that are 
required for modern fuel management and core designs, Framatome 
developed the M5 advanced fuel rod cladding material. M5 is an 
alloy comprised primarily of zirconium (99 percent) and niobium 
(1 percent) that has demonstrated superior corrosion resistance 
and reduced irradiation-induced growth relative to both standard 
and low-tin zircaloy. However, since the chemical composition of 
the M5 advanced alloy differs from the specifications of either 
zircaloy or ZIRLO, use of the M5 advanced alloy falls outside of 
the strict interpretation of these regulations. Therefore, 
approval of this exemption request is needed to permit the use of 
the M5 advanced alloy as a fuel rod cladding material at ANO-1. 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The NRC staff has 
completed its safety evaluation of the proposed action and 
concludes that use of M5 clad fuel will not result in changes in 
the operations or configuration of the facility. There will be no 
change in the level of controls or methodology used for 
processing radioactive effluents or handling solid radioactive 
waste. The NRC staff has also determined that the M5 fuel 
cladding will perform similarly to the current resident fuel.
 
The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in 
the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the 
licensee approving the exemption to the regulations.
 
The proposed action will not significantly increase the 
probability or consequences of accidents. No changes are being 
made in the types of effluents that may be released off site. 
There is no significant increase in the amount of any effluent 
released off site. There is no significant increase in 
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are 
no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
 
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites.
 
It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no 
other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action.
 
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action: 
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' 
alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change 
in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of 
the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
 
Alternative Use of Resources: The action does not involve the use 
of any different resources other than those previously considered 
in the Final Environmental Statement related to the operation of 
ANO-1, dated February 1973, and the Final Supplemental 
Environmental Impact Statement regarding ANO-1 (NUREG-1437, 
Supplement 3), dated April 2001.
 
Agencies and Persons Consulted: In accordance with its stated 
policy, on May 26, 2005, the staff consulted with the Arkansas 
State official, Dave Baldwin of the Arkansas Department of 
Health, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed 
action. The State official had no comments.
 
Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the 
environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed 
action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the 
human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to 
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.
 
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated September 30, 2004. Documents may be 
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document 
Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available 
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide 
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have 
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the 
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference 
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an 
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd 
day of June 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Thomas W. Alexion, Project Manager, Section 1, Project 
Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3339 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 17 NRC: Department of Energy; Three Mile Island 2 Independent Spent Fuel 
 
                         FR Doc E5-3340 
[Federal Register: June 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 123)] 
[Notices] [Page 37124-37125] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn05-100]                         
 
Storage Installation; Issuance of Environmental Assessment and 
Finding of No Significant Impact Regarding an Amendment AGENCY: 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Environmental assessment.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior 
Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1132; fax 
number: (301) 425-8555; e-mail: jms3@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 
(NRC or the Commission) is considering issuance of an amendment 
to Special Nuclear Materials License No. 2508 that would revise 
the technical specification corrective actions if the 5 year leak 
test of the dry shielded canisters fails. The Department of 
Energy (DOE) is currently storing spent nuclear fuel at the Three 
Mile Island 2 (TMI-2) independent spent fuel storage installation 
(ISFSI) located in Butte County, Idaho.
 
 
[[Page 37125]] Environmental Assessment (EA) Identification of 
Proposed Action: By letter dated January 31, 2005, as 
supplemented, DOE submitted a request to the NRC to amend the 
license (SNM-2508) to revise the technical specification 
corrective actions if the 5 year leak test on the dry shielded 
canisters (DSC) fails.
 
The core debris from the TMI-2 reactor is stored in the ISFSI. 
The DSCs are vented through high efficiency particulate air 
(HEPA) filters to provide a diffusion path for hydrogen from the 
TMI-2 core debris. The interface between each vent housing and 
its DSC has dual metallic seals applied between polished surfaces 
of the DSC and the vent housings. The vent housing seals are 
subject to a limiting condition for operation (LCO), which 
specifies a maximum allowable leak rate. Verification of the LCO 
is performed by a surveillance performed on a 5 year period. If 
the leak test fails, the current technical specifications require 
reseating or replacing the seals and performing another leak 
check. If the seal integrity cannot be restored, then by current 
technical specifications the affected DSC must be removed from 
its horizontal storage module (HSM). The proposed technical 
specifications would allow replacement of the metallic seals with 
elastomeric seals that are less sensitive to surface 
imperfections without movement of the DSC. In addition, if the 
leak check fails after replacement of the seals, the proposed 
technical specification would no longer require removal of the 
DSC from its HSM. Instead, the proposed technical specifications 
would require a monthly contamination survey at the affected 
DSC-vent housing interface and the submission of a report to the 
NRC describing the condition, analysis, and corrective actions 
being taken.
 
The proposed action before the NRC is whether to approve the 
amendment.
 
Need for the Proposed Action: The proposed action would allow DOE 
to take corrective actions in-situ without movement of the DSC.
 
There would be less cost involved and mitigation in place would 
eliminate unnecessary worker radiation exposure and reduce 
operational risk associated with moving the DSC.
 
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action: The staff has 
determined that the proposed action would not endanger life or 
property. The DSC vent housing seals are intended to ensure that 
air flowing out of the DSC is routed through HEPA grade filters 
for confinement of radioactive particulate material. In this 
configuration (vented, without a source of pressure to force 
material through a restriction), a compressed vent housing seal 
does not represent a viable pathway for the uncontrolled release 
of radioactive materials. The proposed license amendment request 
includes an additional required action to perform surveys for 
radiological contamination at any adversely affected DSC vent 
housing. Therefore, there is no significant change in the type or 
significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be 
released offsite.
 
There would be a reduction with regard to individual or 
cumulative occupational radiation exposures because of the 
proposed action.
 
The current technical specification requires removal of the DSC 
to an alternate facility and maintenance of the DSC. The proposed 
action involves attempting to make repairs to the DSC vent 
housing seals in- situ. The DSC is stored in a well-shielded 
system (the reinforced concrete HSM). Attempting repairs while 
the DSC is inside the HSM in accordance with the proposed 
technical specifications would result in a decreased radiation 
exposure to workers. Therefore, there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
 
The amendment does not affect non-radiological plant effluents or 
any other aspects of the environment. Therefore, there are no 
significant non-radiological impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
 
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no 
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
 
Alternative to the Proposed Action: As an alternative to the 
proposed action, the staff considered denial of the amendment 
request (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). Approval or denial 
of the amendment request would result in minimal change in the 
environmental impacts. Therefore, the environmental impacts of 
the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
 
Agencies and Persons Consulted: On June 8, 2005, Douglas Walker 
of the Idaho Department of Environmental Quality was contacted 
regarding the proposed action and had no concerns. The NRC staff 
has determined that consultation under section 7 of the 
Endangered Species Act is not required for this specific 
amendment and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. 
The NRC staff has also determined that the proposed action is not 
a type of activity having the potential to cause effects on 
historic properties. Therefore, no consultation is required under 
section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
 
Conclusions: The staff has reviewed the amendment request 
submitted by DOE and has determined that revising the technical 
specification corrective actions if the 5 year leak test of the 
DSCs fails would have no significant impact on the environment.
 
Finding of No Significant Impact The environmental impacts of the 
proposed action have been reviewed in accordance with the 
requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 51.
 
Based upon the foregoing EA, the NRC finds that the proposed 
action of approving the amendment to the license will not 
significantly impact the quality of the human environment. 
Accordingly, the NRC has determined that an environmental impact 
statement for the proposed license amendment is not warranted.
 
The request for amendment was docketed under 10 CFR part 72, 
Docket 72-20. For further details with respect to this action, 
see the proposed license amendment dated January 31, 2005, as 
supplemented, by a letter dated June 9, 2005. The NRC maintains 
an Agencywide Documents Access Management System (ADAMS), which 
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. These 
documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public Electronic 
Reading Room on the Internet at: 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Copies of the 
referenced documents will also be available for review at the NRC 
Public Document Room (PDR), located at 11555 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD, 20852.
 
PDR reference staff can be contacted at 1-800-397-4209, 
301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The PDR reproduction 
contractor will copy documents for a fee.
 
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd of June, 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Joseph M. Sebrosky, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project 
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3340 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 18 NRC: Entergy Operations, Incorporated; Notice of Withdrawal of
 
                         FR Doc E5-3341 
[Federal Register: June 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 123)] 
[Notices] [Page 37124] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn05-98] [[Page 37124]]
 
Request for Exemption for Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 and Unit 2 
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of the request for exemption from 
the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and 10 CFR 72.214.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Regan, Senior 
Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1179; fax 
number: (301) 415-1179; e-mail: .
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Discussion In a letter dated June 
9, 2005, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or 
Commission) Entergy Operations, Inc.
 
(applicant or Entergy Operations) withdrew a request dated May 
23, 2005, for exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 
72.212(a)(2) and 10 CFR 72.214 pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, for the 
Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1) and Unit 2 (ANO-2), facility 
located 6 miles west-northwest of Russellville, Arkansas. The 
staff has terminated its review of the request. The request was 
docketed under 10 CFR part 72; the Independent Spent Fuel Storage 
Installation Docket No. is 72-13. II. Further Information In 
accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC's ``Rules of Practice,'' 
final NRC records and documents regarding this proposed action, 
including the exemption request dated May 23, 2005, and 
withdrawal dated June 9, 2005, are publically available in the 
records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and 
Management System (ADAMS). These documents may be inspected at 
NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at . These documents may 
also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Persons 
who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC 
PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397- 4209 or (301) 
415-4737, or by e-mail to .
 
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of June 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Christopher M. Regan, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project 
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3341 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 19 NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Incorporated; Notice of 
 
                         FR Doc E5-3343 
[Federal Register: June 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 123)] 
[Notices] [Page 37124] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn05-99]                         
 
Withdrawal of Request for Exemption; for the Joseph M. Farley 
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission.
 
ACTION: Notice of withdrawal of the request for exemption from 
the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and 10 CFR 72.214. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christopher M. Regan, Senior 
Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project Office, Office of Nuclear 
Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: (301) 415-1179; fax 
number: (301) 415-1179; e-mail: cmr1@nrc.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Discussion In a letter dated June 
9, 2005, to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or 
Commission) Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (applicant 
or SNC) withdrew a request dated May 20, 2005, for exemption from 
the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2) and 10 CFR 72.214 
pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, for the Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant 
(FNP), Unit 1 and Unit 2, facility located in Houston County, 
Alabama. The staff has terminated its review of the request. The 
request was docketed under 10 CFR Part 72; the Independent Spent 
Fuel Storage Installation Docket No. is 72-42.
 
II. Further information In accordance with 10 CFR 2.390 of NRC's 
``Rules of Practice,'' final NRC records and documents regarding 
this proposed action, including the exemption request dated May 
20, 2005, and withdrawal dated June 9, 2005, are publically 
available in the records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents 
Access and Management System (ADAMS). These documents may be 
inspected at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. These documents may 
also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at 
the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1F21, One White Flint 
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR 
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Persons 
who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in 
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC 
PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397- 4209 or (301) 
415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, 
Maryland, this 20th day of June 2005.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Christopher M. Regan, Senior Project Manager, Spent Fuel Project 
Office, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3343 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 20 Mos News: Russia Set to Build More Reactors for Iran - 

NEWS - MOSNEWS.COM

Created: 28.06.2005 14:54 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:54 MSK 

Russia wants to construct up to six new nuclear reactors for
Iran, despite U.S. criticism of its assistance to the Islamic
republic, Moscow’s top nuclear boss was quoted as saying on
Tuesday.

Russia has pressed ahead with construction of Iran’s first
nuclear power plant near the southern city of Bushehr,
dismissing Washington’s belief that Tehran could use Moscow’s
technology and know-how to make an atom bomb, the Reuters news
agency reported. 

“When Iran announces new tenders to construct nuclear reactors,
we’ll take part in them,” Alexander Rumyantsev, head of Russia’s
Atomic Energy Agency, told the Itar-Tass news agency. “Tehran
intends to build another six nuclear reactors.”

Rumyantsev’s remarks came just days after Russian President
Vladimir Putin said Moscow would continue developing nuclear
ties with Iran after ultra-conservative Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s
election as president of the Islamic Republic last week.

Iran says its nuclear program is peaceful.

For Russia, Iran is a key market in the Middle East as it seeks
a bigger share of the global nuclear industry, but Moscow is
worried it may lose its near-monopoly status there as its
Western rivals try to push into the Iranian market. Moscow and
Tehran, whose nuclear ties date back to the early 1990s, signed
a fuel supply deal earlier this year that paved the way for
Bushehr to start up in late 2006.

Once operational, Bushehr will generate 1,000 megawatts of
electricity. Initiated before Iran’s 1979 Islamic revolution and
badly damaged during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, the project was
later revived with Russian help and has cost about $1 billion. 
 
  Write us: <b>info@mosnews.com</b>
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
 21 Independent: Don't hold your breath on new nuclear

build as Government turns lukewarm again Oil still has the power 
to shock; OFT under pressure to refer Man Utd 

www.independent.co.uk

Jeremy Warner's Outlook: 

28 June 2005

Britain's nuclear renaissance, much talked of ahead of the
election, seems to be on the backburner again. Just three months
back, there was much excited talk in the nuclear industry of how
the Prime Minister and his Government were swinging behind the
case for new nuclear build as a way of meeting ambitious targets
for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. 

A leaked DTI briefing document seemed to confirm the existence
of a blueprint by suggesting that any incoming government would
be wise to get the nuclear decision out of the way early in its
new term of office, as it might prove too controversial to
tackle later with an election looming. Supporters of nuclear
power will be disappointed to learn that this advice has already
been as good as rejected. 

At his monthly press conference yesterday, Mr Blair admitted
that he was in no position "to give an answer on whether it is
ever possible to get back into this nuclear debate. Maybe it
isn't". Concerns over cost and public acceptability would have
to be answered first, he suggested. On neither count is there
much cause for optimism. 

A report published yesterday by Oxera, an independent economics
consultancy, finds that rates of return would not be high enough
as things stand to attract commercial investment. Any programme
of new nuclear build would therefore have to be underpinned
either by direct Government subsidy, or through long-term
contracts that would guarantee a set rate of return for nuclear
output. 

The latter mechanism has already been used to encourage the
development of renewables. Theoretically, it could be extended
to nuclear, even if any such plan would have other electricity
generators screaming unfair competition. But are the public
prepared to pay such a premium? With news of more leaks at
Sellafield, the environmental case for nuclear is far from won. 

Recent studies by the nuclear industry paint a more reassuring
picture. The next generation of nuclear design is cheaper, more
efficient, produces less waste and, perhaps most important of
all, costs a fraction of the price to decommission, it is
claimed. Even so, after British Energy, which went bust during a
period of low electricity prices, the private sector would be
unlikely to back new nuclear build without some form of
government subvention. 

And if Mr Blair favours an early nuclear debate, his Secretary
of State for Trade and Industry, Alan Johnson, plainly doesn't.
His view is strongly that renewables should be given a chance
first. Many wind farm plans would be abandoned if it was thought
the Government was about to press the button on new nuclear
build. Mr Blair says he doesn't want to see the debate shut
down. Yet there will be no proper debate at all unless the
Government is prepared to take a lead. If even the Prime
Minister is reluctant to do so, the nuclear lobby might as well
pack its bags and head for China, where there's no public
opinion to convince or argument to win. Thirty new stations are
already planned there. 

Oil still has the power to shock 

Do oil prices still have the power to shock? The answer is a
powerfully affirmative one, but not in the way they used to. 

At $60 a barrel and apparently heading higher, the real price of
oil (adjusted for subsequent inflation) is close to the peak
seen during the first oil shock of the mid 1970s, though it is
still less than half that of the second shock during the early
1980s. In the past, policymakers have tended to focus on the
inflationary effects of rising oil prices; today, it is the
deflationary effect that most worries them. 

That's not to say that rising oil prices no longer have an
inflationary effect. Plainly they do. You only have to look at
petrol, gas and electricity prices to see it. Yet the wider
inflationary effect whereby producers of other goods would pass
on their higher energy costs, which in turn would trigger an
inflationary increase in wage demands, seems much less marked. 

There are three main reasons for this. One is rapid
industrialisation in Asia, which has created overcapacity in
some industries. A second is the offshoring phenomenon, which
has allowed companies significantly to reduce their labour costs
to compensate for higher oil prices, and a third is the growth
of migrant labour, which in Britain at least has helped keep the
lid on wage demands. Even on the Continent, with its less
flexible labour markets, offshoring, or the threat of it, has
had a powerfully deflationary effect on wages. 

The upshot is that companies are finding it more difficult to
pass on their increased energy costs than they have in the past.
Instead, they are being forced to counterbalance increased
energy prices by taking the axe to other business costs, in
particular labour. If allowed to go unchecked, this process
would fast manifest itself in lower demand. 

High oil prices tend to act like a tax on consumption. More
money spent heating your house or filling the petrol tank means
less money for other things. For all net importers of oil, the
effect of higher oil prices is to take money out of the economy.
North Sea oil production protects the British economy to some
degree, but even here we are already seeing a deflationary
effect. The consequences for Continental Europe are much more
serious. Why the European Central Bank hasn't already acted with
lower interest rates is a mystery to all, but that's another
story. 

All previous oil price spikes have culminated in a recession,
which in turn leads to a collapse in demand during which the oil
price will return to more normal levels. That the cycle hasn't
yet followed this familiar pattern is largely down to
industrialisation in China and India, which has created a
powerful new source of demand both for oil and just about
everything else. 

For how much longer can this continue? A marked slowdown is
already apparent in Britain and if it is less obvious in Europe,
that's only because the core of the European economy never
really speeded up in the first place. Asia and America continue
to boom, but even in these regions, most lead indicators are now
pointing downwards. 

Two members of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee
voted for a rate cut at the last meeting. The odds are that they
will soon be joined by others, with the markets again factoring
in a quarter point cut in rates by Christmas and another shortly
thereafter. Only Mervyn King, Governor of the Bank of England,
seems still to worry about the upside risk to inflation. He
might still be right, but it is the deflationary, not the
inflationary effect of a high oil price that is exercising just
about everyone else. The world has indeed changed. 

OFT under pressure to refer Man Utd 

Perhaps you didn't know that Birkbeck College, part of the
University of London, has a Football Governance Research Centre.
This may or may not be a good use of taxpayers' money, but in an
apparent attempt to justify its existence, Professor Christine
Oughton, the Centre's director, has written to the Office of
Fair Trading demanding that Malcolm Glazer's bid for Manchester
United be referred to the Competition Commission. 

A football club, she contends, is in effect a monopoly, as the
fans that support it cannot go anywhere else to buy their
product. Mr Glazer's plan to hike ticket prices by 54 per cent
over the next four to five years is therefore an abuse demanding
public scrutiny. 

I can't agree. If Mr Glazer puts his prices up to a level which
the market won't stand, or alienates the club's supporters,
he'll destroy his business. This is unfortunate for those who
think Manchester United more important than life itself, but in
the greater scheme of things, it is of no importance at all.
Other clubs and support networks will step into the breach.
Still, passions are high, and Sir John Vickers, chairman of the
OFT, is under a lot of pressure. If he doesn't refer, he'll be
accused, as I have before, of being a surrogate Arsenal fan. 	  
        
©2005 Independent News &Media (UK) Ltd.   
*****************************************************************
 22 BJ: Nuclear change in the wind - 

2005-06-27
 
bizjournals.com

Story From the June 24, 2005 print edition 

 Southern Nuclear moves emergency centers to Birmingham Erin
MoriartyStaff Writer 

Southern Co.'s nuclear power unit has consolidated its three 
emergency operating facilities into a single location, a move 
some believe could hamper emergency response in the event of a 
nuclear accident. 

