***************************************************************** 06/30/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.150 ***************************************************************** 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 Journal News: Iraq Veterans discuss health problems 2 Xinhua: Russia defends nuclear co-op with Iran 3 AFP: N.Korea has one to two nukes but would still lose any war 4 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea Noisily Resumes Reactor Construct 5 Korea Times: [Times Forum] Kim Jong-il's Tricky Dilemma 6 US: US to Resume PU238 Manufacture 7 US: [progchat_action] Fw: PLUTONIUM MAY POWER MILITARY SATELLITES 8 AU ABC: Scientists back new US nuclear weapons. 9 US: Guardian Unlimited: White House to Endorse WMD Panel's Changes 10 US: Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Energy Policy: It's bound to get wor 11 BBC: US lifts South Asia trade curbs 12 US: Upper Cape Codder: Kleekamp: No nuclear, no coal ... wind yes! 13 Interfax: Ukraine vows not to host NATO nuclear arms 14 Bellona: Russia, Denmark strike first Russian Kyoto Deal 15 Bellona: US files formal extradition request for custody of former 16 Guardian Unlimited: Micro-power hailed as cheap, safe energy of futu NUCLEAR REACTORS 17 ThisisLondon: Nuclear power 'too slow' - report 18 TorontoSun.com: Nuke safety ignored? 19 Times of India: Nuclear is not so clear - thinktank 20 US: INSIDE JoongAng Daily: 2 nuclear power plants approved 21 RIA Novosti: Science &Technologies - Floating nuclear power plants 22 US: Entergy to work with county on Indian Point sirens 23 TheStar.com: Nuclear watchdog poised to intervene 24 MercoPress: Chile considering an atomic energy plant 25 Economist.com: Nuclear power 26 US: NRC: Governors' Designees Receiving Advance Notification of 27 US: NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant 28 US: NRC: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability 29 ITAR-TASS: Ukraine, China sign nuclear power cooperation treaty 30 News & Star: Reveal full report on Thorp spill – demands Greenpeac 31 News & Star: Security of our ‘nuclear ships’ NUCLEAR SECURITY 32 In Face Of Potential Nuclear Terrorism, States Seek To Strengthen UN 33 White House: Statement on Nuclear Security Cooperation with Russia 34 Reuters: German police find radioactive container in street NUCLEAR SAFETY 35 US: [NukeNet] NAS: No Such Thing As A Safe Dose Of Radiation 36 US: [du-list] interesting letter from Rick DeSelm 37 US: All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer 38 News in Science: Nuclear industry-cancer link confirmed - 39 AU ABC: Study finds cancer risk among nuclear power plant workers ne 40 US: NRC: NRC Reports Lowest Average Occupational Dose Ever for Nucle 41 US: NIRS: All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer. - 42 allAfrica.com: Ghana: Radiological & Nuclear Emergency Meeting Under 43 US: Southern Scientific: Radioactive waste management and decommissi 44 US: KOLD: Feds cite Palo Verde for changes in radiation monitoring NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 45 [NukeNet] Scientist Denies Falsifying Yucca Data 46 US: Arizona Republic: Nuclear waste is real fear factor 47 www.GovExec.com: Yucca Mountain e-mail author denies allegations 48 US: AU ABC: Commonwealth can overrule NT uranium ban - expert 49 US: AU ABC: NT accused of uranium double standard 50 US: WIBW: Five-State Nuclear Waste Compact Weighs Own Future 51 Las Vegas RJ: Scientist denies falsifying Yucca Mountain data 52 US: NRC: RIN 3150-AH70: Spent fuel Casts list 53 Irish Times: Sellafield leak went undetected for nine months 54 US: Lincoln Journal Star: Utilities, Butte want slice of nuclear was 55 Pahrump Valley Times: Congress moving to limit DOE controls on repos PEACE 56 Tri-State Media: Space weapons are truly a bad idea 57 Asia Times: Alternative nuclear tack for Japan US DEPT. OF ENERGY 58 lamonitor.com: State pushes lab on water cleanup 59 lamonitor.com: Lab bestows the gold 60 csmonitor.com: Los Alamos to Kyoto's rescue | ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Journal News: Iraq Veterans discuss health problems By SUZAN CLARKE THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: June 30, 2005) Groans and gasps met the graphic images of deformed children in Iraq, and several people sighed again as they listened to veterans of the war there discuss the effects of depleted uranium. About 40 people gathered last night at the Martin Luther King Multi-Purpose Center to see the documentary "The Invisible War: Depleted Uranium and the Politics of Radiation." They listened to Army National Guard Spc. Gerard Matthew and Sgt. Herbert Reed. The two Bronx men were among those from the National Guard's Orangeburg-based 442nd Military Police Company who were tested for depleted uranium exposure. They spoke about numerous health problems that they said were caused by exposure to the metal