The emergency facilities used to be located at each of its three
nuclear power plants in Dothan, Ala.; Baxley, Ga.; and
Waynesboro, Ga.; near the South Carolina border. But Southern
Nuclear has combined them into one facility at its corporate
headquarters in Birmingham, Ala., that will serve as a
communications center for state and local officials managing the
emergency. 

The move, which required an exemption from federal regulations,
was approved by a 3-to-2 vote of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission with dissenting commissioners expressing concerns
about public health and safety. 

"The tragic events of September 11, 2001, and the media
responses for subsequent incidents since then have increasingly
demonstrated the burdens ... that will fall to the NRC following
an emergency at any of our licensees," said NRC Commissioner
Edward McGaffigan Jr. during the vote. "Discharging those duties
will be challenging enough under any circumstances. It will be
impossible if the cognizant NRC officials leave the state where
the emergency is ongoing for a consolidated facility over 100
miles in another direction." 

But Southern Nuclear officials say the consolidated facility in
Birmingham actually will be more efficient. 

"We believe it will help us respond even better to an emergency
at one of our plants," said spokesperson Steve Higginbottom.
"That's because in the corporate office in Birmingham we have a
large staff of engineers and technical people who can respond
equally to any incident at any of our three plants." 

Southern Nuclear, a nuclear plant subsidiary of Southern Co.
(NYSE: SO), had asked for the exemption in 2003 and 2004, was
granted the exemption in 2005 and opened the new facility last
month. 

Federal regulations, which were first drafted after the Three
Mile Island accident in 1979, require that nuclear companies
have an emergency operating facility within 25 miles of each
plant, or apply for an exemption. 

In Southern Nuclear's case, the emergency operating facility is
now 213 to 352 miles from the three nuclear plants it serves --
a much greater distance than exemptions previously approved by
the commission, according to NRC documents. Nuclear companies in
other states, such as Tennessee, North Carolina and Illinois,
have applied for these exemptions, but in each case, their
plants were closer to the consolidated emergency facility. 

"There are notable public perception issues associated with
high-level officials, including some responsible NRC officials,
located at a facility over 200 miles away and in, potentially, a
different state from where the event is occurring," said
Commissioner Gregory B. Jaczko, who said he was not convinced
that the change "will not present an undue risk to the health
and safety of the public." 

But emergency officials in Georgia say they are not concerned
about the change. They cite a July 2004 emergency drill in which
Southern Nuclear's new Birmingham center successfully handled
mock disasters at two nuclear plants simultaneously. 

"The state office of Homeland Security and Georgia Emergency
Management Agency have no issues with the common emergency
operating facility," said Ken Davis, GEMA spokesperson.
"Basically, it's a more efficient way of running that
operation." 

Robert E. Trojanowski, the NRC's state liaison officer in
Georgia, said the change won't slow his agency's response to a
nuclear emergency. If a full response was required, the agency
would send about six people to the Birmingham facility and
another 50 or so to the actual accident site. 

"It doesn't matter if it's two miles away or 200 miles away,
especially in today's world with cell phones and satellite
communications and Web-based emergency operations
communications," Trojanowski said. 			 			 			 
» Continued
 Page: 1 | 2 			 

© 2005 American City Business Journals Inc.
*****************************************************************
 23 Guardian Unlimited: France Choosen As Site for Nuclear Reactor
 
From the Associated Press        

[UP] 

Tuesday June 28, 2005 9:31 AM

By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV 

Associated Press Writer 

MOSCOW (AP) - A six-party consortium chose France as the site
for an experimental nuclear fusion reactor, a spokeswoman for
the European Union said Tuesday. 

The International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor is intended
to show that nuclear fusion, which harnesses the same energy
that heats the sun to generate electricity, can wean the world
off pollution-producing fossil fuels. Nuclear fusion produces no
greenhouse gas emissions and only low levels of radioactive
waste. 

The project is funded by a consortium comprised of Japan, the
United States, South Korea, Russia, China and the European
Union, but the six parties had been divided over where to put
the test reactor. 

Competition was intense. At stake are billions of dollars worth
of research funding, construction and engineering contracts, and
the creation of up to 100,000 new jobs, according to estimates
cited by Dow Jones NewsWires. 

Japan, the United States and South Korea wanted the facility
built at Rokkasho in northern Japan. Russia, China and the
European Union wanted it at Cadarache, in southern France. Site
proposals for Canada and Spain had already been withdrawn. 

Antonia Mochan, spokeswoman for the European Commission's
science and research committee, said the decision was made in
Moscow at a closed-door meeting of the consortium. 

The EU site in France had been seen as the front-runner, and
Japanese newspaper reports had said Tokyo was prepared to give
up hosting the $13 billion ITER project in return for a bigger
research and operations role in the project. 

Some scientists have warned that both sites are in seismically
active zones and could be prone to earth tremors.	 
		 	 	   
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 24 Paducah Sun: Cylinder security concerns guards 

http://www.paducahsun.com

Paducah, Kentucky 

The DOE, however, says high security will be maintained as UDS
recycles hazardous waste at the Paducah plant. 

By Joe Walker jwalker@paducahsun.com 270.575.8656 

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 

Leaders of the guards union warn there is too little security
planned for 33,000 cylinders of hazardous waste that will be
recycled at the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant starting in
2007. 

They have asked federal lawmakers from Kentucky to intervene,
saying they disagree with the assessment of cylinder handler
Uranium Disposition Services and the Department of Energy that
only limited security is needed. 

"DOE has always had a night-watchman attitude toward security at
this plant," Jay Stoll, president of Local 111 of Security
Police and Fire Professionals of America, said in a news
release. "We feel that this is the first step of a no-security
attitude by DOE and UDS." 

UDS President Tim Forden referred questions to the Energy
Department, which released a statement Monday afternoon
disputing Stoll's claims. 

"We will still require the same level of service from the
protective forces and expect them to be vigilant and maintain
the high security standards that apply to the entire site," the
statement said in part, going on to characterize Stoll's
criticism "that there will be no security and no controls" as
incorrect. 

UDS assumed operation of the plant cylinder yards Monday. The
firm is building a factory just west of the yards — inside a
fenced area east of the plant entrance road — to convert spent
uranium hexafluoride (UF6) in the 14-ton canisters into more
stable material from which valuable fluorine will be extracted.

Leftover waste will be shipped to Energy Department-approved
disposal facilities in the desert Southwest. 

The plant will operate for 25 years with four production lines,
each converting about one of the massive cylinders daily. The
material — a byproduct of daily production of UF6 for use in
nuclear fuel — contains low-level radiation, but its main threat
is that it releases caustic hydrogen fluoride when exposed to
moisture in the air. 

Some of the cylinders have been stored since the plant started
operating in 1952. Many have been repainted, but many are rusty,
and critics worry about a hydrogen fluoride release. 

Stoll said the cylinders, which are near a wooded area, no
longer will have access controls other than the fence. Union
officers have met with managers of DOE and UDS, who feel that
very little or no security is needed, he said. 

"We feel the public has a right to know about this lack of
security," he said, adding that union leaders have sought help
from Rep. Ed Whitfield and Sens. Mitch McConnell and Jim
Bunning. 

DOE's statement pointed out that a "detailed security plan was
developed," and "the Nuclear Regulatory Commission concurred
with our plan." 

Stoll also expressed concern that no one working directly with
UDS can have a plant security clearance because the company is
partly foreign-owned. The Lexington-based firm is a joint
venture of three companies, including Framatome, a French
consortium that has been converting UF6 waste in Germany since
1994 and in Washington state since 1998. 

DOE scrutinized the foreign-ownership issue in awarding a $558
million contract to UDS to build and run similar conversion
plants here and in Piketon, Ohio. 
*****************************************************************
 25 AxisofLogic: The Excessive Use of Weapons and Banned Weapons 

 U.S. Military
 
www.axisoflogic.com

By Akira Maeda, Sayo Saruta, Koichi Inamori
 Jun 28, 2005, 04:38


Istanbul, June 27, 2005

The Use of Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons

1. The Truth About the Use of Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons by
US and UK Troops

The US and UK troops in the attacks on Iraq that started on 21
March 2001 used DU weapons during the battles at various places
in Iraq. The truth of the use of DU weapons by US troop was
verified and admitted by Brigadier General Brooks in a press
briefing on 26 March of the same year when he said, "DU bombs
had been used.".

Michael Kilpatrick, Deputy Director of Deployment Health Support
in the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health
Affairs, at a forum at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology
on 6 March 2004, said, "The Army fired and used from tanks and
armored vehicle 24 tons or less of DU bombs, and the Air Force,
10 tons or less of DU bombs from A-10 planes. These, when
combined, would be equivalent to 115 tons of metallic uranium.

Also, before the outbreak of the war, on 15 March 2003, in a
press briefing at the Department of Defense, Colonel Naughton,
stated that "Abrams tanks had been loaded with DU bombshells,"
and "so were A-10 planes" because "there was not other choice.
Witnesses had repeatedly seen civilian facilities being targeted
by A- 10 planes starting with Iraq's Planning Ministry during
the aerial bombing of Baghdad. Report on the investigation
conducted by Scott Peterson, as a matter of fact, corroborated
the statement given by Colonel Naugton at the above-mentioned
press briefing. Abrams tanks were the main battle tanks used in
the ground assault of Iraq. It is, therefore, highly probable
that aside from the facts already verified, the US Armed Forces
has used in large quantity DU weapons, even exceeding the
reported volume, in all areas of offensive operations in Iraq,
even at densely populated areas, particularly Baghdad, Basra,
etc.

2. Special Properties of Depleted Uranium (DU) Weapons

Storing depleted uranium is enormously expensive, but disposing
it by all means is what the US Department of Energy has wanted
to do. It is in military weapons that depleted uranium is used
in extremely large scale, and it is used mainly as penetration
body that is attached to bombshells for the sake of increasing
its penetration capacity, and also as armor of tanks in order to
increase its defense capacity. Mainly, uranium weapons have the
following advantages:

1) Depleted uranium, because of its very heavy density (1.7
times of lead, 2.5 times of iron) and hardness, when used to tip
bullets, increases the penetration power of the bullets, and
displays such tremendous capacity as to power to open holes in
thick iron plates and concrete.

2) Even when there are no explosives inside the bombshell, it
explodes upon impact, and the capacity to kill and injure the
enemy is high because of the high temperature it causes when it
burns.

3) It is very cheap because its raw materials are radioactive
wastes.

However, when depleted uranium explodes upon impact, and burns
with high temperature, it becomes microparticles of oxidized
uranium (ceramic form aerosol of diametrical-micron; a micron is
equivalent to 1/1000mm), discharged heavily, and are packed in
tanks. Also, the particles diffused in the atmosphere and
whirled up in the sky, pollute vast range of the atmosphere, and
also, the particles that fall on the ground pollute the
environment such as the soil and water, etc.

3. Dreadful Negative Effects of Depleted Uranium Weapons on the
Human Body

Once the uranium particles are inhaled into the body, the
particles attach first to the trachea and the respiratory
system. As the particles are practically insoluble, they are
difficult to dissolve in the blood, and stay there for a long
period of time. Eventually these clinging particles continue to
expose the neighboring organs to radiation. By that, they cause
the cell and the gene to go into some transformation, and cause
cancers, leukemia, lymphoma, congenital disorders and defects.
Then, gradually, they are absorbed into the blood and lymph, and
cause various illnesses and damages to the whole body. Also,
aside from inhalation, they get into the body and enter the
bloodstream by oral ingestion and through wounds. This kind of
very dangerous weapons are being diffused in large quantity all
over Iraq by the US and British troops. Not only during the war,
but also after the war, and an unimaginable length of time of
4.5 billion years hereafter, the people of Iraq will have to
bear the burden of living in this vast polluted land and learn
how to survive with this grim reality. The British and US
troops, at the instance that they drop DU weapons, do not just
snatch away precious lives but cause the Iraqis further and
eternal miseries.

1) Physical Damages in Iraq After the Gulf War

During the Gulf War in January 1991, the US Armed Forces dropped
320 tons of depleted uranium weapons on Iraq. Since after the
war, there has been a high incidence of strange phenomenon not
seen in Iraq before the war. There have been several incidences
of such phenomenon as several members of one family developing
cancer, or one patient having several types of cancer, etc.,
cancer that spreads fast, the outbreak of infectious diseases
due to fast spreading cancer, leukemia, aplastic anemia, and
malignant tumor, and immunodeficiency, massive herpes, and
herpes zoster pain, symptoms resembling AIDS, syndrome due to
liver and kidney dysfunction, hereditary dysphasia (hereditary
damage) due to gene defects. Children, especially infants, who
cannot fight back and are blameless, have become the number one
victims of this war. The southern City of Basra, which is near
the battleground of the Gulf War, has been very seriously
damaged, and according to a doctor at the Basra Educational
Hospital, the number of people who have succumbed to cancer rose
from 34 in 1988 prior to the Gulf War to the astonishing figure
of 603 in 2001 that was 17 times larger.

i. Basra Maternity and Pediatrics Hospital. Mohammed Hoji (5)
was diagnosed with leukemia just a year after his own mother,
who was also confined in the same hospital, died of leukemia.
The physician in charge of this case, Dr. Surin Shirub, related,
"What makes this case to stand out is that the whole family and
the brothers one by one have succumbed to cancer and leukemia.
This kind of phenomenon never existed before the Gulf War." The
aunt, Abed (32), who was caring for the boy lamented, "Why do we
have to suffer like this even when the war is over?" .

ii. Zein (5), who was confined in the Basra Maternity and
Pediatrics Hospital, 5 months before, suddenly developed a
swollen abdomen, and was diagnosed with leukemia. Since then, he
had become weak and lost his gaiety. His mother, Semal (25),
sighed, "I would like America to know how the war has caused us
so much miseries for many generations to come."

iii. Abbas (5), who was diagnosed with leukemia 3 years ago, was
sleeping soundly beside his mother Hamdi (30). The hair on his
head had become extremely thin as an effect of drugs
administered to him. Hamdi said, "It's hard when you are
helpless to do anything to save your child from his sufferings."
Dr. Jasem (32) of this hospital related, "The damages of the war
are not a temporary matter. Even after that, its innocent
victims will suffer for generations to come.” These innocent
children of Iraq, in fact, have been deprived of their rights to
be born with good health and grow normally because of the
effects of these DU weapons. Furthermore, the economic sanctions
imposed on Iraq by the UN from August 1990 had contributed more
to this pathetic situation. The UN Resolution 661 had exempted
from the embargo materials to be used for medical purposes.
However, the committee that was charged with the implementation
of the embargo in accordance with the provision of the
Resolution 661 could not make this exemption operative due to
opposition by commissioners from the US and UK, and thus, there
arose a shortage of medical supplies, vaccines, syringes,
anesthetics, and medical apparatuses necessary for medical
treatments. According to a UNICEF report, by February 1991,
medical supplies had reached 1/6 of the normal level of
stockpile. Also, UNICEF, in a 1993 report, announced, "at the
beginning of the Gulf War, the number of children dying was more
or less 100,000, but after the war, the rate of death has
increased 3 times of the number before the war. Medical care,
and insurance service were rendered useless due to the shortage
of supplies and apparatuses for medical care and treatment. And
also, due to depleted uranium bombs that were used during the
Gulf War, the number of cancer patients suddenly increased after
the war. If proper treatment had been provided at the early
stage of the disease, death could have been avoided, but due to
the shortage of medical supplies and appliances because of the
economic sanctions, patients could not be treated properly
resulting in the great increase in the number of afflicted
victims.” .

Likewise, the postwar depredation had driven the best of doctors
in Iraq out of country. A lot many of the doctors and scholars,
who stayed behind, were actually classified with world-class
academes, and had participated and presented the results of
their researches in international scientific and academic
conferences. However, due to the economic sanctions, they were
unable to obtain visas so that they could participate in
international conferences and have the opportunity to continue
to establish scholarly exchanges necessary for the advancement
and improvement of the level of medical practice and treatment
in Iraq. Even if they wanted to go overseas to receive training
on radiation exposure, for example, or perhaps just to procure
the necessary medical supplies, they could not do so because
they could not get visas. Data of Iraqi victims were
indispensable in coping with the inexperience with regard to the
effects of radiation due to DU weapons, and while Iraqi doctors
could be in a position to provide those data and materials, the
economic sanctions hampered their progress and development.

Dr. Junan, a cancer expert at the Ibn Gaswan Hospital, a
Maternity and Pediatrics Hospital in the city of Basra related,
"Children's leukemia, if treated thoroughly at the early stage,
has a 70% chance of being cured, but the kind of medicine for
this ailment is not available, and so, the patients cannot be
treated well, and lamentably just end up dying. But under the
present economic sanctions, we are allowed only to procure food
supplies in exchange for oil, and we are forced to make do with
only 20% of needed medical supplies. How then can we cure the
sick?" In 2001 alone, 256 cases had been confirmed to be born
with congenital defects in this hospital.

2) Clinical Cases of US Veterans in this Iraqi War

As for Samawa, where the Self Defense Force is stationed, it is
strategically located between Basra and Baghdad. The US army,
when marching to Baghdad passing through this route, met with
stiff resistance from Iraqi troops, and it took them a week to
quell the insurgencies in towns and roads they passed by.
Depleted uranium weapons were used during the fighting.

Dr. Asaf Durakovic, a specialist on Nuclear Medicine, adviser of
the National Science Foundation, and director of the nuclear
medicine clinic created by the US Veterans Department after the
end of the Gulf War, established the Uranium Medical Research
Center, which is an independent research agency based in Canada,
and for several years has continued to examine evidences of
depleted uranium contamination of American, British and Canadian
soldiers. According to a survey conducted by Dr. Durakovic
published in the New York Daily News dated 3 April 2004, after
the Iraqi War, he detected depleted uranium from the urine of 4
out of 9 US soldiers who were stationed to keep peace and order
in Samawa after the Iraqi War, and returned home due to bad
physical condition after complaining of chronic migraine,
nausea, bloody urine, partial hearing and vision impairment,
etc. (E24). The 442nd MP Company, where the surveyed soldiers
belonged, was in charge of convoy and training of Iraqi
policemen, and was not involved in direct combat. Depleted
uranium was detected in these soldiers, who were doing such
mission, and it was probable that they had been exposed to
uranium by inhalation of depleted uranium particles in the
atmosphere. Sgt. Juan Vega, Chief Medical Orderly of this
company related, "One night, 10 to 15 people just suddenly fell
ill and developed symptoms such as fever of as high as 39.4oC,
chill and other symptoms of unexplained nature. More than a
dozen people out of 160 soldiers suddenly had been having kidney
stones." He said, "Samawa is like hell."

The Dutch Company stationed at Samawa after that decided to set
up camp in the middle of the desert because the radiation level
in the environs where the US military set up camps was just too
high.

4. Medical Verification

For the sake of argument that the above-mentioned damages have
been due to DU, we shall have to prove that there is a
correlation between DU and its effects on the human body based
on medical findings on the existence of this crisis pertaining
to DU. Now, regarding Iraq after the Gulf War that has reported
the most number of DUrelated casualties, we shall use as
reference the data gathered by Fasy TM that were presented at
the International DU Symposium held in New York in June 2003 as
a medical paper never before published.

1) The Teratogenicity of Depleted Uranium

(1) The Children of Iraq According to the data gathered by Fasy
TM the frequency rate of congenital dysphasia is 3.04 per 1000
monitored in Basra, but in 2000, it rose to 17.6 that was 5-6
times higher than previously reported. This is particularly true
in many reported cases where the parents were soldiers who
participated in the Gulf War.