while serving in the Middle East. The film profiled several military personnel who served during the Gulf War in 1991. Among the conditions they reported were loss of muscle function, headaches and impaired bowel and urinary function. The program also discussed birth defects in exposed Iraqi children and American children of exposed parents. Several times, when Pentagon and other military officials appeared and discounted claims linking depleted uranium with health problems, many in the audience audibly scoffed. All appeared horrified some moaned when they were confronted with the video images of Iraqi children and infants, their young faces wizened, some with severely bloated bellies and others plagued by grotesque protruding tumors, ulcerated faces and misshapen or missing limbs. Matthew said he did not expect that his own daughter, who had her first birthday Tuesday, would have a defect that so eerily mirrored what he had seen so many times in Iraq. "It just bugged me out. I lost it," he said, recalling the moment he realized that his daughter's being born with fingers missing from her right hand could directly be linked to his own health problems. Before Victoria's birth, Matthew, a 31-year-old occupational therapist, said he had suffered dermatitis, chronic migraine headaches, numbness in his limbs and other problems. He said he tested positive for depleted uranium exposure. The 12-year veteran of the armed forces is angry, particularly because of what he called the military's continued reluctance to acknowledge a problem and act decisively. The World Health Organization has linked exposure to depleted uranium, which is used in armor-piercing ammunition, to an increased incidence of kidney damage. Exposure also carries a higher risk of leukemia and lung cancer. The U.S. Department of State has said there is no link between exposure to depleted uranium and cancer. It has also cited a study that showed no birth defects in soldiers' children who were born after their parents were exposed to depleted uranium. Reed, who has had body aches as well as several surgeries to treat back and neck problems, talked about the reaction from some people in his unit when he began publicizing his situation. "They were mad at us. They pretty much said that we jumped the gun. We scared their families," Reed, 51, said. "We just want to make sure that we're not passing this on to our families," he said, adding that he was angry at being treated in a less than forthright manner by an organization he had served for 19 years. All he wants, he said, is periodic monitoring and, if necessary, treatment for his condition. Rounds made of depleted uranium are heavier than conventional bullets and can pierce a tank's armor. Once fired, they can release a radioactive dust and traces of uranium can remain after they hit their targets. Last night's event was sponsored by the Rockland Coalition for Peace and Justice, the Veterans for Peace and the Tappan Zee Brigade. www.thejournalnews.com Copyright 2005 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 2 Xinhua: Russia defends nuclear co-op with Iran www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-06-29 20:39:24 MOSCOW, June 29 (Xinhuanet) -- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov Wednesday lashed out against assertions that Russia is helping Iran acquire nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported. "All assertions that Russia is facilitating the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran are absolutely unfounded," Lavrov said in an interview with the Lebanon-based al-Watan al-Arabi magazine. "Russia and Iran so far have no other nuclear energy projects except the Bushehr nuclear power plant," Lavrov said, emphasizing that according to a fuel supply deal signed by Moscow and Tehran earlier this year, Iran must return the plant's spent nuclear fuelto Moscow. "Our cooperation with Iran, which is under the supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency, is absolutely transparent," Lavrov said. Asked whether Moscow agrees with allegations that Iran will acquire a nuclear bomb in the next few years, the top Russian diplomat answered: "The question is incorrect." "If we knew that Iran had such a plan, we would never cooperatewith them in the nuclear sector," he said. The United States has accused Iran of using a civilian atomic energy program as a cover to seek nuclear weapons and pushed for Tehran's nuclear case to be referred to the UN Security Council. Iran has categorically denied the charge, insisting that its nuclear research is only for peaceful purposes. Being built with Russian help in Iran's southern port city of Bushehr, Iran's first nuclear power plant is slated to begin operations in late 2006 and will generate 1,000 megawatts of electricity. Enditem Copyright 2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 3 AFP: N.Korea has one to two nukes but would still lose any war : US commander Thursday June 30, 01:25 AM SEOUL (AFP) - Communist North Korea has at least one to two nuclear weapons but the United States and South Korea could still defeat it in any war, the commander of US forces in the South said. "Whether North Korea has one or several nuclear weapons does not change the balance on the peninsula," General Leon LaPorte told a local radio. The United States and South Korea "retain our ability to deter North Korean aggression and if required, to decisively defeat the North Korean threat if they were to threaten South Korea," he said. "USFK (US Forces Korea) believes the North has one to two nuclear weapons at a minimum," said the commander of 32,500 US soldiers based in South Korea. "North Korea continues to develop its Taepodong-II intercontinental ballistic missiles. This missile could deliver a nuclear warhead to parts of the United States if a third stage was added," he said. Washington has denounced Pyongyang as a leading global proliferator of missiles and missile technology. The cash-strapped country has refused to stop missile exports, a major source of hard currency earnings. In 1998 Pyongyang test-launched a Taepodong-1 missile with a range of up to 2,000 kilometers that overflew Japan. LaPorte said the United States and its allies would continue to develop their capabilities against North Korean nuclear weapons and missiles. Asked whether Washington has any intention to bring nuclear weapons back to South Korea, LaPorte said the United States fully supports an inter-Korean accord signed in 1992 to make the peninsula nuclear-free. South Korean officials say the United States has removed its tactical nuclear weapons, but North Korea insists US nuclear weapons are still deployed in South Korea. North Korea said last week that it would scrap its nuclear weapons only if the United States removed its nuclear threat to the peninsula as a first step. Three months ago North Korea declared itself a "fully-fledged" nuclear state and said it would not return to nuclear disarmament talks. Washington has said it is keeping all options open in dealing with North Korea. But military action has apparently been ruled out as a serious option. "Any decision relative to the use of military force would come as the result of political interaction and decisions made by (South Korean) and US governments," LaPorte said. Pyongyang has boycotted six-party talks bringing together the United States, the two Koreas, Russia, Japan and China for more than a year, following three inconclusive rounds. South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon said Wednesday he has urged the United States to avoid provoking North Korea at a time when hopes are high for a new round of talks. He said he made the request to US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice in Brussels last week during a conference of donor countries for Iraq. "I explained to Secretary Rice that the United States and other dialogue partners need to be circumspect in behavior and she expressed understanding." Ban told YTN cable news television. He said Seoul was working hard to restart the talks next month after North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il hinted at a return to dialogue during a meeting on June 17 with South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-Young. On Wednesday Chung embarked on a five-day trip to the United States to brief US officials on his talks with Kim. Copyright 2005 AFP. All rights reserved. All information ***************************************************************** 4 Korea: Digital Chosunilbo: N.Korea Noisily Resumes Reactor Construction Home> National/Politics Updated Jun.30,2005 21:14 KST North Korea has restarted construction of reactors in Yongbyon and Taechon frozen under the 1994 Basic Agreement with the U.S., Japan's Nihon Keizai reported Thursday. Quoting sources including U.S. intelligence officials, it said the two facilities where North Korea has restarted construction would be graphite-moderated reactors capable of producing plutonium for nuclear warheads. The sources said above-ground work had begun on a 50,000 kw reactor in Yongbyon, while the ground is being leveled for a 200,000 kw reactor in Taechon. The sources said North Korea recently told the U.S. government indirectly it resumed construction of the reactors. Experts believe that with Yongbyon and Taechon under constant U.S. satellite surveillance, North Korea did so in the hope that they would discover it. The paper said the activities were on a scale easily detected by satellite. South Korea, the U.S. and Japan believe the renewed building activity is a ploy to shake the unity between them and are likely to avoid overreacting and continue to urge North Korea to return unconditionally to six-party talks on its nuclear program, the paper said. Washington believes the move does not