(2) Children of Veterans of the Gulf War

The result of a survey conducted to determine the frequency rate
of congenital dysphasia on veterans of the Gulf War by the US
Military Research Institute was published in a New England
Journal of Medicine, a medical journal, according to Cowan in
1997. The conclusion was that there was no difference in the
rate of frequency of congenital dysphasia of children of
veterans of the Gulf War with veterans who did not go to the
Gulf War.
However, 5 months later, the result of the research conducted by
three British researchers, Pat Doyle, Eve Roman, Noreen
Maconochie, refuting the evaluation made only on children who
were born and lived, disregarding aborted births and stillbirths
due to massive congenital deformities, excluding 1/3 of overall
number of discharged soldiers, and the inaccuracy of these
investigations was published in the same journal.
In 2001, Kang of the Veterans Affairs Administration announced a
research that would not exclude aborted births/stillbirths, and
veterans in their research. The result was that compared to
veterans who did not go to the Gulf War, congenital dysphasia on
children of veterans who served in the Gulf War was 2.3 times
for male, and 2.4 times for female (E28). The truth about this
increase in number even just on those who participated in the
Gulf War is indeed astonishing.

(3) Animal Experiments

Based on the 2001 research conducted by Domingo JL of Spain, et
al., when male rats were ingested for a period of 16 weeks with
natural uranium, rate of pregnancy decreased, a degeneration of
the testicles (male gonads) occurred, and there was a decrease
in the production of sperms . Also, it was confirmed that 10
days before and after giving doses to pregnant mice,
ossification is 3 times to 5 times lower compared to control
group in litters, and there are numerous instances of birth
defects of the extremities.
In 2002, McClain DE, et al. of the US Armed Forces embedded
depleted uranium in rats, and investigated to determine the
effects of DU on the embryo. It was confirmed that the sizes of
the embryos of rats are smaller after more than 6 months of
being embedded with DU passing the placenta.

The congenital dysphasia and various diseases in children of
soldiers who participated in the Gulf War resemble the
conditions of Iraqi children, and this can be traced to the
teratogenicity in DU.

2) Carcinogenicity of Depleted Uranium

(1) Iraqi Children
Based on the data gathered by Fasy TM, in 1990 in Basra, out of
100,000 children, there were 3.98 cancer cases, but in 2000, the
number increased to 13.1 cases .

(2) Veterans of the Gulf War
There is no medical report showing that there is a statistical
increase of cancer in veterans of the Gulf War, but there is a
need for a detailed investigation on the rate of incidence of
cancer in children of veterans.

(3) Experiments on Animals
To sum up the series of animal experiments done by Miller, et
al. of the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute, DU
increases the oncogene expression per human cell and cell
disorder growth, etc., and causes the existence of cancer
forming operation. Also, they explain that DU, more than even
nickel that is known to cause tumor, largely increases more
chromosomal abnormality linked with carcinogens.
Hahn, et al reported that thorotrast and DU produce much more
sarcoma (malignant tumor) when they conducted experiments by
embedding tungsten, which is a heavy metal but non-radioactive
material, and radioactive material thorotrast in rats. This
indicates that DU is not only cancer causing as a heavy metal
but is also cancer causing as a radioactive materials.

(4) Effects on the Human Cell
In 2003, Schroeder, et al of Germany analyzed the chromosomal
abnormality of the lymphocytes of 16 soldiers who served in the
Gulf War and Balkan War, and these soldiers were proven to have
been exposed to radiation. They confirmed that the rate of
specific c chromosomal abnormality among these soldiers was 4.2
higher when they compared the chromosomal abnormality
([dicentric] and [centric ring] chromosomes) that was said to be
specific in ionizing radiation with non-specific chromosomal
abnormality. They hinted and concluded that despite the fact
that the specific chromosomal abnormality cell could not survive
for long (half life being up to the extent of 3.5 years), they
observed that even after a lapse of more than 10 years since the
Gulf War, the body continued to be exposed to radiation due to
the DU that had accumulated inside the body for long years.On
top of this, they noted based on available data from Hiroshima
and Nagasaki the fact that this exposure to radiation could
cause chromosomal abnormality in lymphocytes. Thus, there is no
doubt that the cause of cancer such as the increase in the
number of cases of leukemia in Iraq today is connected with DU.

3) Verification of Gulf War Syndrome

The Gulf War syndrome shows chronic symptoms such as fatigue,
headache, muscle and osteoarticular pains, insomnia,
neuropsychiatric symptom, impaired memory, impaired vision, etc.

(1) Physical Condition of Gulf War Veterans
It is evident that based on the data of Fukuda in 1998, which
are data comparing the physical condition of soldiers who
participated in the Gulf War (hereinafter referred to as GWV)
with soldiers who did not participate in the Gulf War
(hereinafter referred to as non-GWV), the frequency of various
symptoms of chronicity is 39% in GWV against 14% in non-GWV of
light and medium, etc. symptoms, and 6% in GWV against 0.7% in
non-GWV of serious illness. It is evident that frequency of such
symptoms is higher in soldiers who participated in the Gulf War.
It cannot be far from the truth that based on the data of Kang
in 1996, the rate of death in GWV is 10.4 against 9.6% in
non-GWV showing statistically a difference . However, in the
2002 data of Kang, it shows that the number of accidental deaths
is more numerous among GWV than among the non-GWV . Also, in
1997, Gray reported that hospitalization rate was 10% higher
among soldiers who participated in the Gulf War . It is true
that going to war is accompanied by a great risk, and the
appearance of various symptoms after returning from the war is
designated as "war syndrome." However, based on the report of
Harvey RW, et al. of 2002, among the soldiers returning from the
war, the number of the disabled persons, who have received
services after that, 8.6% served in World War II, 5% in the
Korean War, 9.6% in the Vietnam War and in the case of the Gulf
War, it has reached 16% (estimated at 110,000 persons) . It is
evident that the Gulf War, compared with other wars, has caused
a lot many damages, and they cannot be categorized simply as
some risk of going to war. Countless researches are being
conducted on the causes of these symptoms, but no massive
investigation placing primary focus on DU has been done. There
exist, however, an extensive literature relating to depleted
uranium

(2) Experiments on Animals.
Pellmar TC, et al, in 1999, revealed evidences of DU causing
brain damage by embedding it in rats, and they arrived at the
conclusion that DU produces neurological disorder. Also, as for
effects of depleted uranium on peripheral nerves, they observed
the occurrence of cramps, pain in the extremities, gait
disorder, shiver, etc., and that there is damage of calcium
metabolism of the neuromuscular junction.

(3) Psycho-neuron Abnormalities
McDiarmid, et al. of the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical
Center, in a research paper published in 2000, tested 29 people
in 1997 out of the 33 veterans with fragments of DU in their
body they had put under observation since 1993. They observed
the neurocognizance test becoming bad in proportion to the high
concentration of DU in their urines, and abnormality in the
hormone function of the reproductive system. Also, they reported
the genetic damage and the sperm count abnormality . Yet, while
they recognize this sort of health problems, they made it look
that there were not much complaints about the symptoms when
comparing them with the 21 Gulf War veterans who had not been
exposed to DU. However, 11 out of the 21 were in fact suffering
from some neuron abnormality and were in extremely bad
condition, and a terrible deception was evidently carried out.
Similarly, tests were conducted in 1999, and in the report
published in 2001, 29 people with incomparably low concentration
of DU in their urines to the 21 out of the previous 33 people
tested were added, and this was to intentionally dilute the
results in an attempt to eliminate the difference abnormal
neuron and reproductive hormone levels. .

(4) Chromosomal Abnormality
As previously stated, the chromosomes of 16 people who have been
suffering from Gulf War syndrome are 5.2 times higher of
[dicentric] and [ring centric] chromosomes. Others also,
according to Uranobitz, et al, have verified seeing the
chromosomal abnormality in veterans of the Gulf War who have
shown such symptoms.

(5) Increase of Depleted Uranium Density in Urine
P Horan, et al of Canada examined the urines of 27 American,
British and Canadian patients, and detected a high density of DU
in 14 people. This data proves the fact that even after 8 or 9
years after exposure to DU, high density of DU are being
discharged in the urine. In addition, Durakovic, et al have
examined the uranium in the urine of 8 residents of 8 regions in
Afghanistan who have symptoms similar to Gulf War syndrome,
published in 2003 data on the detection of high density of
uranium in the urine of all of them. Furthermore, in 2004, they
published the data on the detection of DU in the urines of 4 out
of 9 American soldiers, who were in charge of maintaining public
order after the Iraqi War, and returned home due to poor
physical condition.

It is clear from the investigations conducted by Horan and
Durakovic that DU remains in the body for several years. There
is no doubt about the DU being more or less in part the cause of
the Gulf War syndrome, and its toxicity.

4) There are researchers who recognize the toxicity of DU even
within the US Military

Arfsten DP of the Naval Health Research Center and Rictchie GD,
et al of the Wright-Patterson Air Force Base have studied in
detail all US military researches, etc. up until then, and in
2001, in their joint names, published their dissertation .
(1) High density of DU in the urine was detected after a lapse
of 10 years from soldiers, who had inhaled particles or pierced
with fragments of DU during the conflict at the Gulf War and
Kosovo.
(2) In mice, the DU accumulated in the testicles, bone, kidneys,
and brain.
(3) In test-tube experiments, there were the genetic disorder
characteristic and teratogenicity, and the rat, when embedded
with DU, developed brain tumor.
(4) It is possible to say that whether it is as a heavy metal or
radioactivity, it has strong effect on the reproduction of rats.

In this treatise, there is the remark that “the opinion
expressed here does not reflect the opinion of the military but
are based on the point of views of the authors.” However, even
as researchers of the military, they have sufficiently
recognized the damages caused by DU. Recognizing the risks is
not limited to their researches. As previously stated, numerous
medical researches relating to DU are being conducted even with
grants from the military. Even when they are being conducted
under the direct supervision of the military, these researches
are being given emphasis even when they may verify the danger of
DU.

Suffice it to say, it is clear from existing medical
dissertations that DU is an extremely dangerous substance that
does not only cause temporary disorders, but chronic health
breakdown, congenital defects, carcinogens, and other disorders.

5. Awareness on the Toxicity of DU weapons of the US Armed Forces

The following are the explanations about the fact that the US
Military is fully aware that DU weapons are harmful to the body
by the development process of these weapons:

1) Letters to General Groves

In October 1943, 3 physicists, A. H. Compton, et al., sent a
letter proposing "research on development and protection of
radioactive weapons" to General Groves who took part in the
Manhattan Project. In this letter, the 3 doctors proposed the
organization of a team for the sake of doing researches on the
handling and preparation of radioactive materials as weapons,
and also, the preparation in case the Nazi Germans would be
ahead in developing similar weapons, and on protection from
these weapons.�@They hypothesized that these are weapons
behaving just like toxic gas weapons. In the letter, they
proposed, "as a gas warfare instrument the material would be
grounded into particles of microscopic size to form dust and
smoke and distributed by a ground-fired projectile, land
vehicles, or aerial bombs. In this form personnel would inhale
it into the lungs. The amount necessary to cause death to a
person inhaling the material is extremely small. It has been
estimated that one millionth of a gram accumulating in a
person's body would be fatal." Also, it mentioned, "Two factors
appear to increase the effectiveness of radioactive dust or
smoke as a weapon. These are:_1 It cannot be detected by the
senses; _2It can be distributed in a dust or smoke form so
finely powdered that it will permeate a standard gas mask filter
in quantities large enough to be extremely damaging. An
off-setting factor in its effectiveness as a weapon is that in a
dust or smoke form the material is so finely pulverized that it
takes on the characteristic of a quickly dissipating gas and is
therefore subject to all the factors (such as wind) working
against maintenance of high concentrations for more than a few
minutes over a given area."

2) Some of the U.S. Government's Documentation of Harmful
Effects of D.U. Weapons Documents provided by the Campaign
Against Depleted Uranium (CADU) of UK are cited below to prove
the harmful effects of DU :

A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) advisory circular by M.
C. dated 20 December 1984 warning FAA crash site investigators
about encounters with planes laden with depleted uranium,
aircraft balance weights at sites, when investigating plane
crashes accidents that "if particles are inhaled or ingested,
they can be chemically toxic and cause a significant and
long-lasting irradiation of internal tissue.” On March 7, 1979,
the US Army Mobility Equipment, Research and Development Command
stated, "Not only the people in the immediate vicinity,
emergency and fire fighting personnel, but also people at
distances downwind from the fire are faced with potential over
exposure to air borne uranium dust." (This was disclosed in
accordance with request based on the Freedom of Information Act
to the National Gulf War Resources Center by Chris Kornkven, et
al.) U.S. Army Environmental Policy Institute, in a June 1995
resort to Congress, says depleted uranium has the potential to
generate “significant medical consequences” if it enters the
body. “The radiation dose to critical organs depends upon the
amount of time that depleted uranium resides in the organs. When
this value is known or estimated, cancer and hereditary risk
estimates can be determined.” On May 26 1997, the Nation
Magazine published an article about the U.S. Army Armaments,
Munitions and Chemical Command (AMCCOM) report in July 1990 that
depleted uranium is a “low level alpha radiation emitter, which
is linked to cancer when exposures are internal, and that
chemical toxicity causes kidney damage.” Also, AMCCOM�fs
radiological task group has stated, “Long term effects of low
doses (of DU) have been implicated in cancer�cthere is not dose
so low that the probability of effect is zero.” On August 16,
1993, Col. Robert G. Claypool of the U.S. Army Surgeon
General�fs Office, in a letter, says, "When soldiers inhale or
ingest DU dust, they incur a potential increase in cancer risk.
The magnitude of that increase can be quantified if the DU
intake can be estimated. Expected physiological effects from
exposure to DU dust include possible increase in the outbreak of
cancer and kidney damage.” Health hazards data, (the Materials
Safety Data Sheet:MSDS) from the U.S. Department of Labor says
that the "(DU) increases the risk of lung carcinoma and chemical
toxicity to kidney. Decay products of U-238, U-235, and U-234
are just as hazardous."

These documents indicated that before the Gulf War, and even
after that, the US Armed Forces and the US government have long
been doing investigations repeatedly on the danger of depleted
uranium, and the hazards of internal irradiation, and knew fully
well about its carcinogenicity and teratogenicity.

3) Testimony of Doug Rokke

Doug Rokke was a professor of Physics and Environmental Science
at the Jacksonville University, an Army major (Reserve), and in
1994-95 was in charge of the DU Project of the Pentagon. He took
the stand and answered questions from the prosecutors of the
International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan regarding the
said project. As to the background of the formation of this DU
Project team of the Pentagon, he said, "Commissioned officers
from the UK, Australia, Canada and Germany participated in the
project to study the risk of DU weapons and I was tasked by the
Army to direct the team. The objective of the project was to
ensure that adequate information and training to soldiers being
deployed to the battlefield are provided by making it clear to
them the risks and hazards when DU bomb weapons are used, and to
know what kind of countermeasures and precautionary measures
should be adopted, and to make proposals as to how to clean up
the DU bullets. Also, we submitted recommendations, which were
completely ignored. Up to this day, the US Armed Forces the US
army has not taken any measures to protect the soldiers." He
also mentioned, "We made a proposal that clean-up was essential,
but in reality, complete clean-up was impossible. Threfore, we
proposed not to use DU weapons any longer. However our proposal
was ignored by the upper level of the government and completely
ignored by NATO, UK, Australia and others."

Furthermore, Doug Rokke said that as part of the DU project,
they made several videotapes that were supposed to be produced
as videotapes on DU bombs of the Pentagon. "The first one was an
advisory on what kind of danger was there when a DU bomb would
explode, the second about a manual on when a clean up was being
done, and the third one was on how to measure the radiation, and
we made clear that a Geiger counter would not be effective in
measuring DU bombs. The fourth one was about what kind of
equipment should be used in destroying the residue of the DU
bomb, and the fifth one was on how to handle dud (unexploded)
bombs. These were produced especially for the sake of soldiers
who would go on dangerous missions, but in the end, they were
never used." he stated. The US started the DU weapon project,
but because of the report that was released about the extremely
high risk 00 of DU weapons, and recommendation that they should
not be used, the results of the researches of the project were
classified. Through the proliferation of these information and
videos, the hazardous nature of DU weapons had become clear, and
the US feared being showered with criticisms by the
international community, and that DU weapons would no longer be
used ever. This is how, according to Doug Rokke, et al. was
their recommendations were ignored, their project dissolved, and
why nothing is done ever to protect the soldiers from DU weapons
nor provide them with medical care (E56).

4) Awareness on the Violations of International Laws in the US
Armed Forces

Within the US Armed Forces, they are aware about possible
violation of international law regarding the use of this type of
weapons being a violation of international laws in addition to
awareness of matters of this nature related to the danger of
depleted uranium as stated above.

The U.S. Air Force�fs 1976 manual titled “International Law: The
Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations" names treaties,
including The Hague Conventions of 1907, the Geneva Gas Protocol
of 1925, and the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of
Civilians in Time of War, 1949, and specifically recognized as
binding by the US Armed Forces. The Geneva Gas Protocol outlaws
asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and all analogous
liquids, materials or devices, and the Hague Conventions
explicitly forbid the use especially of poison or poisoned
weapons. The Air Force manual defines poison as "biological or
chemical substances causing death or disability with permanent
effects when, in even small quantities, they are ingested, enter
the lungs or bloodstream, or touch the skin.” The manual says,
“Any weapons may be put to an unlawful use," and unequivocally,
“A weapon may be illegal per se if either international custom
or treaty has forbidden its use under all circumstances. An
example is poison to kill or injure a person.”

The 70's was a period when the US military began a full-scale
development and production of DU bombshells.

6. Environmental Pollution by Depleted Uranium (DU)

1) Widespread Radioactive Contamination in Iraq

In this war on Iraq, DU weapons are used in large cities and
towns starting with Baghdad. Many countries have a limit of
public exposure to radiation prescribed by laws based on the
recommendation of ICRP set at 1 millisievert per annum, and the
quantity of depleted uranium equivalent to this is 11.4
milligrams. The quantity of depleted uranium contained in a
30-milligram DU bomb is 280 grams. One shot of this can emit a
radiation surpassing the radiation limit for 25,000 persons per
annum by ignition and micronization. In accordance with the
on-the-spot investigations conducted by privately-run facilities
and scientists, it has been reported that high level radiations
are detected from soils surrounding road ditches and inside of
building sites where warheads and hulls of these DU bombs have
rolled into, and war tanks. The exact amount used is not
publicly announced but Michael Kilpatrick, in a forum stated
that even with just 115 tons, it would be enough to distribute a
dosage per annum of about 100,000,000 people. The depleted
uranium has deeply penetrated the life sphere of people.

At the conclusion of this war on 6 April 2004, UNEP Executive
Director Klaus Toefger said, "UNEP stands ready to conduct early
environmental field studies in Iraq. Given the overall
environmental concerns during the conflict, and the fact that
the environment of Iraq was already a cause for serious concern
prior to the current war, UNEP believes early field studies
should be carried out (E61). This is especially important to
protect human health in a post-conflict situation due to the
apparent use of DU weapons in this war. Immediately after that,
UNEP published a "desk study on the Iraq environment" that
contained information on the risks to groundwater, surface
water, drinking water sources, and the scattering of radioactive
particles. The report of the British Royal Society in 2002 also
predicts that due to depleted uranium, the radioactive
contamination, after the conflict, will gradually permeate the
soil and water sources in the years ahead.

2) The Development of the Idea of Environmental Protection

The present global environment was formed from even before the
human race appeared on earth, and human race has evolved by
conforming and adapting to it. However, the rapid development of
scientific technology by the pursuit for comfort and convenience
brought about the destruction of the ecosystem, and global
environmental pollution, and that has caused the situation where
the very existence of mankind is now in imminent danger. Amidst
this situation, in 1971, the United Nations convened its first
international conference with the environment for its theme; The
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, and adopted
the "Declaration of the United Nations Conference of the Human
Environment."