immediately amplify the North Korean nuclear threat since it would take several years to finish the reactors. However, the U.S. will strengthen surveillance of the construction sites because it takes seriously the prospect that North Korea would be able to mass-produce nuclear weapons if they are completed, the Nihon Keizai said. North Korea operates a 5,000 kw experimental graphite-moderated reactor in Yongbyon. If it ever completes the two additional reactors, the three would be capable of producing enough plutonium to make an estimated 50-55 nuclear warheads a year. (englishnews@chosun.com ) ***************************************************************** 5 Korea Times: [Times Forum] Kim Jong-il's Tricky Dilemma Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion By Kim Hyong-eok Hanging over our heads like a sword of Damocles, North Koreas nuclear weapons program still refuses to cease threatening the moribund Korean peace process. Pyongyang-Washington relations veer wildly between the good and the bad. Yet nowadays, the relationship between Seoul and Pyongyang is gaining momentum. The breakthrough by Unification Minister Chung Dong-young signals a reduction in the tension on the Korean Peninsula. Everyday, South Korean workers go to an industrial complex just north of the Demilitarized Zone by bus. An observer went so far as to say that the two Koreas have plunged headlong into unknown territory, slow-motion reunification. The Bush administration is attempting to squeeze North Koreas already fragile economy by freezing the assets of companies doing business with North Korea. The U.S. intransigence is seriously sabotaging the favorable atmosphere for defusing the crisis on the Korean Peninsula. Seoul is offering carrots to Pyongyang while Washington wields the stick. Is it a good cop, bad cop routine? The Bush administration is trying to engineer a hard landing for the DPRK. Momentum is building in Washington behind plans to strangle North Korea into submission by clamping down on the states illicit exports of arms and narcotics. Washington is well-advised to abandon its fantasizing about an impending North Korean collapse. North Korea, this totally run-down country that cant feed its own people, has survived all hardships. Washingtons policy of isolating the DPRK economically will inadvertently motivate North Korea to sell ingredients for the development of nuclear weapons. Pyongyang would rather watch its own people starve to death than kowtow to the United States. Despite the murkiness of North Korean politics, there is a clear sign of the enmity between reformers and orthodox communists. Yet North Korea is as ideologically committed as ever to socialism and self-reliance. In fact, the North pursues its quest for nukes as a safeguard against being compelled to give up communism. Some observers say that conventional arms reduction is a recipe for revitalizing North Koreas sagging economy, but it is not a real possibility because the North sticks desperately to the military-first politics. China is likely to continue to aid North Korea in rejuvenating its economy, fearing a North Korean collapse, which would lead to an exodus of North Koreans to China. Yet we consider the possibility that events in China will precipitate the collapse of the DPRK. A new China would not be ruled by the Communist Party. Post-PRC Chinese leaders will be too focused on internal questions to pay attention to North Koreas economic difficulties. The time will come when Pyongyang will be forced to get used to the culture of competition, not crisis. The Pyongyang-Washington standoff is likely to remain a ticking time bomb until the DPRK is obliged to abandon communism. The writer lives in Namyang-ju, Kyonggi Province. globalleader@hanmail.net 06-30-2005 16:40 ***************************************************************** 6 US to Resume PU238 Manufacture Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 00:39:04 -0500 (CDT) U.S. plans radioactive project http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/06/26/news/nuke.php U.S. plans radioactive project The New York Times MONDAY, JUNE 27, 2005 The Bush administration is planning the government's first production of plutonium 238 - a highly radioactive substance valued as a power source - since the Cold War, stirring debate over the risks and benefits of the deadly material. It is hot enough to melt plastic and so dangerous that a speck can cause cancer. Federal officials say the program would produce a total of 330 pounds, or 150 kilograms, over 30 years at the Idaho National Laboratory, a sprawling site outside Idaho Falls some 100 miles, or 160 kilometers, to the west and upwind of Grand Teton National Park in Wyoming. The program could cost $1.5 billion and generate more than 50,000 drums of hazardous and radioactive waste. Project managers say that most if not all of the new plutonium is intended for