In the declaration are expressed the ideals that "both aspects
of man's environment, the natural and the man-made, are
essential to his well-being and to the enjoyment of basic human
rights the right to life itself," "All countries, organizations
and individuals at every level, all sharing equitably in common
efforts, to achieve this environmental goal will demand the
acceptance of responsibility and by their values and the sum of
their actions, will shape the world environment of the future,"
and "all countries shall bear the responsibility that their
respective countries will not cause damage to the regional
environment of another country."

The deepening and development of the environmental ideology was
derived from movements�@attempting to regulate the environmental
destruction brought about by the war. The treaty on the
prohibition of military and other hostile use of environmental
modification techniques, which was approved in 1976, prohibits
the military use of environmental modification technique ((any
technique for changing through the deliberate manipulation of
natural processes the dynamics, composition, or structure of the
earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere, or of
outer space) likely to have widespread, long-lasting and also
severe effects as a means to cause destruction, damage and also
injury. Simultaneously, Supplementary Protocol of the Geneva
Conventions also came into effect, and stipulated that "it is
prohibited to use as means or method of combat intending or
predicting to inflict widespread, long-lasting, and severe
injury."

3) Precautionary Principle

However, without limiting it to the conduct of war, the
technique and knowledge of being able to predict exactly how
much effect modern activities of men associated with progress of
technology to the environment cannot be established at present.
Consequently, the idea about the "precautionary principle"
emerged in the middle of international conferences and treaties
regarding environment. At the United Nations Conference on
Environment of 1992, in the "Rio Declaration," with regard to
the Precautionary Principle, it specifies, "In order to protect
the environment, In order to protect the environment, the
precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States
according to their capabilities. Where there are threats of
serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific
certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing
cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation."
To prioritize this principle, it is not difficult to imagine the
fact about seeking profit or causing the stagnation of
researches, and for that, there will be a deep-rooted opposition
to enterprise, etc., and there will be a division of opinions
between nations. However, irrevocable environmental problems on
the global scale such as ecosystem abnormalities, etc. causing
global warming and endocrine disrupting substance have
extensively been observed, and in 2000, an EU Commission set
forth the policy called "to standardize the Precautionary
Principle regarding environmental problems." We, human being,
who have repeatedly polluted and destroyed the environment for
the sake of profit and greed and lack of foresight, have come to
this stage, and while at the same time there is the issue of
protecting our fundamental human rights and preservation of the
ecosystem, that may motivate us to start taking notice at last
of our important responsibility to the future.

Regarding this problem, scientists and specialist of capitalist
countries have been playing a great role, and concentrating
their efforts in promoting the Precautionary Principle by
publishing their statements in the Wingspread Conference of 1998
or the International Conference regarding Science and
Precautionary Principle in 2001. While they are still a
minority, they have had influence in policy making. An ordinance
adopted by the City of San Francisco in California is an
example. Also, hereafter, there will be a need for the citizens
to join hands and furthermore, to uphold the precautionary
principle. Here at last, mankind has recognized the need for
voluntary restraints as a common duty and responsibility in
order to prevent the complete destruction of the environment
because people have become heedless of the environment,
concerned only in making profits, and selfish in their attitude
and mentality. The conceptualization of that is the
"precautionary principle,” and we should bear in mind to take
upon ourselves the responsibility to continue to affirm that
this will become a basic idology of mankind regarding the
protection of the environment, and also to exert effort to
observe it.

We believe that we should perceive the precautionary principle
as something to deepen and develop an international humanitarian
law and naturally apply it even to the conduct of war. The
stipulation in the treaties and supplemental protocols stated
previously to ban "the ways and means of military combat
forecasted to cause widespread, long-lasting and severe effect
and injury to the environment, should be applied at a time when
some conduct is foreseen to have possible grave impact on the
environment for the sake of actually demonstrating its valid
restraining force.�@To put it plainly, the use of DU weapons,
which has been dispersing the radioactivity that has possible
grave impact on the ecosystem, is an apparent illegal act if the
international humanitarian law in the context of this historical
development of environmental protection achieved by the
precautionary principle is understood.

4) The Crime of the Omnicide

On the other hand, at the International Criminal Tribunal for
Afghanistan, a judgment has been passed that states that the use
of DU weapons is an act that means a threat to the existence of
even neighboring countries of the whole region, extinction of
all life-forms, pollution of the air, water and food resources,
or the irreversible alteration of genetic mutation of all life
forms including vegetation, or in other words, it constitutes an
omnicidal crime (E66). This is a fact that focuses attention to
the danger of depleted uranium said to affect the ecosystem, and
the use of that is perceived to be an act of large-scale
massacre of all life forms on earth. The failure to pursue the
criminality of that by reason that the effect to the environment
of DU weapons is not sufficiently established has unavoidably
fostered the use and production of this kind of weapons of
destruction of the environment. That is going against the tide
of history of the formation of the precautionary principle
stated previously, and even in times of war, in order to make
the precautionary principle effectively functional, some
regulation of criminal punishment in case of violations to that
principle is necessary. As a basis of culpability of an act of
violation, there is the omnicide, and the urgent establishment
of this concept is much desired. Even for the sake of making the
international human law to function effectively hereafter, there
is a need for assimilating the concept called "omnicide" with
the precautionary principle in the environmental sphere. For
this reason likewise, in this place, we denounce the use of DU
weapons as a violation of international laws, and thereby
strongly appeal for banning their use.

7. The use of DU Weapons As An Evident “War Crime” and “A Crime
Against Humanity”

That the use of DU weapons is an illegal act in violation of
International Humanitarian Law is evidently clear. The
International Humanitarian Law is not something that will
legalize directly the use of those weapons, even in a case when
there is no explicit regulation to immediately regulate
individual weapons, but it has manifested the necessity for
compliance to _1 a principle of prohibition of the means of
causing unnecessary agony and uselessly aggravating the
sufferings of disabled combatants; _2 the principle of
prohibition of the destruction of non-military objects; _3 the
principle of prohibition of weapons of mass destruction.
However, as previously mentioned, the uranium pollution due to
DU weapons has high lethality, and the unnecessary suffering
inflicted indiscriminately on people regardless of whether one
is an enemy or an ally, the continuous toxicity even after the
war, and the calamity it is likely to bring to future posterity
are clear indications of their potency to be indiscriminate, and
the fact that this kind of weapons have been used in densely
populated areas, including Baghdad regardless of whether it is a
military object or a non-military object, shows that the
American and British Armed Forces have evidently violated all
the 3 above-mentioned principles.

1) Crime Against Humanity

The use of DU weapons by the American and British Armed Forces
is an attack to murder people, plunge them into a state of deep
suffering, noticeably obstruct, wreck and steal the health due
to the genetic disorder, and the long-lasting destruction of the
environment, due to widespread uranium pollution in all the
nation of Iraq, is an "inhumane act” committed as part of a
widespread attack or a systematic attack on civilians in an
armed conflict" (Article 4 of the Official Regulations and
Article 7 of ICC), and both President Bush and Prime Minister
Blair, as Commanders-in-Chief, are criminally accountable for
these crimes against humanity (Article 7 of the Official
Regulations Article, and Article 7.a of the ICC).

2) War Crimes

Also, this is clearly an unforgivable war stipulated (in
Articles 2a, d, m and p and Article 2a, b of ICC) as "an attack
intentionally carried out while those involved are fully aware
of the collaterally long-lasting serious damages to the natural
environment,” "poison and toxic weapons are used" "weapons that
have the quality to inflict serious injury and unnecessary
suffering or have the quality to be indiscriminate are used,"
and both President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, as Commanders
in Chief, are criminally accountable for war crimes (Article 4
of the Official Regulation and Article 2,.a of ICC). Long before
this, The UN Human Rights Subcommittee in August 1996 adopted a
resolution that the use of DU weapons constituting a violation,
as a weapon of mass destruction, should be banned. Also, in July
2003, a report by Yeung Sik Yuen submitted to the UN Human
Rights Subcommittee, showed strong concern on the adverse effect
to health, and environment pollution due to DU weapons aside
from the fact that "the use of DU weapons is a violation of
international laws, can inflict unnecessary suffering and
serious injuries, and can be a real menace to the environment,
and by all mean must be banned," and concluded that these
weapons (including DU weapons), regardless of whether they are
explicitly banned or not, should be prohibited." Also, in this
argument, it was emphasized that states that have used this
weapons in violation of international laws are accountable for
compensation for and decontamination of such deadly weapons.

Not only the UN Human Rights Subcommittee but also other
organizations as well like the European Union Parliament have
adopted resolutions to address this issue. In February 2003, the
European Union Parliament adopted the "Resolution on the Harmful
Effects of DU Bombs and Unexploded Bombs,” and demanded the
European Commission to monitor developments in relation to the
possible serious, widespread contamination of the environment
believed to be due to DU weapons and to support independent and
thorough investigations into the possible harmful effects of the
use of depleted uranium ammunition . In this manner, the
international sentiment on the banning of the use of DU weapons
has gained momentum, and in the midst of an awareness to observe
international law, the use of DU weapons by the British and
American Armed Forces is nothing but a profanity against
international law that the international community and hitherto
the human race has fostered. The whole nation of Iraq has become
a testing ground for these weapons where sophisticated
technology are freely used including DU weapons, and by such
use, the people of Iraq once again have been made to bear the
pain and suffering of a fate of a semi-permanent DU pollution.
In the arguments expressed during the public trial of the
International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan, the use of DU
weapons was declared a crime of omnicide (the destruction of all
life-forms) for the threat on the survival of not only the
country damaged by this use but also neighboring countries, the
extinction of life, the contamination of the air, water and food
resources, and also, including vegetation, the irreversible
alteration of genetic information of all life-forms. In this
regard, the fact that DU weapons are being used deprives all
life forms that have been born into this world the right to
exist to the fullest, and it is an unforgivable crime against
all living things.

Thus, with conviction, we prosecute the accused, President Bush
and Prime Minister Blair, for the abovementioned crimes, and
immediately seek compensation for all the victims, and the
removal of radiation pollution.

Also, we hereby affirm that all nations should be legally
obligated to ban the use, storage, production and transfer of DU
ammunition; that we as human beings have the mission to have
treaties concluded and ratified for the execution of those
duties; and we affirm that through our collective efforts, we
should be able to achieve creating an earth, where there will no
longer be any victim hereafter.

*****************************************************************
 26 Guardian Unlimited: US to produce deadly isotope
 
Jamie Wilson in Washington
Tuesday June 28, 2005
The Guardian 		
 		
The United States is planning its first production since the cold 
war of plutonium 238 - one of the most deadly forms of the 
element - for use in secret missions, possibly including spy 
satellites and undersea devices. 

The isotope, which is so radioactive that a speck can cause 
cancer, has no central role in nuclear arms. Its steady heat is 
used to create electricity; nuclear batteries powered by it work 
for years and even decades, and have been used to power 
spacecraft that go where sunlight is too dim to produce solar 
power. 

Federal officials told the New York Times the programme would 
produce a total of 150kg (330lb) over 30 years at the Idaho 
National Laboratory in Wyoming. The programme could cost $1.5bn 
(£820m) and generate more than 50,000 drums of hazardous and 
radioactive waste. 

It is likely to face opposition from environmentalists who fear
it is a potential threat to the nearby Yellowstone national
park. 

Experts unconnected to the project told the New York Times that
the plutonium would probably power devices for conducting
espionage and devices used to tap undersea communications
cables. 

Batteries powered by the substance were used during the early
1960s until a series of accidents led to questions about their
safety. In 1964 a rocket failure led to the destruction of a
navigation satellite powered by plutonium 238, spreading
radioactivity around the globe. 

Federal experts told the New York Times that new versions of the
batteries were designed to withstand rupture and the chances of
an accident were extremely low. 

Timothy Frazier, a senior official at the US energy department,
told the newspaper the goal was to start production by 2012. 
	
[UP] 

Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
 27 [du-list] Cameco Corporation's proposal to make, transport, bu
 
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:18:24 -0700

 
<x-flowed>
"To date, every community that has been part of the nuclear fuel cycle has
found its air, soil, and water contaminated."

----- Original Message -----
From: "Waterkeeper.ca Weekly" <news@waterkeeper.ca>
Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 11:20 AM
Subject: Plan to make, move, burn, and bury enriched uranium fuel deserves
scrutiny


  -- Waterkeeper.ca Weekly: Monday, June 27, 2005  --
http://www.waterkeeper.ca

*******************************************************

Text sizes.


Plan to make, move, burn, and bury enriched uranium fuel deserves scrutiny



On Friday, June 24, 2005, Lake Ontario Waterkeeper submitted its comment on 
Cameco Corporation's proposal to make, transport, burn, and bury enriched 
uranium fuel to the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission.

The proposal involves bringing enriched uranium from unnamed sources to 
Port Hope, Ontario, where it will be blended and packed into fuel bundles 
for nuclear power plants around the Great Lakes.


The new fuel has prompted bids to refurbish Ontario's aging reactors and 
extend the life of the province's power plants to the middle of the 
twenty-first century.

Waterkeeper, along with numerous community associations and environmental 
groups, are voicing concerns about the potential impacts of this proposal. 
To date, every community that has been part of the nuclear fuel cycle has 
found its air, soil, and water contaminated.

There is widespread public concern about the potential environmental 
impacts of this new fuel proposal, and Waterkeeper has called for a public 
hearing into the issue. Right now, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission 
simply publishes reports and allows the public to provide written responses 
and brief (ten minute) oral submissions.

In the hearing process, the public has the right to cross-examine industry 
spokespersons and the recommendation to proceed or not proceed is made by a 
panel of independent adjudicators. This kind of hearing is supposed to 
occur whenever a federal project is likely to have significant 
environmental impacts or when there is significant public concern.

You can learn more about province-wide concerns about the enriched uranium 
fuel project in our formal submission. The submission is available on our 
web site, www.waterkeeper.ca.

Recent News (http://www.waterkeeper.ca/lok/index.cfm?DSP=whatsnew)
Quarry growth uproar (Hamilton)
Fisheries Act amendments discussed in House of Commons
CANDU reactors discussed in House of Commons
Merchants feel fallout from anti-nuke flyer (Port Hope)
Anti-nuclear group beg federal involvement (Port Hope)
Kings Cole Ducks charged
Host communities want to talk money (Durham Region)
Beach lovers beware of E. coli (Durham)
Water work  (Great Lakes)
Uranium debate headed for council (Port Hope)
U.S. pollution is killing Ontarians, report finds
TWRC asks to exempt waterfront parks from environmental assessment process 
(Toronto)
Cement Association of Canada registers provincial lobbyist
Where next for the Bay of Quinte?
No more nuclear fear flyer  (Port Hope)
Councillor will fight sewage sludge power plant (Hamilton)
MPP fumes over sewage plant rezoning (Hamilton)
NRC wants more information before relicensing Nine Mile reactors (Oswego)
Community squabble, or epic battle? (Port Hope)
Chewing up the Spit  (Toronto)
Bush pushes Congress for more nuclear power
'Gasification' plant will produce electrical energy (Hamilton)
'Five public beaches close over E. coli (Hamilton)
Walleye rule change will hurt future of fishery: Biologist (Quinte)

- - -  -  - - - - - - - - - -
Thank you!
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper would like to extend a special thank you to the 
volunteers, sponsors, and donors who made our June 24 fundraiser the most 
successful in our organization's history. Thank you for helping us win back 
Lake Ontario!



*******************************************************
Waterkeeper.ca Weekly reflects the meaning and force of environmental 
justice on Lake Ontario. To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit 
http://www.waterkeeper.ca/lok/index.cfm?DSP=subscribe_form.
Lake Ontario Waterkeeper is a charitable organization, no. 86262 2750 
RP0001. You can support our work by donating online: 
http://www.canadahelps.org/CharityProfilePage.aspx?CharityID=82468. To 
contact the editor, please e-mail news@waterkeeper.ca.
*******************************************************





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to 
du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com.  In the body of the message type 
unsubscribe and send.
Yahoo! Groups Links

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

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

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
     http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  

</x-flowed>
*****************************************************************
 28 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN FUNDS: Bill offers counties greater freedom 
 
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
 

Senate plan would limit DOE controls on how money to monitor
project is spent By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
 
WASHINGTON -- Congress is moving to limit the Energy
Department's controls on millions of dollars that the government
sends to Nevada counties each year to monitor Yucca Mountain.
 
 Under a Senate bill set for a vote this summer, county
officials no longer would be required to submit work plans for
DOE review and approval before receiving their annual funding.
 
 The work plan reviews have irked some local government managers
who say the counties should be given more independence. They
chafe over delays in receiving grant money and work plan
corrections directed by DOE reviewers.
 
 "It is not the best use of everyone's time to go through an
exercise of working and reworking a document that is pretty
detailed," said Irene Navis, Clark County nuclear waste planning
director.
 
 The process is not so troubling to some other observers. Nye
County Commission chairwoman Candice Trummell said the reviews
can be useful to steer county leaders clear of inadvertent
misspending and safeguard against audits.
 
 The money involved is shared by Nye County, eight other Nevada
counties and Inyo County in California. The other counties are
contiguous to Nye, where the Yucca repository is being planned.
This year the counties are getting $8 million, while next year's
budget calls for $8.5 million.
 
 As the host county, Nye County's portion is close to $3
million, while the other jurisdictions receive smaller sums.
Clark County gets about $1.6 million for Yucca Mountain
oversight.
 
 With the Energy Department now preparing to seek a license for
a nuclear waste repository at the Yucca site, key senators
concluded that the DOE-county relationship poses potential
conflicts and needs to change.
 
 The DOE work plan reviews are "inconsistent with its role as a
license applicant" because the counties probably will oppose the
DOE at repository hearings before the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, according to the Senate legislation.
 
 The measure calls for the DOE to adopt an more informal "advise
and consent" role in working with the local governments on their
spending. 
The directive was requested by Nevada county leaders and was
inserted by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., into a report that
accompanies the Senate's fiscal 2006 spending bill for the
Energy Department.
 
 "The whole point of oversight is to maintain an independent
review," Reid said in a prepared statement.
 
 "Additionally, DOE and most likely all of the county
governments will be legal adversaries on the Yucca Mountain
project."
 
 As the Yucca project evolved over the years, it fell to the
Energy Department to distribute the county funding appropriated
by Congress and to ensure that it was being spent according to
rules set by the 1982 nuclear waste law and annual budget bills.
 
 Energy Department spokesman Allen Benson would not comment on
the Senate bill. Benson said DOE officials "try to be as
cooperative as they can be" in working with the local
governments.
 
 "They need the money to do their job, and our job is to make
sure they spend it in accordance with the Nuclear Waste Policy
Act," Benson said.
 
 "You try to work things out amicably."
 
 Nevada counties will not have free rein if the legislation
becomes law. Their spending still would be subject to audits by
the Energy Department and the department's inspector general.
 
 A 2003 audit challenged $2.08 million in Nye County spending
for 2001 and 2002, and $1.13 million spent by Lincoln County.
The audit also questioned $132,296 spent by Clark County.
 
 Federal law allows the county governments to use federal money
to hire consultants to evaluate the repository's local impacts,
to monitor DOE science work and to communicate with residents
about the project.
 
 The counties cannot spend federal money on lobbying or lawsuits
or to seek allies against the project, but they can use the
money to participate in upcoming license hearings.
 
 Trummel said the audits have been more troublesome than the
work plan reviews. Inspectors have adopted "overly strict"
interpretations of the spending rules, she said.
 
 "Nobody wants waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer dollars,"
Trummell said.
 
 "The basic consensus of the (counties) is that we need to have
more independence with our oversight, but I am personally more
concerned with what that means in terms of auditing."
 
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 29 Las Vegas RJ: Nevadans' legislationaims to help protectDOE whistle-blowers 
 
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
 

By STEVE TETREAULT
STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
 

WASHINGTON -- Energy Department workers who report wrongdoing
could have more muscle to fight retaliation under a bill the
Senate is expected to pass today.
 