secret missions and declined to divulge any details. "The real reason we're starting production is for national security," Timothy Frazier, head of radioisotope power systems at the Department of Energy, said at the end of a recent interview. He vigorously denied that any of the classified missions would involve nuclear arms, satellites or weapons in space. But the secrecy is adding to unease in Wyoming, where environmentalists are scrutinizing the production plan - made public late Friday - and considering whether to fight it. They say the production effort is a potential threat to nearby ecosystems, including Yellowstone National Park, Grand Teton National Park and the area around Jackson Hole, famous for its billionaires, celebrities and weekend cowboys, including Vice President Dick Cheney. "It's completely wrapped in the flag," said Mary Woollen-Mitchell, executive director of Keep Yellowstone Nuclear Free, a group based in Jackson Hole. "They absolutely won't let on" about the missions. Plutonium 238 has no central role in nuclear arms. Instead, it is valued for its steady heat, which can be turned into electricity. ***************************************************************** 7 [progchat_action] Fw: PLUTONIUM MAY POWER MILITARY SATELLITES Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:42:31 -0500 (CDT) ----- Original Message ----- From: Global Network To: Global Network Against Weapons Sent: Wednesday, June 29, 2005 3:03 PM Subject: PLUTONIUM MAY POWER MILITARY SATELLITES http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article295297.ece US resumes production of Cold War plutonium By Andrew Buncombe in Washington Published: 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 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." 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 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." Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space PO Box 652 Brunswick, ME 04011 (207) 729-0517 (207) 319-2017 (Cell phone) globalnet@mindspring.com http://www.space4peace.org http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Our blog) ***************************************************************** 8 AU ABC: Scientists back new US nuclear weapons. 29/06/2005. ABC News Online The current United States nuclear weapons stockpile should be transformed into new types of nuclear weapons, according to an internal report recently compiled by senior scientists at three main US nuclear laboratories. The overall nuclear weapons projects currently costs the US Energy Department more than $US6 billion a year and is likely to increase under future projections. The report concluded that the current approach to maintaining the US's nuclear arsenal "looks increasingly unsustainable" and "could lead to increased risk or increased uncertainty in warhead certification". The report called for "a new approach" to reduce the expanding SSP cost and enable further reduction in the number of nuclear weapons. The report also clarified the goal of this new approach as achieving "a more affordable, sustainable, and responsive (nuclear) enterprise" that could replace the current heavy-yield, Cold War-type stockpile with new types of nuclear weapons that are "more manufacturable, more certifiable, safe, secure, and reliable". The report, a copy of which was obtained by Kyodo News, is titled Sustaining the Nuclear Enterprise - A New Approach. It was compiled by the senior experts and endorsed last month by top nuclear scientists at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, which developed the first nuclear weapon 60 years ago, and two other key nuclear institutions - the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory and the Sandia National Laboratories. Since the US suspended nuclear testing in 1992, nuclear scientists and engineers of the nuclear superpower have sustained credibility and certification of more than 10,000 nuclear weapons through the program, dubbed Stockpile Stewardship Program (SSP). The SSP, which uses supercomputers and other innovated scientific technology for confirming the quality of nuclear weapons and refurbishing its stockpile if needed, "merely preserve(s) nuclear weapons with outdated technology and a ponderous and expensive enterprise required to support old technology," the report said. Most of the weapons were produced before the late 1980s and will be retired around 2040. The report echoes relatively nascent debates in Congress which is trying to pursue spending appropriations in future stockpiles for the next generation. The House of Representatives Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee, chaired by David Hobson, a Republican from Ohio, raised similar arguments last month, concluding that the nuclear weapons labs need to design a new reliable replacement warhead (RRW) which is easier to care for in the long run. Its fiscal 2006 budget report calls for the new warhead to be "designed for ease of manufacturing, maintenance, dismantlement and certification without nuclear testing". The RRW began in fiscal 2005 with $US9 million in spending and the House approved $US25 million for fiscal 2006 starting October 1 this year. The budget has been sent to the Senate. "Although it has been over 10 years since the end of the Cold War, the Department of Energy's weapons complex decision-making progress is still being driven by nuclear weapons structure put in place over the past 50 years," Mr Hobson said in a speech early this year at a seminar sponsored by the Arms Control Association, a Washington-based disarmament think tank. For a few years, Nr Hobson has advocated pursuing new paradigm of nuclear stockpiles beyond "the Cold War legacy". Some critics expressed their deep scepticism and strong concern to the internal report. "Nuclear scientists are complaining of 'baby-sitting' old weapons," said David Culp, a nuclear disarmament specialist and legislative representative of the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a lobby group in Washington. "This argument is definitely parallel with Hobson's debate. But Hobson has no interest in a new military mission for nuclear weapons. He thinks the role of nuclear weapons can and should be diminished. On the other hand, nuclear scientists in labs want big budget and new missions," Dr Culp said. Mr Hobson's budgetary report put a strong statement to preclude this criticism by writing that the committee "does not view these (RRW efforts) as new weapons, but rather re-engineered versions of existing weapons, using modern materials and manufacturing methods, to serve the same military function as existing warhead". -Kyodo ***************************************************************** 9 Guardian Unlimited: White House to Endorse WMD Panel's Changes From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday June 29, 2005 8:16 AM By KATHERINE SHRADER Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - The White House wants dozens of changes to the embattled U.S. spy agencies and will direct the Justice Department to consolidate its intelligence efforts, heeding almost all of the 74 recommendations of a blue-ribbon intelligence commission. The broad acceptance of the panel's suggestions comes after a 90-day review led by the National Security Council's homeland security adviser, Frances Fragos Townsend. Individuals offered some details, but they spoke only on condition of anonymity because the review won't be made public until Wednesday. In March, a nine-member commission led by Republican Judge Laurence Silberman and former Democratic Sen. Charles Robb put forward a scathing 600-page report on the intelligence community and its ability to understand and protect against the threat from weapons of mass destruction. The commission proposed forming a new National Counter Proliferation Center - with a staff of less than 100 - to coordinate the U.S. government's collection and analysis of intelligence on nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. The task now performed by many national security agencies. The individuals familiar with the review said the White House plans to adopt changes large and small proposed by the commission, but they did not say which were not being accepted Wednesday. They said those recommendations should not be considered rejected yet, but rather issues that require further action. Among the 70 changes the White House will embrace: - Altering the structure at the FBI to consolidate its intelligence-gathering and analysis operations. - At the Justice Department, creating a national security division and consolidating its counterterrorism, espionage and intelligence units. - Giving the intelligence director a staff of ``mission managers'' who will develop strategies for specific intelligence areas. As an example, the commission said the director could have a mission manager focused on a specific country, such as China. President Bush asked for the Robb-Silberman review in early 2004 after it became clear that prewar intelligence on Iraq was flawed. After a 13-month investigation, the commission concluded the intelligence community was ``dead wrong'' in almost all of its prewar findings on Iraq's arsenal. Bush also asked the commission to study the sweeping intelligence reform law that Congress passed in December, which created a new national intelligence director to oversee the 15 agencies that make up the U.S. intelligence community. The commission's findings - and the White House's acceptance of them - follow numerous reforms already ordered by Congress, the White House and within government agencies themselves since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the botched Iraq intelligence estimates. They also follow a number of bruising critiques of the CIA, FBI, Defense Department and other elements