 Senate leaders incorporated whistle-blower provisions into the
energy policy bill late last week. The Senate Energy Committee
made a copy of the amendment public Monday. 
The amendment would allow DOE whistle-blowers to take their
claims to federal court if the Labor Department does not act
within 180 days on complaints of harassment or job reprisal for
reporting safety violations or other problems.
 
 The legislation was sponsored by Nevada's senators. They have
said their interest dates to 2003 when they had difficulty
persuading Yucca Mountain workers to testify at a hearing about
flaws in the nuclear waste program.
 
 The amendment broadens protections that Congress earlier made
available to financial industry workers who report investment
scams, said Tom Devine, legal director for the Government
Accountability Project, a group that works with whistle-blowers.
 
 Devine said a 180-day deadline could cause quick action on
retaliation claims that emerge from the Energy Department. 
"The Labor Department process is not designed for high-stakes
public policy controversies like the things that could take
place at a nuclear weapons facility," Devine said.
 
 "Often, whistle-blower cases can drag out for two or three
years, and that deters workers from coming forward," said Sen.
Harry Reid, D-Nev. "Our legislation provides workers with the
peace of mind that there will be consequences if a case is not
resolved quickly or fairly." 
"This is a fundamental right and especially important when it
comes to something as serious as the work being done at the
DOE," said Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev.
 
 Versions of the energy bill contain differing whistle-blower
sections. Devine said Congress is expected to continue
negotiating whistle-blower provisions in conference committee.
 
 Besides the Nevadans' amendment, the Senate bill contains
whistle-blower language covering nuclear plant workers that is
sponsored by Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., Devine said. 
The energy bill that passed the House this spring would prohibit
the government from reimbursing DOE contractors who lose
whistle-blower cases, Devine said.
 
 
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
 30 NRC: Application for a License To Export High-Enriched Uranium
 
                         FR Doc E5-3342 
[Federal Register: June 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 123)] 
[Notices] [Page 37126-37127] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn05-102]                         
 
Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70(b)(2) ``Public notice of receipt of an
 
[[Page 37127]] application,'' please take notice that the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission has received the following request for an 
export license. Copies of the request can be accessed through the 
Public Electronic Reading Room (PERR) link 
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html at the NRC Homepage.
 
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be 
filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the 
Federal Register. Any request for hearing or petition for leave 
to intervene shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon 
the applicant, the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the 
Executive Secretary, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 
20520.
 
In its review of the application for a license to export special 
nuclear material as defined in 10 CFR part 110 and noticed 
herein, the Commission does not evaluate the health, safety or 
environmental effects in the recipient nation of the material to 
be exported.
 
The information concerning the application follows.
 
NRC Export License Application for High-Enriched Uranium Name of 
Applicant Date of Application--Date Received Application Number 
Docket Number Material Type End Use Country of Destination 
DOE/NNSA--Y12, June 1, 2005 High-Enriched Uranium The material 
would be transferred initially to CERCA, in France, where it 
would be fabricated into fuel. This fuel would then be 
transferred to Studiecentrum voor Kernergie (SCK) for ultimate 
use at BR-2 research reactor located in Mol, Belgium from 
2008-2011.
 
Belgium June 2, 2005 XSNM03404 11005562 Dated this 21st day of 
June 2005 at Rockville, Maryland.
 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
 
Margaret M. Doane, Deputy Director, Office of International 
Programs.
 
[FR Doc. E5-3342 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 31 AU ABC: Uranium mining inquiry may lead to nuclear power inquiry.
        
28/06/2005. ABC News Online
 	
"Australian Broadcasting Corporation

The head of a federal parliamentary inquiry into uranium mining
says it has received a lot of support for nuclear power in
Australia.

 The 10-member parliamentary inquiry is made up of five
Liberals, three Labor members, one independent and one Country
Liberal Party member.

 It has been set up to investigate development of Australia's
uranium exports.

 But the federal Member for Forrest and chair of the committee,
Geoff Prosser, says it is now likely the findings could lead to
a spin-off inquiry into nuclear power.

 Mr Prosser says the inquiry has already received almost 200
submissions.

 "The broad submissions are obviously pro further mining of
uranium," he said.

 "Of that we've been surprised at the number of submissions that
want to go further and are promoting a fresh look at nuclear
power." 

*****************************************************************
 32 BW: US calls on TWI help for nuclear waste work
 
[Business Weekly]   

By Lautaro Vargas, 28 June 2005, viewed 248 times

The success of the US Government’s $58 billion high-level nuclear 
waste disposal programme could depend upon the ability of 
Cambridge-based TWI to apply its unique welding expertise to 
storage canisters destined for the volcanic tuff rock of Yucca 
Mountain, Nevada.

['Bury my waste at Yucca: View of the 25-ft-diameter tunnel
boring machine’s cutter head at the South Portal, Yucca
Mountain' width='150'] 
Bury my waste at Yucca: View of the 25-ft-diameter tunnel boring
machine’s cutter head at the South Portal, Yucca Mountain

The success of the US Government’s $58 billion high-level
nuclear waste disposal programme could depend upon the ability
of Cambridge-based TWI to apply its unique welding expertise to
storage canisters destined for the volcanic tuff rock of Yucca
Mountain, Nevada.

 The US Department of Energy (DOE) is looking for an efficient
technique capable of sealing its waste-carrying canisters for
thousands of years and has contracted TWI for an undisclosed
amount to adapt its advanced electron beam welding for the Yucca
Mountain Project (YMP).

 TWI was chosen to work along with its US partner, United
Defense LP Corporate Technology Center (CTC), following a
solicitation by the DOE and will explore the application of
Reduced Pres-sure Electron Beam Welding (RPEBW) to waste package
final closure welds.

 It is the first phase of a three-step project that will further
develop and optimise the RPEBW process, culminating in the
application of the technique using robots deep in the heart of
the Yucca Mountain.

 Head of power at TWI, Brian Cane, said: “The canisters are
several metres tall and one to two metres in diameter and have
to remain underground, sealed and intact for 100,000 years. It
will all be done using a fully automated robotic approach.”

 TWI’s priority is to ensure that it is able to automatically
produce the welds under robotic conditions. If selected for
phase two it will apply the technique to a reduced-scale model
and finally move on to a full-scale underground automated weld
process for phase three.

 RPEBW is based on electron beam welding technology but
eliminates the need for a high vacuum environment by using local
seals and pumping. 

Through work with DOE’s Office of Civilian Radioacitive Waste
Management and the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories, the
CTC-TWI team has already demonstrated the cost saving and
productivity potential of RPEBW over the alternative, gas
tungsten arc welding (GTAW).

 This is a view borne out by the DOE, which in 2001 formed a
special peer review panel to examine the long-term performance
of waste package materials being considered for use in the
proposed Yucca Mountain repository.

 In 2002, the Waste Package Materials Perform-ance Peer Review
Panel concluded that the closure weld and its postweld
processing was “critical” to the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP)
goal to insure that nuclear waste storage canisters would
survive their design lifetime in the emplacement environment.

 At the time of the panel’s report, closure welds used
“off-the-shelf” GTAW techniques. Described as reliable and well
proven, the technique was found to have the drawback of
requiring multiple weld passes and hours of welding time to
complete, increasing the potential for a number of weld defects.

 The panel concluded that a robust weld monitoring system must
be in place and a repair welding procedure had to be developed.
It suggested that there was potential in electron beam welding
because it eliminated the need for a weld joint and can be
conducted in a single pass, thus reducing the weld time
significantly.

 Yucca Mountain is seen as an ideal site for storage of the
spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste currently
stored at 126 sites across the US due to the area’s dry climate,
remoteness, stable geology, deep water table, and closed water
basin. It is located in a remote desert on federally protected
land within the boundaries of the Nevada Test Site in Nye
County, Nevada, where more than 900 nuclear weapons tests have
been conducted.

 TWI is also working in Sweden on welding techniques for
high-level nuclear waste where the technique is more advanced
because of its decision to use pure copper canisters to be
deposited deep in granite mountains.

 The US is using a different material to suit the geology of the
Yucca Mountain, which is made of tuff rock, formed millions of
years ago by a series of explosive volcanic eruptions that
compressed large am-ounts of ash and other materials.

 Cane is sceptical of the UK and other countries’ efforts to
clean up high-level redioactive waste. He said: “The US, Sweden
and now Finland are the only countries taking repositories
seriously. Others talk about it, but these are the only ones
that are actually doing something about it.

 “There are lots looking at short-term storage, 100 years, but
that’s just passing the legacy on to the next generation.”

 TWI has also announced the award of a two year EU Craft Project
for development of in-service robotic inspection methods for
nuclear applications, known as Rimini. The project has a total
value of Euros 1.96m.

 Working with large enterprises and several SMEs, TWI will
address the drawbacks of existing inspection methods notably:
time consuming manual intervention requiring operators to work
in radiation hazardous areas.

 Developments will inc-lude new and novel inspection methods
that can speed up inspection times, improve defect detectability
and reduce operator exposure whilst working inside reactor
containments. 

Business Weekly NewsWatch,
*****************************************************************
 33 Deseret News: No prison for Goshute
             
[deseretnews.com] 
 	
Tuesday, June 28, 2005
 	   	 
Judge orders probation, payment of taxes to IRS

By Geoffrey Fattah Deseret Morning News

A federal judge ordered Monday the chairman of the Skull Valley 
Band of Goshutes to "make peace" with members of his tribe as 
well as with the IRS after the chairman pleaded guilty to making 
a false statement on his 1999 tax return.

Leon D. Bear
  

       U.S. District Judge Bruce Jenkins spared Leon D. Bear
prison time, but did place him on three years probation and
ordered the controversial tribal leader to pay the IRS $13,101
in unpaid taxes and his tribe $31,500 for duplicate stipends he
billed the tribe.

       Bear pleaded guilty last April as part of a plea bargain
to one count of making a false statement on his taxes, and he
admitted that he failed to claim $67,000 in income to the IRS
for the 1999 tax year. In exchange, prosecutors agreed not to
pursue Bear for alleged fraudulent tax returns filed in 2000 and
2001, as well as charges that he embezzled some $160,000 by
double-billing the band for travel expenses and for
inappropriately accepting a salary for his work as tribal
secretary.

       Although Bear faced up to three years in federal prison,
Jenkins said he did not believe prison time was necessary,
noting that Bear had taken responsibility for his actions.

       In court, Bear's attorney, Joseph Thibodeau, painted his
client as "a father figure for his people," noting Bear's
tireless dedication to making a better life for the band.

       For the past several years, Bear's quest has brought him
head-to-head with Utah's governor and Legislature over a
proposed lease with utility company consortium Private Fuel
Storage to build a nuclear waste storage facility on the Tooele
County reservation. The deal has also bitterly divided tribal
members.

       In court, Bear apologized to his family and to his tribe.
"I'm deeply sorry for any problems I've caused my family at home
and any embarrassment to the tribe for my tax liability."

       Jenkins suggested that Bear hire professional help to
keep the band's books clear. Jenkins also ordered Bear to settle
things with the IRS for 1999, 2000 and 2001 within four months
and to submit a copy of a written agreement with the IRS with
the court. The judge did leave the door open for Bear's
probation to be shortened for good behavior. Although noted as
unrelated to the charges, Bear was also ordered to abstain from
drugs or alcohol and would be tested.

      Outside court, some Goshute Band members expressed
disappointment with the sentence. "Leon has let a lot of people
down in the past," Margene Bellcreek said. "He's walked away
with just a slap on the hand."

       Bellcreek said what makes her most upset is that
prosecutors dropped charges related to the alleged $160,000 in
double-billed funds. "Now we will never know how much money is
missing," she said.

       Former band vice chairwoman, Mary Allen, remained
skeptical that Bear will be able to heal the tribe. With his
term as chairman coming up in November, Allen said she feared
Bear will try to find a way to extend his term.

       Outside court, Bear dodged television cameras but did say
he felt the sentence was fair. His father, Lawrence Bear, said
he also felt the sentence was fair and blamed the tribal unrest
on a "few dissident members."

E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com
	 
 © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company 
*****************************************************************
 34 The Olympian: Olympia considers nuclear-free zone

Olympia, Washington
 
Tuesday June 28, 2005           

 Proposed ordinance shuns companies tied to weapons
 
BY KATHERINE TAM 
THE OLYMPIAN 

OLYMPIA -- The city would try to find new companies to supply
its police cars and mobile phones under a proposed ordinance
that would declare Olympia a nuclear-free zone. 

Officials are looking at banning nuclear weapons and no longer
doing business with all or most of the companies that make the
weapons.

The city does business with 32 companies that create the
components used in nuclear weapons, said MaryLou Berg,
management assistant. That includes Chrysler, which builds
police cars, and Motorola Inc., which makes Nextel phones, used
by 300 to 400 city employees.

The city would shop around for other companies it can buy from.
If it can't find one, it still would do business with the
company in question. But it would send each company a letter,
stating that the firm's involvement in nuclear weapons conflicts
with Olympia's ordinance and encouraging the company to change
its practices.

"It hit me how prevalent the stuff is," said City Councilman TJ
Johnson, who proposed the nuclear-free rule. "It reinforced the
logic that we have to start somewhere. We might as well start
here."

City Manager Steve Hall said tying the nuclear-free vision
directly to how the city does business sends a strong message
that is more than just "window dressing." But he added, "it
might be hard to quit cold turkey all at once."

The idea of declaring Olympia a nuclear-free zone has been
bandied about for years. In February, Olympia passed a
resolution calling for a worldwide end to nuclear weapons by
2020. In May, Johnson served as the council representative at
the international nonproliferation review conference at the
United Nations in New York.

More than 1,200 cities and 110 countries are nuclear-free,
Johnson said. Olympia's proposed ordinance is based on a similar
law that Tacoma Park, Md., passed about 20 years ago and that
survived a lawsuit.

Council members have received some e-mails in favor of the idea,
and the Olympia Movement for Justice and Peace is distributing
fliers backing the proposal. A handful of supporters watched
Monday as the council General Government Committee -- Matthew
Green, Johnson and Curt Pavola -- fleshed out a draft ordinance.

"It's quite implementable. We phase out the ones we can, and do
business with the ones we have to," said resident Gar Lipow
after the meeting. "Las Vegas has a nuclear-free zone. I think
we can be at least as progressive as Las Vegas."

"Consumers control the market. They can steer the market any way
they want to," Pavola said.

The City Council is expected to have a public hearing Aug. 9. If
passed, the ordinance will take effect 30 days after it's passed.

It would have no effect on nuclear medicine or fissionable
materials used in smoke detectors, light-emitting watches and
clocks. It does not deal with depleted uranium, which is a
concern among some peace activists who worry about lung damage
and cancer from military equipment being shipped into the Port
of Olympia.

It would apply to cargo coming in and out of the port because
ships traveling through Budd Inlet enter the city limits. It
would not apply to the USS Olympia, the nuclear-powered
submarine that was at the center of a fiery debate last year,
unless it carries nuclear weapons.

The USS Olympia is nuclear-powered but does not deploy nuclear
weapons, Navy spokeswoman Lt. Barbara Mertz said in an earlier
interview.

Olympia would keep a list of companies that are known to be
involved in nuclear weapons. Companies that contract with the
city would sign a notarized statement that they don't knowingly
help make such weapons.

Any violation of the ordinance would be an infraction. The
penalties have not been determined yet.

Enforcing the policy would be difficult, Berg said. The city
doesn't have the staff or the budget to dedicate to the effort.

Any federal law that allows for nuclear production is likely to
pre-empt a city ordinance, added Bob Sterbank, city attorney.

Meanwhile, Hall would have a year after the ordinance is adopted
to look at how the city's investment practices can follow the
nuclear-free goal whether, for example, the city should buy
federal bonds or invest with a bank that does business with a
company involved with the weapons. 							 			 							 	 							

  Councilman T.J. Johnson's proposed "nuclear-free zone"
ordinance (.pdf)
  
SITE MAP: TheOlympian.com home | topstories | southsound |
*****************************************************************
 35 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Don't let DOE review itself
 
[seattlepi.com]     

        [OPINION] 
Tuesday, June 28, 2005 

TOM CARPENTER GUEST COLUMNIST

The Government Accountability Project recently released a report
detailing new evidence of contamination in the area around the
Hanford nuclear site. New findings included that Columbia River
fish and clam samples are contaminated with plutonium, mulberry
trees are higher in toxicity than previously thought and
radioactive attic dust in the Richland area suggests widespread
exposure. 

Plutonium content is one of the most troubling findings. The
government does not report finding plutonium in fish or clams
because, unbelievably, they don't bother to check. Even more
troubling, many individuals, specifically those of the Native
American tribes around the Hanford region, are eating these
fish, unaware of the potential hazards. 

If it seems to you that someone should have been monitoring
these contaminants since the get-go and warn unknowing citizens
about dangers, you're right. The Department of Energy and its
organizational predecessors have overseen Hanford operations
since its inception as a secret plutonium processing plant. Over
the years, however, DOE has consistently shown it's not
interested in protecting public health for the people of
Washington and Oregon as much as they are in protecting
themselves from embarrassing disclosures. 

To illustrate this point, just look at DOE behavior over the
past five years. An act of Congress was needed to provide health
care and financial compensation to workers made ill by
radioactive and chemical material exposure, as DOE fights nearly
every claim for such illnesses. That's despite overwhelming
medical evidence showing links to cancer. DOE has consistently
reneged on its cleanup commitments at Hanford, shrinking the
scope of the cleanup program as it announces that it intends to
bury tens of thousands of truckloads of waste from other states.
Washington state has even been compelled to file lawsuits aimed
at forcing DOE to keep the cleanup on schedule. 

In keeping with this spirit of offensive behavior, DOE changed
its reaction to our report several times over the course of 24
hours. Initially, representatives responded favorably to GAP's
findings, stating they encouraged outside groups to produce
independent samplings. This quickly shifted, rather
dramatically, to criticizing the report for not being
peer-reviewed (an incorrect assertion, as a former Hanford
scientist did this). DOE even implied that the plutonium levels
in the fish were at acceptable levels. Lastly, DOE attacked GAP
as being an anti-nuclear group with a political agenda, pulling
the old trick of attacking the messenger. 

If being an "anti-nuclear group" means to be concerned about
contamination in communities and the food chain, especially when
people are not being informed about hazards, so be it. However,
our agenda is public safety and accountability. And the people
of the Northwest will never receive either one if DOE is in
charge of reviewing itself. 

There needs to be a credible assessment of just how contaminated
the Columbia River has become from Hanford's past and present
emissions, as well as an inventory of the ecological damage, by
an independent reviewer. The annual "Hanford State of the Site"
meeting produced more than enough examples of individuals whose
valid claims seems to be a shock to the Hanford brass, despite
these issues coming up year after year. 

The people of Washington and Oregon unknowingly sacrificed for
their country when the Hanford plant was built, and they
continue to suffer today. It is insulting for DOE not to take
proactive steps to protect our citizens, much less have to be
forced into action. Our congressional representatives should
ensure an independent investigation and assessment, providing
citizens, tribal members and state agencies with the information
they need to protect themselves. Tom Carpenter is nuclear
oversight program director for the Government Accountability
Project. 

  [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
©1996-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 36 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Hanford safety panel to be created
 	 	 	 	 	 
  [seattlepi.com]     

Tuesday, June 28, 2005 

 10-member council will hear workers' health concerns 

By SHANNON DINNINY THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

YAKIMA -- For months, some workers at the Hanford Nuclear
Reservation have said that vapors from underground waste tanks
are endangering their health. The contractor hired to clean up
the tanks -- and the federal agency that oversees the site --
have claimed otherwise. 

The two sides appeared to reach a resolution of sorts yesterday
with the creation of an independent panel intended to hear
workers' complaints. 

The new Hanford Concerns Council, a 10-member panel of worker
advocates, contractor representatives and neutral parties, will
employ mediation methods to resolve disputes about worker
safety. 

"It only makes sense that the workers are the first to know
about a safety hazard problem, that their concerns are listened
to and that they get addressed," said Tom Carpenter, director of
the nuclear oversight program for the Government Accountability
Project, a whistle-blower group. The project has supported
worker concerns about the so-called tank farms. 

CH2M Hill, the contractor hired to clean up the tanks, and the
U.S. Energy Department, which manages the Hanford site, have
disputed suggestions that worker safety has been compromised. 

Jonathan Brock, an associate professor at the University of
Washington's Evans School of Public Affairs, will chair the new
panel. 

About 53 million gallons of radioactive and toxic waste left
over from decades of plutonium production for the nation's
nuclear weapons arsenal are stewing in 177 aging underground
tanks. 

More than 1,800 chemicals have been identified as either present
or capable of having formed in the air cavity of the tanks,
which occasionally "burp" or release air naturally through vents
to relieve pent-up pressure. However, little or no information
about potential danger is available on about 1,400 of those
chemicals. 

The new panel will enable workers to raise their concerns
without fear of recrimination, intimidation or retribution, said
Ed Aromi, president and general manager of CH2M Hill. 

"When they have those questioning attitudes and they have those
concerns, they need to be absolutely assured they can raise
those concerns," Aromi said. "Sometimes we fail. Sometimes as
employers we worry about motive." 

But workers should feel free to "question how we're doing
business, always focused on safety for themselves and for the
community," Aromi said. 

To date, two of the 149 aging, single-shell tanks have been
emptied, and work is under way to remove waste from three
others, said Roy Schepens, manager of the Energy Department's
Office of River Protection. 

Since last year, CH2M Hill has required that workers wear
respirators with air tanks when working in the tank farms. 

The move followed months of allegations that worker safety was
being compromised. A federal investigation by the National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health later concluded
that workers had been endangered by vapors and stressed the
importance of medical monitoring. 

Earlier this year, the Energy Department announced that workers
concerned about inhaling tank vapors may be screened though a
new health program. 

Congress appropriated $790,000 to start medical screening of the
workers and continue a broader screening program for former
Hanford workers. Both programs are to be run by the University
of Washington.                 

  [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 
98119 (206) 448-8000
 
 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com
©1996-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer
*****************************************************************
 37 DOE: 48 CFR Parts 935, 952 and 970
 
                        FR Doc 05-12645 
[Federal Register: June 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 123)] [Rules 
and Regulations] [Page 37010-37016] From the Federal Register 
Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn05-2]                         
 
RIN 1901-AA89

 
Policy on Research Misconduct AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of interim final rulemaking and opportunity for 
comment.
 
SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) is publishing an interim 
final general statement of policy and interim final financial 
assistance and procurement requirements to implement the 
government-wide Federal Policy on Research Misconduct. These 
interim final rules are designed to protect the integrity of 
research and development funded by DOE.
 
 
DATES: The effective date is July 28, 2005. Written comments must 
be received on or before the close of business August 29, 2005.
 
 
ADDRESSES: Comments (5 copies) should be addressed to: Christine 
Chalk, SC-5, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science, Room 
3H-051, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Christine Chalk at 202-586-7203 
Christine.Chalk@science.doe.gov).
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background. II. Discussion of the 
General Statement of Policy and Standard Requirements.
 
III. Public Comment Procedures. IV. Procedural Review 
Requirements. A. Review Under Executive Order 12866. B. Review 
Under Executive Order 12988. C. Review Under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act. D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act. E. 
Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act. F. Review 
Under Executive Order 13132. G. Review Under The Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995. H. Review Under the Treasury and 
General Government Appropriations Act, 1999.
 
I. Review Under the Treasury And General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001.
 
J. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 
Fairness Act.
 
I. Background In 1996, the White House Office of Science and 
Technology Policy (OSTP) began the process of formulating a 
uniform government-wide Federal policy on research misconduct. 
OSTP published a proposed policy on research misconduct in the 
Federal Register at 64 FR 55722, October 14, 1999, and published 
the final policy at 65 FR 76260, December 6, 2000 (Federal 
Policy). The Federal Policy is available on the Office of Science 
Web site at http://www.sc.doe.gov/misconduct/finalpolicy.pdf. The 
objective of the Federal Policy is to create a uniform policy 
framework for Federal agencies for the handling of allegations of 
misconduct in federally funded or supported research. Within this 
framework, each Federal agency funding or supporting research is 
expected to fashion its own regulations to accommodate the 
various types of research transactions in which it is engaged. 
This rule implements the Federal Policy for DOE including the 
National Nuclear Security Administration. In keeping with these 
objectives, these DOE regulations incorporate key aspects of the 
Federal Policy. In particular, research misconduct is being 
defined as including fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in 
proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting 
research results, but not as including honest error or 
differences of opinion. In addition, a finding of research
 
[[Page 37011]] misconduct requires a determination, based on a 
preponderance of the evidence, that research misconduct has 
occurred, including a conclusion that there has been a 
significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant 
research community and that it be knowingly, intentionally, or 
recklessly committed.
 
The core principle of the Federal Policy is that, while research 
organizations have the primary responsibility for the inquiry, 
investigation, and adjudication of allegations of research 
misconduct, Federal agencies have ultimate oversight authority 
for the research they fund or support. While there may be some 
overlap in the actions that may be pursued by Federal agencies 
and research organizations, DOE has designed this rule to assure 
that if an allegation of research misconduct is made against a 
contractor or recipient of financial assistance, either the 
contractor or recipient or, if appropriate, DOE, investigates 
that allegation. Federal law prescribes procedural frameworks for 
adverse contract actions, adverse assistance actions, 
suspensions, or debarments that are different from procedural 
frameworks for competing for Federal procurement or assistance 
awards, and for adverse personnel actions against Federal civil 
service employees. Further, the DOE Office of the Inspector 
General (OIG) may proceed under its previously existing 
administrative investigation process when misconduct is alleged 
against Federal civil service employees, contractors or 
recipients of financial assistance. In addition, if a contractor 
or financial assistance recipient cannot conduct its own research 
misconduct investigation the rule provides that DOE will be 
responsible for conducting the investigation.
 
In order to best implement the Federal Policy, DOE promulgates a 
new 10 CFR part 733 (Allegations of Research Misconduct), which 
sets forth a general statement of policy applicable to research 
conducted under a DOE contract or financial assistance agreement.
 
Consistent with the general statement of policy, DOE today amends 
10 CFR part 600 (Financial Assistance Rules), 48 CFR part 935 
(Research and Development Contracting), 48 CFR part 952 
(Solicitation Provisions and Contract Clauses), and 48 CFR part 
970 (DOE Management and Operating Contracts). The Secretary of 
Energy has approved this notice for publication in the Federal 
Register. For all contracts, contracting officers must apply the 
DOE Acquisition Regulations (DEAR) changes (codified at 48 CFR) 
to solicitations issued on or after the effective date of this 
rule and may, at their discretion, include these DEAR changes in 
solicitations issued before the effective date of this rule, 
provided award of the resulting contract(s) occurs on or after 
the effective date.
 
For management and operating contracts, contracting officers must 
apply these DEAR changes: to contracts extended in accordance 
with the Department's extend/compete policies and procedures (48 
CFR 917.6, 48 CFR 970.1706, and internal guidance); and to 
options exercised under competitively awarded management and 
operating contracts (48 CFR 970.1706). For management and 
operating contracts, contracting officers should modify existing 
contracts at the next fee negotiation/annual renewal after the 
effective date of this rule.
 
II. Discussion of the General Statement of Policy and Standard 
Requirements Since research for DOE occurs pursuant to financial 
assistance agreements or contracts, the general statement of 
policy provides that DOE will implement the Federal Policy 
through the insertion in financial assistance agreements and 
contracts of standard requirements based on the Federal Policy. 
DOE expects that these standard requirements will result in most 
allegations of research misconduct being handled in accordance 
with the Federal Policy by the research institution where the 
research misconduct is alleged to have taken place.
 
The general statement of policy also sets forth guidance to DOE 
offices with regard to the processing of allegations of research 
misconduct made directly to DOE. The guidance provides for 
initial handling of such allegations by the DOE office 
programmatically responsible for an assistance agreement or 
contract. That office in turn will consult with the DOE Office of 
the Inspector General (IG) to determine whether that office will 
choose to investigate the allegation. If the IG declines to 
investigate, the DOE program office will refer the allegation to 
the appropriate contracting officer responsible for the 
administration of the assistance agreement or contract for 
processing by the assistance recipient or contractor consistent 
with requirements of the applicable research misconduct 
requirements. If the Department elects to act in lieu of the 
contractor or financial assistance recipient, the research 
misconduct investigation shall be conducted by the DOE office 
programmatically responsible for the assistance agreement or 
contract with support from other departmental elements, as 
appropriate.
 
DOE is amending the DEAR at 48 CFR part 935 to prescribe the 
inclusion of requirements on research misconduct in all DOE 
contracts that involve research. DOE also is amending part 952 of 
the DEAR and 10 CFR part 600, respectively, to add requirements 
that by accepting the funds under a contract, including a 
management and operating contractor a financial assistance award, 
the recipient of DOE funds is making assurances that it has 
established an administrative process for reviewing, 
investigating, and reporting allegations of research misconduct 
and that it will comply with its own administrative process and 
the requirements of 10 CFR part 733 for review, investigation, 
and reporting of research misconduct. DOE also is amending part 
970 of the DEAR to provide that records generated by a management 
and operating contractor during the course of responding to 
allegations of research misconduct will be considered owned by 
the contractor.
 
As suggested in the Federal Policy, DOE expects debarment and 
suspension would be available as possible recommended remedies 
for a finding of research misconduct. These remedies would 
exclude a person or organization from participating in research 
activities funded by the Federal Government. DOE's 
non-procurement suspension and debarment rule is promulgated at 
10 CFR part 606, while the Federal procurement suspension and 
debarment rule is promulgated at 48 CFR part 909.
 
Both regulations require a fact-finding process if there are any 
facts in dispute prior to a suspension or debarment 
determination. The fact- finding process used to make a 
determination of research misconduct under this rule would 
satisfy the requirements for a fact-finding hearing as adopted in 
the DOE's non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations, 
as well as the requirements for a fact-finding hearing as 
described in the FAR.
 
III. Public Comment Procedures Interested persons are invited to 
participate by submitting data, views or arguments with respect 
to the new regulation in this rulemaking. Five copies of written 
comments should be submitted to the address indicated in the 
ADDRESSES section of this notice of rulemaking. All comments 
received will be available for public inspection as part of the 
administrative record on file for this rulemaking in the 
Department of Energy Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room 
1E-090, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-
 
[[Page 37012]] 3142, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. All written 
comments received by the date indicated in the DATES section of 
this notice of rulemaking and all other relevant information in 
the record will be carefully assessed and fully considered prior 
to the publication of the final rule. Any information or data 
considered to be exempt from public disclosure by law must be so 
identified and submitted in writing, one copy, as well as one 
complete copy from which the information believed to be exempt 
from disclosure is deleted. DOE will determine if the information 
or data is exempt from disclosure.
 
IV. Procedural Review Requirements A. Review Under Executive 
Order 12866 This regulatory action has been determined to be a 
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, 
``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' (58 FR 51735, October 4, 
1993). Accordingly, this action was subject to review under that 
Executive Order by the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). OMB has 
completed its review. B. Review Under Executive Order 12988 With 
respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 
12988, ``Civil Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), 
imposes on Executive agencies the general duty to adhere to the 
following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and 
ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a 
general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden 
reduction. The review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of 
Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the 
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; 
(2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or 
regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected 
conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) 
specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting 
clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by 
the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 
requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of 
applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one 
or more of them. The Department has completed the required review 
and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the 
regulations meet the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
 
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq., requires that a Federal 
agency prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule for 
which the agency is required to publish a general notice of 
rulemaking. Today's rule consists of a general statement of 
policy, amendments to financial assistance regulations, and 
amendments to procurement regulations. Each part of today's rule 
is exempt from the requirement to publish a general notice of 
proposed rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 
U.S.C. 553) or any other law. Therefore, the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act does not apply to this rulemaking.
 
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act No new information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 
44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., are imposed by today's regulatory action.
 
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act The 
Department has concluded that promulgation of this rule falls 
into a class of actions which would not individually or 
cumulatively have significant impact on the human environment, as 
determined by Department of Energy regulations (10 CFR part 1021, 
subpart D) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act 
(NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.). Specifically, this rule 
is categorically excluded from NEPA review because the rule and 
amendments to the Department of Energy Acquisition Regulation 
(DEAR) would be strictly procedural (categorical exclusion A6). 
Therefore, this rule does not require an environmental impact 
statement or environmental assessment pursuant to NEPA.
 
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires agencies to develop an 
accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by 
State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have ``Federalism implications.'' As defined in the 
Executive Order, policies that have Federalism implications 
include regulations that have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and 
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities 
among the various levels of government. The Department has 
examined this rule and has determined that it would not have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various 
levels of government. No further action is required by Executive 
Order 13132.
 
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 The 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4) generally 
requires a Federal agency to perform a detailed assessment of 
costs and benefits of any rule imposing a Federal Mandate with 
costs to State, local or tribal governments, or to the private 
sector, of $100 million or more. This rulemaking affects private 
sector entities, and the impact is less than $100 million.
 
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 of the Treasury and General 
Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires 
Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for 
any proposed rule or policy that may affect family well-being. 
Today's rule does not impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family institution. Accordingly, the Department has concluded 
that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Statement.
 
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001 The Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for 
agencies to review most disseminations of information to the 
public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to 
the general guideline issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were 
published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002) and DOE's guidelines 
were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 
today's rulemaking under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.
 
 
[[Page 37013]] J. Review Under the Small Business Regulatory 
Enforcement Fairness Act As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will 
report to Congress on the promulgation of today's interim final 
rule prior to its effective date. The report will state that the 
rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
 
List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 600 Administrative practice and 
procedure.
 
10 CFR Part 733 Investigations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Research, Science and technology, Scientists.
 
48 CFR Parts 935, 952, and 970 Government procurement.
 
Issued in Washington, DC on June 20, 2005.
 
Raymond L. Orbach, Director of Science.
 
0 For the reasons set out in the preamble, Chapters II and III of 
title 10 and Chapter 9 of title 48 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations respectively, are to be amended as set forth below: 
PART 600--FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE RULES 0 1. The authority citation 
for 10 CFR part 600 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 
U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 31 U.S.C. 6301-6308; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq., 
unless otherwise noted. 0 2. Add Sec.  600.31 to subpart A to 
read as follows: Sec.  600.31  Research misconduct. (a) A 
recipient is responsible for maintaining the integrity of 
research of any kind under an award from DOE including the 
prevention, detection, and remediation of research misconduct, 
and the conduct of inquiries, investigations, and adjudication of 
allegations of research misconduct in accordance with the 
requirements of this section.
 
(b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions are 
applicable: Adjudication means a formal review of a record of 
investigation of alleged research misconduct to determine whether 
and what corrective actions and sanctions should be taken.
 
Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or 
reporting them.
 
Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, 
or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that 
the research is not accurately represented in the research 
record.
 
Finding of Research Misconduct means a determination, based on a 
preponderance of the evidence, that research misconduct has 
occurred. Such a finding requires a conclusion that there has 
been a significant departure from accepted practices of the 
relevant research community and that it be knowingly, 
intentionally, or recklessly committed.
 
Inquiry means information gathering and initial fact-finding to 
determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of 
misconduct warrants an investigation.
 
Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation of the 
relevant facts.
 
Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, 
processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
 
Research means all basic, applied, and demonstration research in 
all fields of science, medicine, engineering, and mathematics, 
including, but not limited to, research in economics, education, 
linguistics, medicine, psychology, social sciences statistics, 
and research involving human subjects or animals.
 
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or 
plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in 
reporting research results, but does not include honest error or 
differences of opinion.
 
Research record means the record of all data or results that 
embody the facts resulting from scientists' inquiries, including, 
but not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records, both 
physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, 
oral presentations, internal reports, and journal articles.
 
(c) Unless otherwise instructed by the contracting officer, the 
recipient must conduct an initial inquiry into any allegation of 
research misconduct. If the recipient determines that there is 
sufficient evidence to proceed to an investigation, it must 
notify the contracting officer and, unless otherwise instructed, 
the recipient must: (1) Conduct an investigation to develop a 
complete factual record and an examination of such record leading 
to either a finding of research misconduct and an identification 
of appropriate remedies or a determination that no further action 
is warranted; (2) Inform the contracting officer if an initial 
inquiry supports an investigation and, if requested by the 
contracting officer thereafter, keep the contracting officer 
informed of the results of the investigation and any subsequent 
adjudication. When an investigation is complete, the recipient 
will forward to the contracting officer a copy of the evidentiary 
record, the investigative report, any recommendations made to the 
recipient's adjudicating official, and the adjudicating 
official's decision and notification of any corrective action 
taken or planned, and the subject's written response to the 
recommendations (if any).
 
(3) If the investigation leads to a finding of research 
misconduct, conduct an adjudication by a responsible official who 
was not involved in the inquiry or investigation and is separated 
organizationally from the element which conducted the 
investigation. The adjudication must include a review of the 
investigative record and, as warranted, a determination of 
appropriate corrective actions and sanctions.
 
(d) The Department may elect to act in lieu of the recipient in 
conducting an inquiry or investigation into an allegation of 
research misconduct if the contracting officer finds that: (1) 
The research organization is not prepared to handle the 
allegation in a manner consistent with this section; (2) The 
allegation involves an entity of sufficiently small size that it 
cannot reasonably conduct the inquiry; (3) DOE involvement is 
necessary to ensure the public health, safety, and security, or 
to prevent harm to the public interest; or, (4) The allegation 
involves possible criminal misconduct.
 
(e) DOE reserves the right to pursue such remedies and other 
actions as it deems appropriate, consistent with the terms and 
conditions of the award instrument and applicable laws and 
regulations. However, the recipient's good faith administration 
of this section and the effectiveness of its remedial actions and 
sanctions shall be positive considerations and shall be taken 
into account as mitigating factors in assessing the need for such 
actions. If DOE pursues any such action, it will inform the 
subject of the action of the outcome and any applicable appeal 
procedures.
 
(f) In conducting the activities in paragraph (c) of this 
section, the recipient and the Department, if it elects to 
conduct the inquiry or investigation, shall adhere to the 
following guidelines: (1) Safeguards for information and subjects 
of allegations.
 
The recipient shall provide safeguards to ensure that individuals 
may bring allegations of research misconduct made in good faith 
to the attention of the recipient without suffering retribution. 
Safeguards include: protection against retaliation; fair and 
objective procedures for examining and resolving allegations;
 
[[Page 37014]] and diligence in protecting positions and 
reputations. The recipient shall also provide the subjects of 
allegations confidence that their rights are protected and that 
the mere filing of an allegation of research misconduct will not 
result in an adverse action.
 
Safeguards include timely written notice regarding substantive 
allegations against them, a description of the allegation and 
reasonable access to any evidence submitted to support the 
allegation or developed in response to an allegation and notice 
of any findings of research misconduct.
 
(2) Objectivity and expertise. The recipient shall select 
individual(s) to inquire, investigate, and adjudicate allegations 
of research misconduct who have appropriate expertise and have no 
unresolved conflict of interest. The individual(s) who conducts 
an adjudication must not be the same individual(s) who conducted 
the inquiry or investigation, and must be separate 
organizationally from the element that conducted the inquiry or 
investigation.
 