of the intelligence community. The Robb-Silberman commission's March report was the most recent from an independent panel. The panel put forward numerous organizational changes, but it said Bush could implement many without action by Congress. For instance, the commissioners asked Bush to free National Intelligence Director John Negroponte from handling the president's morning intelligence briefing, giving the director more time to focus on the intelligence community's long-term priorities. It also emphasized that the White House needed to put its full support behind Negroponte as he takes on the intelligence agencies' ``almost perfect record of resisting external recommendations.'' -- Associated Press writers Mark Sherman and Lara Jakes Jordan contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 10 Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Energy Policy: It's bound to get worse [seattlepi.com] [OPINION] Thursday, June 30, 2005 SEATTLE POST-INTELLIGENCER EDITORIAL BOARD When the public is upset, Congress feels the need to look engaged. So, the Senate passed an energy bill on Tuesday that will allow its members to say they are reacting to high gasoline prices. That may be good for the senators. But it will be a big surprise if the end result is beneficial for the American public, the economy or the environment. The Senate's legislation still faces a House-Senate conference committee, where the prospects for sensible outcomes will be slim. The House bill is so bad that if the Senate were to get half of what it wants, the outcome would likely be awful. The Senate bill has come some lengths from the drafts of Vice President Dick Cheney's energy industry friends. Thanks in large part to Sen. Peter Domenici, R-N.M., the Senate measure is genuinely bipartisan. It contains some decent provisions. Senators for the first time acknowledged the need to address global warming, although one procedural vote on the issue suggests that many may also harbor doubts about where to look for tonight's sunset. Washington's Democratic senators, Maria Cantwell and Patty Murray, voted for the bill. Cantwell has a right to be pleased with winning provisions to block Enron from collecting on dubious contracts with Western utilities and stopping federal efforts to change the Northwest's electricity transmission system. More positively, the bill could set the stage for a series of advances in clean energy use and technology, particularly in the Northwest. The bill's incentives for developing more U.S. refinery capacity are also promising. There are also plenty of objectionable provisions in the Senate measure, however. They include weakening of consumer protections for electricity ratepayers and subsidies for highly polluting energy producers. And the Senate's chances of reasonable compromises with the House are low. House Republicans loaded their bill with taxpayer gifts to oil, coal and nuclear industries, rollbacks of environmental protections and a lobbyists' wish list of ways to overcharge electrical utility consumers. In the context of the rest of the package, the abominable plan to drill the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is merely bad. With Congress eager to do something, citizens should be worried. [SEATTLEPI.COM POLL] How likely is it that Congress will pass an energy bill that improves U.S. policy? Very likely. President Bush and congressional Republicans have good ideas on increasing energy production Likely. Compromise will lead to a balanced package Unlikely. Despite the Senate's efforts, any final bill could tilt in favor of the energy industry rather than the public Highly unlikely. House Republicans and Bush are looking backward, not forward Not sure or don't care [Seattle Post-Intelligencer] 101 Elliott Ave. W. Seattle, WA 98119 (206) 448-8000 Send comments to newmedia@seattlepi.com 1996-2005 Seattle Post-Intelligencer ***************************************************************** 11 BBC: US lifts South Asia trade curbs Last Updated: Thursday, 30 June, 2005 [President Bush] President Bush says both the countries have made progress on intellectual property rights US President George W Bush has restored duty-free access of some goods from India and Pakistan to US markets. Mr Bush said he restored the trade benefit because the two countries had made progress on intellectual property and worker rights. The list of goods was not made available by the White House. The US has been strengthening trade and defence ties with India, while Pakistan is a key ally in its war against terrorism. Mr Bush said that he had made the decision after reviewing the steps taken by Delhi and Islamabad. Progress "I have determined that India has made progress in providing adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights," he said. "Accordingly, I have determined to terminate the suspension of India's duty-free treatment for certain