(3) Timeliness. The recipient shall coordinate, inquire, 
investigate and adjudicate allegations of research misconduct 
promptly, but thoroughly. Generally, an investigation should be 
completed within 120 days of initiation, and adjudication should 
be complete within 60 days of receipt of the record of 
investigation.
 
(4) Confidentiality. To the extent possible, consistent with fair 
and thorough processing of allegations of research misconduct and 
applicable law and regulation, knowledge about the identity of 
the subjects of allegations and informants should be limited to 
those with a need to know.
 
(5) Remediation and sanction. If the recipient finds that 
research misconduct has occurred, it shall assess the seriousness 
of the misconduct and its impact on the research completed or in 
process. The recipient must take all necessary corrective 
actions. Such action may include but are not limited to, 
correcting the research record and as appropriate imposing 
restrictions, controls, or other parameters on research in 
process or to be conducted in the future. The recipient must 
coordinate remedial actions with the contracting officer.
 
The recipient must also consider whether personnel sanctions are 
appropriate. Any such sanction must be consistent with any 
applicable personnel laws, policies, and procedures, and must 
take into account the seriousness of the misconduct and its 
impact, whether it was done knowingly or intentionally, and 
whether it was an isolated event or pattern of conduct.
 
(g) By executing this agreement, the recipient provides its 
assurance that it has established an administrative process for 
performing an inquiry, mediating if possible, investigating, and 
reporting allegations of research misconduct; and that it will 
comply with its own administrative process and the requirements 
and definitions of 10 CFR part 733 for performing an inquiry, 
possible mediation, investigation and reporting of allegations of 
research misconduct.
 
(h) The recipient must insert or have inserted the substance of 
this section, including paragraph (g), in subawards at all tiers 
that involve research.
 
PART 733--ALLEGATIONS OF RESEARCH MISCONDUCT 0 3. Part 733 is 
added to Chapter III of title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations to read as follows: PART 733--[ADDED] Sec.
 
733.1 Purpose. 733.2 Scope. 733.3 Definitions. 733.4 Research 
misconduct requirements. 733.5 Allegations received by DOE. 733.6 
Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector General. 733.7 
Referral to the contracting officer. 733.8 Contracting officer 
procedures. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201; 7254; 7256; 7101 et seq.; 
50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq.
 
Sec.  733.1  Purpose. The purpose of this part is to set forth a 
general statement of policy on the treatment of allegations of 
research misconduct consistent with Federal Policy on Research 
Misconduct established by the White House Office of Science and 
Technology Policy on December 6, 2000 (65 FR 76260-76264).
 
Sec.  733.2  Scope. This part applies to allegations of research 
misconduct with regard to scientific research conducted under a 
Department of Energy contract or an agreement.
 
Sec.  733.3  Definitions. The following terms used in this part 
are defined as follows: Contract means an agreement primarily for 
the acquisition of goods or services that is subject to the 
Federal Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR Chapter 1) and the DOE 
Acquisition Regulations (48 CFR Chapter 9).
 
DOE means the U.S. Department of Energy (including the National 
Nuclear Security Administration).
 
DOE Element means a major division of DOE, usually headed by a 
Presidential appointee, which has a delegation of authority to 
carry out activities by entering into contracts or financial 
assistance agreements.
 
Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or 
reporting them.
 
Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, 
or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that 
the research is not accurately represented in the research 
record.
 
Financial assistance agreement means an agreement the primary 
purpose of which is to provide appropriated funds to stimulate an 
activity, including but not limited to, grants and cooperative 
agreements pursuant to 10 CFR Part 600.
 
Finding of research misconduct means a determination, based on a 
preponderance of the evidence, that research misconduct has 
occurred. Such a finding requires a conclusion that there has 
been a significant departure from accepted practices of the 
relevant research community and that it be knowingly, 
intentionally, or recklessly committed.
 
Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, 
processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
 
Research means all basic, applied, and demonstration research in 
all fields of science, engineering, and mathematics, such as 
research in economics, education, linguistics, medicine, 
psychology, social sciences, statistics, and research involving 
human subjects or animals.
 
Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or 
plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in 
reporting research results, but does not include honest error or 
differences of opinion.
 
Research record means the record of all data or results that 
embody the facts resulting from scientists' inquiries, including, 
but not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records, both 
physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, 
oral presentations, internal reports, and journal articles Sec.  
733.4  Research misconduct requirements. DOE intends to apply the 
research misconduct policy set forth in 65 FR 76260-76264 by 
including appropriate research misconduct requirements in 
contracts and financial assistance awards that make contractors 
and financial recipients primarily responsible for implementing 
the policy in dealing with allegations of research
 
[[Page 37015]] misconduct in connection with the proposal, 
performance or review of research for DOE .
 
Sec.  733.5  Allegations received by DOE. If DOE receives 
directly a written allegation of research misconduct with regard 
to research under a DOE contract or financial assistance 
agreement, DOE will refer the allegation for processing to the 
DOE Element responsible for the contract or financial assistance 
agreement.
 
Sec.  733.6  Consultation with the DOE Office of the Inspector 
General.
 
Upon receipt of an allegation of research misconduct, the DOE 
Element shall consult with the DOE Office of the Inspector 
General which will determine whether that office will elect to 
investigate the allegation.
 
Sec.  733.7  Referral to the contracting officer. If the DOE 
Office of the Inspector General declines to investigate an 
allegation of research misconduct, the DOE Element should forward 
the allegation to the contracting officer responsible for 
administration of the contract or financial assistance agreement 
to which the allegation pertains.
 
Sec.  733.8  Contracting officer procedures. Upon receipt of an 
allegation of research misconduct by referral under Sec.  733.7, 
the contracting officer should, by notification of the contractor 
or financial assistance recipient: (a) Require the contractor or 
the financial assistance recipient to act on the allegation 
consistent with the Research Misconduct requirements in the 
contract or financial assistance award to which the allegation 
pertains; or (b) In the event the contractor or the financial 
assistance recipient is unable to act: (1) Designate an 
appropriate DOE program to conduct an investigation to develop a 
complete factual record and an examination of such record leading 
to either a finding of research misconduct and an identification 
of appropriate remedies or a determination that no further action 
is warranted; and (2) Make the appropriate findings consistent 
with the Research Misconduct requirements contained in the 
contract or financial assistance award, in order to act in lieu 
of the contractor or financial assistance recipient.
 
Title 48 PART 935--RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACTING 0 4. The 
authority citation for 48 CFR part 935 continues to read as 
follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.; 41 U.S.C. 418b; 50 
U.S.C. 2401 et seq.
 
0 5. Sections 935.070 and 935.071 are added to read as follows: 
935.070  Research misconduct. (a) Applicability. The DOE research 
misconduct policy set forth at 10 CFR part 733 addresses research 
misconduct by individuals who propose, perform or review research 
of any kind for the Department of Energy pursuant to a contract. 
The regulation applies regardless of where the research or other 
activity is conducted or by whom.
 
(b) Definition. Research misconduct means fabrication, 
falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or 
reviewing research, or in reporting research results. Research 
misconduct does not include honest error or differences of 
opinion. A finding of research misconduct means a determination, 
based on a preponderance of the evidence, that research 
misconduct has occurred, including a conclusion that there has 
been a significant departure from accepted practices of the 
relevant research community and that it be knowingly, 
intentionally, or recklessly committed.
 
935.071  Contract clause. The contracting officer must insert the 
clause at 952.235-71, Research Misconduct, in contracts, 
including management and operating contracts, that involve 
research.
 
PART 952--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES 0 6. The 
authority citation for part 952 continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201, 2282a, 2282b, 2282c, 7101 et seq.; 41 
U.S.C. 418b; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq. 0 7. Section 952.235-71 is 
added to read as follows: 952.235-71  Research Misconduct. As 
prescribed in 48 CFR Part 935.071, insert the following clause: 
Research Misconduct (JUL 2005) (a) The contractor is responsible 
for maintaining the integrity of research performed pursuant to 
this contract award including the prevention, detection, and 
remediation of research misconduct as defined by this clause, and 
the conduct of inquiries, investigations, and adjudication of 
allegations of research misconduct in accordance with the 
requirements of this clause.
 
(b) Unless otherwise instructed by the contracting officer, the 
contractor must conduct an initial inquiry into any allegation of 
research misconduct. If the contractor determines that there is 
sufficient evidence to proceed to an investigation, it must 
notify the contracting officer and, unless otherwise instructed, 
the contractor must: (1) Conduct an investigation to develop a 
complete factual record and an examination of such record leading 
to either a finding of research misconduct and an identification 
of appropriate remedies or a determination that no further action 
is warranted; (2) If the investigation leads to a finding of 
research misconduct, conduct an adjudication by a responsible 
official who was not involved in the inquiry or investigation and 
is separated organizationally from the element which conducted 
the investigation. The adjudication must include a review of the 
investigative record and, as warranted, a determination of 
appropriate corrective actions and sanctions.
 
(3) Inform the contracting officer if an initial inquiry supports 
a formal investigation and, if requested by the contracting 
officer thereafter, keep the contracting officer informed of the 
results of the investigation and any subsequent adjudication.
 
When an investigation is complete, the contractor will forward to 
the contracting officer a copy of the evidentiary record, the 
investigative report, any recommendations made to the 
contractor's adjudicating official, the adjudicating official's 
decision and notification of any corrective action taken or 
planned, and the subject's written response (if any).
 
(c) The Department may elect to act in lieu of the contractor in 
conducting an inquiry or investigation into an allegation of 
research misconduct if the contracting officer finds that: (1) 
The research organization is not prepared to handle the 
allegation in a manner consistent with this clause; (2) The 
allegation involves an entity of sufficiently small size that it 
cannot reasonably conduct the inquiry; (3) DOE involvement is 
necessary to ensure the public heath, safety, and security, or to 
prevent harm to the public interest; or, (4) The allegation 
involves possible criminal misconduct.
 
(d) In conducting the activities under paragraphs (b) and (c) of 
this clause, the contractor and the Department, if it elects to 
conduct the inquiry or investigation, shall adhere to the 
following guidelines: (1) Safeguards for information and subjects 
of allegations.
 
The contractor shall provide safeguards to ensure that 
individuals may bring allegations of research misconduct made in 
good faith to the attention of the contractor without suffering 
retribution. Safeguards include: protection against retaliation; 
fair and objective procedures for examining and resolving 
allegations; and diligence in protecting positions and 
reputations. The contractor shall also provide
 
[[Page 37016]] the subjects of allegations confidence that their 
rights are protected and that the mere filing of an allegation of 
research misconduct will not result in an adverse action. 
Safeguards include timely written notice regarding substantive 
allegations against them, a description of the allegation and 
reasonable access to any evidence submitted to support the 
allegation or developed in response to an allegation and notice 
of any findings of research misconduct.
 
(2) Objectivity and Expertise. The contractor shall select 
individual(s) to inquire, investigate, and adjudicate allegations 
of research misconduct who have appropriate expertise and have no 
unresolved conflict of interest. The individual(s) who conducts 
an adjudication must not be the same individual(s) who conducted 
the inquiry or investigation, and must be separate 
organizationally from the element that conducted the inquiry or 
investigation.
 
(3) Timeliness. The contractor shall coordinate, inquire, 
investigate and adjudicate allegations of research misconduct 
promptly, but thoroughly. Generally, an investigation should be 
completed within 120 days of initiation, and adjudication should 
be complete within 60 days of receipt of the record of 
investigation.
 
(4) Confidentiality. To the extent possible, consistent with fair 
and thorough processing of allegations of research misconduct and 
applicable law and regulation, knowledge about the identity of 
the subjects of allegations and informants should be limited to 
those with a need to know.
 
(5) Remediation and Sanction. If the contractor finds that 
research misconduct has occurred, it shall assess the seriousness 
of the misconduct and its impact on the research completed or in 
process. The contractor must take all necessary corrective 
actions. Such action may include but are not limited to, 
correcting the research record and as appropriate imposing 
restrictions, controls, or other parameters on research in 
process or to be conducted in the future. The contractor must 
coordinate remedial actions with the contracting officer. The 
contractor must also consider whether personnel sanctions are 
appropriate. Any such sanction must be considered and effected 
consistent with any applicable personnel laws, policies, and 
procedures, and shall take into account the seriousness of the 
misconduct and its impact, whether it was done knowingly or 
intentionally, and whether it was an isolated event or pattern of 
conduct.
 
(e) DOE reserves the right to pursue such remedies and other 
actions as it deems appropriate, consistent with the terms and 
conditions of the award instrument and applicable laws and 
regulations. However, the contractor's good faith administration 
of this clause and the effectiveness of its remedial actions and 
sanctions shall be positive considerations and shall be taken 
into account as mitigating factors in assessing the need for such 
actions. If DOE pursues any such action, it will inform the 
subject of the action of the outcome and any applicable appeal 
procedures.
 
(f) Definitions.
 
Adjudication means a formal review of a record of investigation 
of alleged research misconduct to determine whether and what 
corrective actions and sanctions should be taken.
 
Fabrication means making up data or results and recording or 
reporting them.
 
Falsification means manipulating research materials, equipment, 
or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that 
the research is not accurately represented in the research 
record.
 
Finding of Research Misconduct means a determination, based on a 
preponderance of the evidence, that research misconduct has 
occurred. Such a finding requires a conclusion that there has 
been a significant departure from accepted practices of the 
relevant research community and that it be knowingly, 
intentionally, or recklessly committed.
 
Inquiry means information gathering and initial fact-finding to 
determine whether an allegation or apparent instance of 
misconduct warrants an investigation.
 
Investigation means the formal examination and evaluation of the 
relevant facts.
 
Plagiarism means the appropriation of another person's ideas, 
processes, results, or words without giving appropriate credit.
 
Research means all basic, applied, and demonstration research in 
all fields of science, medicine, engineering, and mathematics, 
including, but not limited to, research in economics, education, 
linguistics, medicine, psychology, social sciences statistics, 
and research involving human subjects or animals.
 
Research Misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or 
plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in 
reporting research results, but does not include honest error or 
differences of opinion.
 
Research record means the record of all data or results that 
embody the facts resulting from scientists' inquiries, including, 
but not limited to, research proposals, laboratory records, both 
physical and electronic, progress reports, abstracts, theses, 
oral presentations, internal reports, and journal articles.
 
(g) By executing this contract, the contractor provides its 
assurance that it has established an administrative process for 
performing an inquiry, mediating if possible, or investigating, 
and reporting allegations of research misconduct; and that it 
will comply with its own administrative process and the 
requirements of 10 CFR part 733 for performing an inquiry, 
possible mediation, investigation and reporting of research 
misconduct.
 
(h) The contractor must insert or have inserted the substance of 
this clause, including paragraph (g), in subcontracts at all 
tiers that involve research.
 
(End of Clause) PART 970--MANAGEMENT AND OPERATING CONTRACTS 0 7. 
The authority citation for part 970 continues to read as follows: 
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2201, 2282a, 2282b, 2282c; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et 
seq.; 41 U.S.C. 418b; 50 U.S.C. 2401 et seq. 0 8. Section 
970.5204-3 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as 
follows: 970.5204-3  Access to and ownership of records. * * * * 
* (b) * * * (1) Employment-related records (such as worker's 
compensation files; employee relations records, records on salary 
and employee benefits; drug testing records, labor negotiation 
records; records on ethics, employee concerns; records generated 
during the course of responding to allegations of research 
misconduct; records generated during other employee related 
investigations conducted under an expectation of confidentiality; 
employee assistance program records; and personnel and 
medical/health-related records and similar files), and 
non-employee patient medical/health-related records, except for 
those records described by the contract as being maintained in 
Privacy Act systems of records.
 
* * * * * [FR Doc. 05-12645 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 
6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 38 Las Vegas SUN: Amendment to energy bill helps protect whisteblowers 

Today: June 28, 2005 at 10:1:38 PDT 

SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU

 WASHINGTON -- Energy Department workers who expose wrongdoing
have another layer of protection based on an amendment included
in the energy bill that passed the Senate today.

 If an employee files a complaint with the Labor Department and
it does not act within 180 days, the employee can take the issue
to federal court.

 Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., added
the amendment to the energy bill to protect whistleblowers. The
senators had introduced a stand-alone bill during the last
Congress to provide the court option to Energy Department and
Nuclear Regulator Commission employees, but their amendment only
applies to Energy Department employees, according to a copy
released by the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee
Monday. 




 
         All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
                                 

*****************************************************************
 39 Tri-City Herald: Hanford Concerns Council open for business 

This story was published Tuesday, June 28th, 2005 

By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer 

An unusual partnership between a Hanford contractor and one of
its critics, the Government Accountability Project, has led to
an independent council to resolve employee concerns at the
Hanford tank farms. 

Tank farm workers have attributed health problems to exposure to
chemical vapors that vent into the air from Hanford's older
tanks of radioactive and hazardous chemical waste. 

The new Hanford Concerns Council, which began operating Monday,
will consider complex employee concerns about workplace safety,
health and environmental protection at the tank farms. 

CH2M Hill Hanford Group, the Department of Energy contractor for
the tank farms, has agreed to implement any consensus
recommendations of the council as long as it does not violate
legal or contractual obligations. 

"This agreement is the bedrock upon which the process rests,"
according to a memo sent to all CH2M Hill employees Monday by
the contractor, the whistleblower-protection-group GAP and DOE. 

The council will be led by Jonathan Brock, a professor at the
University of Washington's Daniel J. Evans School of Public
Affairs. The council also will include three representatives of
CH2M Hill, three advocates for worker concerns and three neutral
members. 

"I have great confidence this will be a new and effective remedy
for certain workers at the tank farms," said Tom Carpenter,
director of GAP's Nuclear Oversight Program. 

GAP criticized CH2M Hill last year for not better protecting
workers from exposure to chemical vapors and not understanding
what chemicals are in the vapors. 

A series of government investigations that followed found that
too little was known to be sure workers had not been harmed.
CH2M Hill has taken steps to protect workers, such as requiring
supplied-air ventilators to be worn near many older tanks. 

Despite CH2M Hill's best efforts, there remained employees who
believe their concerns were not being heard or that they were
not being listened to with respect, said Ed Aromi, president of
CH2M Hill. 

GAP and CH2M Hill came up with the idea for the council together
based on the success of a previous program and together
approached DOE for its support. 

The new council will operate much like the Hanford Joint
Council, which resolved Hanford employee concerns from 1994 to
2003. During those years, the council accepted about 50 cases,
reached consensus on all of them and had all its recommendations
implemented by the contractors involved. 

That council was formed when Westinghouse Hanford Co. operated
the Hanford site and employed about 11,000 workers. But when the
Westinghouse contract ended, the council lost contractor support
and clout and eventually dissolved. 

The new Hanford Concerns Council will hear the unresolved
concerns of only CH2M Hill workers initially, but organizers are
hoping its success will interest other contractors in using the
council. 

It's intended to be a forum to allow issues that might otherwise
end up in the courts and remain unresolved for years to be
settled through discussion in a two- to four-month process. 

The council is expected to cost taxpayers $500,000 annually,
which includes an office and small staff. 

Brock, who also was the chairman of the past Hanford council,
said in 1999 that cases were being resolved at an average cost
of $33,000. But if they had gone to court and through subsequent
appeals as whistleblower cases, they could reach $500,000 to $1
million in costs for legal fees, settlements and time lost by
employees working on the case. 

Cases then were being resolved in four to six months compared
with about three to 10 years for whistleblower disputes to go
through the courts. 

The new council has the support of Washington Gov. Christine
Gregoire and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. 

"Its existence will enhance both accountability for the site and
dignity for workers," Gregoire said in a prepared statement and
urged other companies to participate. 

Murray called the council "exemplary and critical step forward
for workers, the community and the environment." 

"Instilling an enduring, safety-conscious work culture at the
Hanford tank farms is one of my major goals," said Roy Schepens,
manager of DOE's Office of River Protection. "I see the work of
the concerns council as a key contributor in the attainment of
this goal." 

Board members filling employee advocacy positions are Carpenter;
Lea Mitchell, an investigator with GAP; and Todd Martin, a
consultant best known as the chairman of the Hanford Advisory
Board. Alternate is Dana Gold, director of the Center on
Corporations, Law &Society at Seattle University School of Law. 

Neutral representatives are Max Power, retired from the
Washington State Department of Ecology; Christine Spieth, a
former organized labor official; and Harry Thomas, retired
executive director of the Seattle Housing Authority. 

The council is not intended to replace normal channels available
for employees to receive help, such as their manager or the
Employee Concerns Program. Rather it's intended for situations
in which an employee questions whether regular channels can be
fair or effective or if they risk retaliation or other negative
impacts. 

Workers may contact the new council through its Web site at
www.hanfordconcernscouncil.org. 

© 2005 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services
*****************************************************************
 40 Idaho Statesman: Our View: DOE should justify plans to make more plutonium
         
Editorials - 

06-28-2005                

editorial@idahostatesman.com; fax it to 377-6449; or mail it to
P.O. Box 40, Boise, ID 83707.

• Get in touch with the Energy Department: E-mail: 
ConsolidationEIS@nuclear.energy.gov Telephone: (800) 919-3706. 
Fax: (800) 919-3765.


The federal government's plan to make plutonium could create
jobs at the Idaho National Laboratory in eastern Idaho. But this
same plutonium can cause cancer and will generate nuclear waste
as the government is trying to clean up waste already in Idaho.

In a report issued Friday, the Energy Department said it wants
to produce plutonium and consolidate the work in Idaho. It's
time to ask good questions.

• What's the plutonium needed for? That question can best be
guessed at by looking at chemistry and history.

The form of plutonium in question is known as plutonium-238.
It's a dense, silver metal. Unlike other types of plutonium,
plutonium-238 cannot be used in a nuclear weapon. As
plutonium-238 decays, it releases a lot of heat. So this
plutonium has been used to run long-lasting batteries for space
missions and even to power some pacemakers.

The Energy Department says it needs an additional 11 pounds a
year of plutonium, though it's not clear why. In a New York
Times article Monday, the Energy Department's Timothy Frazier
denied that any of the plutonium would be used for nuclear arms,
satellites or space weapons.

So why is the Energy Department getting back into the business
of plutonium, after about a decade? What is driving the need,
met until now by the existing stockpile and by plutonium bought
from Russia for use in the space program?

• What are the health and environmental risks? Plutonium is most
dangerous when ingested or inhaled. A particle of plutonium can
remain lodged in a body organ for decades, exposing organs and
tissues to radiation.

How does the federal government's plan protect workers at the
lab  and people who live nearby?

And what about the plutonium-contaminated waste produced while
manufacturing the plutonium? Would it leave Idaho for a
permanent burial site in New Mexico, as DOE promises?

• What is in it for Idaho? A $250 million to $300 million
construction project. Then, about 100 permanent jobs: people who
produce the plutonium; fashion it into fuel pellets; and
assemble, test and deliver the finished product. In a Reader's
View today, Energy Department Idaho manager Elizabeth Sellers
says the project could open the doors to other work. Would it?
And how can we know, when so many uncertainties surround the
plutonium project itself?

The Energy Department in 1986 sought to produce weapons-grade
plutonium in Idaho; some Idahoans were skeptical, others
outraged. The federal government ultimately tabled the idea.
This latest plutonium project also deserves Idahoans' scrutiny. 
 
*****************************************************************
 41 Idaho Statesman: Proposed plutonium factory has high potential for harm to Idahoans

      Reader's Opinion - 

06-28-2005                

Jeremy Maxand: 

Idaho is again in the bull's-eye for a dangerous nuclear program
that will put workers, the public and our land and water in
harm's way, and it may help pave the way for more dangerous and
dirty programs. The Department of Energy wants to consolidate
the production, purification and assembly of plutonium "space
batteries" at the Idaho National Laboratory.

The DOE first tried selling this project to Idahoans under the
guise of science and space exploration. We now know the real
driving force is secret "national security" missions, which
could involve leaving plutonium-238 unattended on earth for any
terrorist with a screwdriver.

There is every reason to expect that worker and public-health
dangers will be shrouded and environmental harm hidden. That
same scenario has already increased  immeasurably  the damage
done by the DOE's activities. Furthermore, though we've been
told the plutonium batteries aren't used in nuclear weapons,
missile defense, or earth-orbiting satellites, we've also been
told that the national security mission could change. We'd never
know, of course. It would be a secret change to a secret.

The risks are substantial. Plutonium-238 has a half-life of 88
years, much shorter than the more familiar "bomb-grade" Pu-239's
half-life of 24,000 years. The flip side is that Pu-238 is much
more radioactive and can do a lot more biological damage a lot
faster than the same amount of Pu-239.

The risks are real. Pu-238 is currently "purified," a
particularly filthy process, at the Los Alamos National
Laboratory in New Mexico. The DOE has held up LANL's Plutonium
Facility as the model for the factory proposed for INL even
though the DOE has not been able to decontaminate part of the
facility since an August 2003 accident.

According to the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, a
government overseer of nuclear weapons plants that will not be
able to watchdog activities at INL, one of the root causes of
the accident was that the DOE "failed to balance management
attention and resources between accomplishing the programmatic
mission and providing an appropriate level of protection for the
workers handling Pu-238." In other words, the government valued
plutonium more than people.

People outside the proposed plutonium factory could be imperiled
as well. The DOE itself has concluded that not enough is known
about the filters relied upon to contain contamination during an
accident. The DNFSB sees systemic problems. "For many years, an
informal but highly effective nationwide infrastructure
supported production of and quality assurance for HEPA filters
for safety-related service in a variety of hazardous operations,
including those conducted in DOE facilities. Today there is
convincing evidence that this infrastructure is failing. ...
Confinement viability demands that these filters be highly
dependable, yet beyond question their efficacy has deteriorated."

There are grave global concerns as well. NASA is increasingly
militarized, and its new head has called for a more direct
association with the Defense Department. The United States seems
set to breach the international norm against the weaponization
of space. The Air Force wants to pursue at least four
space-based weapons systems. INL may be in the thick of
plutonium production before anyone is able to connect all the
dots.

When this factory was first proposed, the Post Register in Idaho
Falls called on the federal government "to assure Idahoans that
what's being built in their back yard is something they can feel
good about  or at least not bad about."

High potential for human harm. Less outside oversight of weapons
material than at a weapons plant. An arms race in space. Feel
good? I don't think so.

DOE hearings will likely be late July. Please speak out for
Idaho's future.

Jeremy Maxand of Boise is the executive director of the Snake
River Alliance, Idaho's nuclear watchdog. Reach him at (208)
344-9161 or at www.snakeriveralliance.org.   

*****************************************************************
 42 Idaho Statesman: Consolidation of plutonium-238 work at INL will improve security

Reader's Opinion - 

06-28-2005                

Elizabeth Sellers: 

The U.S. Department of Energy has a very important task:
supplying nuclear materials and systems necessary to provide
heat and electricity for space-exploration power systems, and
national security missions. The department is looking for a
safer and more efficient way to carry out these missions. This
may mean consolidating the nuclear work at Idaho National
Laboratory.

DOE has the responsibility to supply plutonium-238, a
radioactive element that generates heat as it decays. That heat
is converted into electricity used in remote power systems to
operate instruments in harsh, remote environments. These systems
have been used on spacecraft since 1961.

DOE also provides power systems to national-security users for
missions we can't discuss. The need for these systems has
increased significantly since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist
attacks. DOE anticipates running out of plutonium-238 required
for these systems by the end of this decade. Under current
plans, DOE would begin producing plutonium-238 using facilities
in Tennessee, as well as INL. In that scenario, plutonium-238
would needlessly travel about 8,000 miles before it was ready to
be delivered to its end user.

Looking for a plan that reduces transportation requirements
while improving security and efficiency, DOE is considering
consolidating all plutonium-238 work at INL. A draft
environmental impact statement evaluating this plan and
reasonable alternatives will be issued for public comment this
summer. If consolidation occurs, INL will produce about five
kilograms of plutonium-238 a year, a volume that would fit
easily in a gallon milk container.

Here is a look at the key issues that have been raised and how
DOE intends to address them:

• Safety: Stakeholders have expressed concern about worker
exposure to plutonium-238, as well as release to the
environment. We intend to use the lessons learned from 40 years
of plutonium-238 production and handling to construct a
state-of-the-art facility that designs-in safety. That means
improvements that reduce the possibility of worker exposure and
prevent release of plutonium-238 even under extreme accident
conditions.

• Security: Terrorism is a concern we take very seriously here.
We have a well-trained, well-armed security force, a
sophisticated information-gathering network and the full
resources of the United States government on which to rely.

• Waste generation: DOE intends to ship all of the waste
generated by these missions to permitted disposal sites out of
Idaho. DOE will minimize the amount of waste generated and
re-use as much plutonium-238 and neptunium-237 (the feedstock
for plutonium-238) as possible, because they are both very
valuable commodities.

• Secrecy: While end users of remote power systems are secret,
processes to produce the plutonium-238 and the power systems are
not. The state of Idaho and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency will have complete access to our facilities to ensure
safety and compliance with all regulations.

• The future: Some stakeholders believe this mission will open
the door for other national security or nuclear-related
missions. Frankly, as the nation's lead nuclear laboratory, we
would expect it to do just that. INL is a national asset and an
Idaho asset that provides a large employment base, spends
millions of dollars a year with Idaho business and adds millions
of dollars a year to the state's tax base. Consolidating the
nuclear work related to this project in Idaho would bring a
construction project to the state worth between $250 million and
$350 million, and an estimated 100 permanent jobs.

DOE will welcome the public's input and listen carefully as it
makes decisions that affect the future of the nation, INL and
all Idahoans.

Elizabeth Sellers is the manager of DOE's Idaho Operations
Office. Reach her at 1955 Fremont Avenue, Idaho Falls, ID 83415.
  
*****************************************************************
 43 DOE: Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Northern 
 
                        FR Doc 05-12701 
[Federal Register: June 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 123)] 
[Notices] [Page 37096] From the Federal Register Online via GPO 
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn05-59]                         
 
New Mexico AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Environmental 
Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EMSSAB), Northern New 
Mexico. The Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 
Stat. 770) requires that public notice of this meeting be 
announced in the Federal Register.
 
 
DATES: Wednesday, July 27, 2005; 1 p.m.-8:30 p.m.
 
ADDRESSES: Jemez Complex, Santa Fe Community College, 6401 
Richards Avenue, Santa Fe, New Mexico.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Menice Manzanares, Northern New 
Mexico Citizens' Advisory Board, 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, 
Santa Fe, NM 87505. Phone (505) 995-0393; Fax (505) 989-1752 or 
E-mail: mmanzanares@doeal.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Board: The purpose of 
the Board is to make recommendations to DOE in the areas of 
environmental restoration, waste management, and related 
activities.
 
Tentative Agenda 1 p.m.--Call to Order by Deputy Designated 
Federal Officer (DDFO), Ted Taylor Establishment of a Quorum 
Welcome and Introductions by Chairman, Tim DeLong Approval of 
Agenda Approval of Minutes of May 21, 2005 1:15 p.m.--Board 
Business A. Report from Chairman, Tim DeLong B. Report from 
Department of Energy, DDFO, Ted Taylor C. Report from Executive 
Director, Menice S. Manzanares D. Consideration and Action on 
Bylaws Amendment Number 7 E. New Business 2 p.m.--Break 2:15 
p.m.--Reports A. Waste Management Committee, Jim Brannon B. 
Community Involvement Committee, Grace Perez C. Environmental 
Monitoring, Surveillance and Remediation Committee, Chris Timm D. 
Comments from Ex-Officio Members 4 p.m.--Presentation by Michael 
Brooks, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry--Public 
Health Assessment for Los Alamos National Laboratory (Public 
Comment Release) 5 p.m.--Dinner Break 6 p.m.--Public Comment 6:15 
p.m.--Consideration and Action on Recommendation 2005-5, Grace 
Perez Consideration and Action on Recommendation 2005-6, Chris 
Timm 6:30 p.m.--Presentation Regarding Well Drilling Techniques 
for the Los Alamos National Laboratory Groundwater Program 8 
p.m.--Comments from Board and Ex-Officio Members 8:20 p.m.--Recap 
of Meeting: Issuance of Press Releases, Editorials, etc.
 
8:30 p.m.--Adjourn. This agenda is subject to change at least one 
day in advance of the meeting.
 
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public.
 
Written statements may be filed with the Board either before or 
after the meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements 
pertaining to agenda items should contact Menice Manzanares at 
the address or telephone number listed above. Requests must be 
received five days prior to the meeting and reasonable provision 
will be made to include the presentation in the agenda. The 
Deputy Designated Federal Officer is empowered to conduct the 
meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly conduct of 
business. Individuals wishing to make public comment will be 
provided a maximum of five minutes to present their comments.
 
Minutes: Minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Department of Energy's Freedom of 
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585 between 9 a.m. and 
4 p.m., Monday- Friday, except Federal holidays. Minutes will 
also be available at the Public Reading Room located at the 
Board's office at 1660 Old Pecos Trail, Suite B, Santa Fe, NM. 
Hours of operation for the Public Reading Room are 9 a.m.-4 p.m. 
on Monday through Friday. Minutes will also be made available by 
writing or calling Menice Manzanares at the Board's office 
address or telephone number listed above. Minutes and other Board 
documents are on the Internet at: http://www.nnmcab.org. Issued 
at Washington, DC on June 23, 2005.
 
R. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 05-12701 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6405-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 44 DOE: Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee
 
                        FR Doc 05-12702 

[Federal Register: June 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 123)] 
[Notices] [Page 37095-37096] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn05-58]                         
 
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
 
SUMMARY: This notice announces an open meeting of the Biomass 
Research and Development Technical Advisory Committee under the 
Biomass Research and Development Act of 2000. The Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires 
that agencies publish these notices in the Federal Register to 
allow for public participation. This notice announces the meeting 
of the Biomass Research and Development Technical Advisory 
Committee.
 
 
DATES: July 19, 2005; 8:30 a.m.
 
ADDRESSES: Washington Marriott, 1221 22nd Street, NW., 
Washington, DC.
 
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil Rossmeissl, Designated 
Federal Officer for the Committee, Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586-7766.
 
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice 
and guidance that promotes research and development leading to 
the production of biobased industrial products.
 
Tentative Agenda: Agenda will include discussions on the 
following: Reevaluation of Vision targets Evaluation of Committee 
accomplishments Development of recommendations to incoming 
Committee members Public Participation: In keeping with 
procedures, members of the public are welcome to observe the 
business of the Biomass Research and Development Technical 
Advisory Committee. To attend the meeting and/or to make oral
 
[[Page 37096]] statements regarding any of the items on the 
agenda, you should contact Neil Rossmeissl at 202-586-7766 or the 
Biomass Initiative at

 
laura.neal@ee.doe.gov (email). You must make your request for an 
oral statement at least 5 business days before the meeting. 
Members of the public will be heard in the order in which they 
sign up at the beginning of the meeting. Reasonable provision 
will be made to include the scheduled oral statements on the 
agenda. The Chair of the Committee will make every effort to hear 
the views of all interested parties. If you would like to file a 
written statement with the Committee, you may do so either before 
or after the meeting. The Chair will conduct the meeting to 
facilitate the orderly conduct of business.
 
Minutes: The minutes of the meeting will be available for public 
review and copying within 60 days at the Freedom of Information 
Public Reading Room; Room 1E-190; Forrestal Building; 1000 
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4 
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
 
Issued at Washington, DC on June 23, 2005.
 
R. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 
[FR Doc. 05-12702 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
*****************************************************************
 45 WATE: ORNL on biggest recruiting campaign in 30 years

June 27, 2005 

OAK RIDGE (AP) -- The Oak Ridge National Laboratory has begun
its biggest recruiting campaign in three decades.The move comes
in anticipation of a great wave of retirements in the next few
years. 

Lab director Jeff Wadsworth, of the Energy Department, wants to
be ahead of the curve and know who the lab is going to be
hiring. 

Up to 40 percent of the 4,000 lab employees will be eligible to
retire in five to seven years. 

The Oak Ridge lab is using a model followed by the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, which sends recruiters to about 50
universities annually. 

Lab officials hope new facilities, including the Spallation
Neutron Source, will attract new scientists. 

Wadsworth says the primary selling point for the lab is the
research work done there. 

Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This

*****************************************************************
 46 DOE: U.S. Department of Energy's Fleet Alternative Fuel Vehicle 
 
                        FR Doc 05-12703 
[Federal Register: June 28, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 123)] 
[Notices] [Page 37096-37097] From the Federal Register Online via 
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr28jn05-60]                         
 
Acquisition AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, U.S. Department of Energy.
 
ACTION: Notice of Availability of the U.S. Department of Energy's 
Annual Report on its Alternative Fuel Vehicle Acquisition for 
Fiscal Year 2004.
 
SUMMARY: In compliance with the Energy Policy Act of 1992 and 
Executive Order 13149, this notice announces the availability of 
the fiscal year 2004 report which summarizes the U.S. Department 
of Energy's (DOE) compliance with the annual alternative fuel 
vehicle (AFV) acquisition requirement for its agency fleet. 
Additionally, this report includes data concerning DOE's efforts 
to reduce petroleum consumption.
 
 
[[Page 37097]]
 
ADDRESSES: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle 
Technologies, EE-2G, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC 20585-0121. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Shabnam Fardanesh 
on (202) 586-7011 or shabnam.fardanesh@ee.doe.gov.
 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (Public 
Law 102-486, 42 U.S.C. 13211-13219) (EPAct), as amended, and 
Executive Order (E.O.) 13149 (65 FR 24607, April 2000) require 
Federal fleets to make 75 percent of their new covered light-duty 
vehicle acquisitions AFVs, beginning in fiscal year 1999. In 
fiscal year 2004, DOE exceeded its EPAct requirements for the 
sixth consecutive year. As a result of its AFV acquisitions and 
biodiesel fuel use, DOE in fiscal year 2004 achieved a 99 percent 
compliance rate, which is 24 percentage points higher than the 75 
percent AFV requirement. DOE also expects to exceed its EPAct 
requirements in fiscal years 2005 and 2006.
 
In addition to emphasizing compliance with EPAct, E.O. 13149 set 
a goal for each agency to reduce vehicular petroleum consumption 
by 20 percent by the end of fiscal year 2005, compared to fiscal 
year 1999 levels. E.O. 13149 specifies that each agency should 
improve the fuel efficiency of its new conventional light-duty 
vehicles and increase the use of alternative fuels in its AFVs. 
In fiscal year 2004, 21 percent of the fuel used in DOE's AFVs 
was alternative fuel and DOE achieved a 2.1 mile per gallon 
increase in fuel economy in its conventional light- duty vehicles 
as compared to fiscal year 1999. This combined with EPAct AFV 
acquisitions, led to a reduction in petroleum consumption of 1.8 
percent compared to fiscal year 1999.
 
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 13218, each covered agency, including DOE, 
must report its annual acquisitions of alternative fuel vehicles 
to Congress, as required. These annual reports must also be 
placed on a publicly available Web site and their availability, 
including the Web site address, must be published in the Federal 
Register.
 
The DOE report for fiscal year 2004 may be accessed on the DOE 
Vehicle Technology Federal Fleet Web site at 
http://www.eere.energy.gov/vehiclesandfuels/epact/federal .
 
Issued in Washington, DC, on June 22, 2005.
 
David K. Garman, Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.
 
[FR Doc. 05-12703 Filed 6-27-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

 
    
*****************************************************************

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> 
    
*****************************************************************