articles," he said. Mr Bush said that Pakistan was taking steps to improve its workers rights. "I have determined that Pakistan has taken or is taking steps to afford workers in that country internationally recognised worker rights," he said. "Accordingly, I have determined to restore Pakistan's eligibility for certain articles for preferential treatment." In 2001 the United States lifted sanctions imposed on India after its 1998 nuclear tests. The US also lifted all the sanctions it had imposed against Pakistan since 1990 for its testing of nuclear weapons. ***************************************************************** 12 Upper Cape Codder: Kleekamp: No nuclear, no coal ... wind yes! TownOnline.com The Upper Cape Codder - Opinion &Letters By Charles Kleekamp Thursday, June 30, 2005 It was as if we were in a mythical land. A place where every village is like a picture postcard. Red tile or thatched roofs ... a countryside lush with prosperous family farms. Windmills (wind turbines that is) alone or in small groups dot the farms with cattle and sheep grazing contentedly below. A land where all the local power lines are buried, electric trains run frequently and precisely on time. And one other comment ... and perhaps most impressive, this nation is not only self-sufficient in energy, but exports oil, natural gas, and electricity to other countries. Not a fairy-tale land ... we were in modern Denmark! Our Clean Power Now tour of Denmark in May was especially revealing of progress in this island nation's wind industry. A country of five million people, about half the size of Maine, is producing 19 percent of its electrical energy from wind with a goal of 50 percent by 2030. In the depth of this last long winter, the high wind power production was a record 32 percent of the total domestic electric supply. Nysted offshore wind farm Denmark now has about 4,700 land-based turbines and six operating offshore wind farms, including the world's two largest at Nysted and at Horns Rev. The bucolic south coast town of Nysted is the home of Denmark's newest offshore wind farm, located just 6 miles from its harbor. Consisting of 72 turbines, it began operation in December 2003. Mayor Damsbo-Andersen told us that "Denmark made a decision long ago not to go nuclear and started making wind turbines." He stated that there seemed only one concern now in his town - the flashing lights at night, a concern that is being addressed. "This is a technical problem and can be solved or at least minimized," referring to dimming the lights in clear weather. "There are no other problems," he said of the wind farm. In particular, "no environmental problems, no bird kill." And the mayor claims it has certainly not reduced tourism, "in fact it has increased!" Of course, centered at the harbor is a new information center and exhibition called "The World of Wind," built in partnership with the project developers with detailed interactive displays of their project. [continue] The wind policy It is a government policy in Denmark to specify the location of offshore wind farms with little public input, sometimes to the consternation of local residents. "We believe in wind power, but please put it somewhere else," was an oft-spoken refrain. With performance as a driver, the sites are chosen in shallow water with outstanding wind criteria to assure financial viability. For example, the Nysted site with an average wind velocity of 20 mph resulted in a capacity factor (actual power produced divided by maximum capability) of 47 percent. This can be compared to proposed sites closer to home. For example, wind data collected on Nantucket Sound's Horseshoe Shoal indicates a capacity factor of 42 percent. At Hull, a just-on-shore site exhibits 27 percent over three years, and the Orleans land-based site will yield an expected capacity factor of 24 percent. The capacity factor of a wind installation is perhaps the best single measure of the return on investment. After they are built, resident fears are largely overcome and melt away. A sense of pride develops for clean, sustainable power with the wistful comment: "they're just there ..." Accepted as a part of nature, they peacefully coexist and fade into the horizon as ghostly figures in the usual ocean haze and mist. Around 80 percent of the Danish population supports wind power. The two large offshore wind farms at Horns Rev and Nysted have been so successful that the Danish Energy Authority has offered tenders that will more than double their size. Each of these large wind farms will soon be expanded from 160 megawatts (MW) to 360 MW, or about 140 turbines. That's more than proposed in wind farm on Nantucket Sound. It is important to note that the Danish government does not subsidize the cost of these offshore projects. Consortiums of Danish power companies design, build, own and operate these profitable facilities. It must be recognized however, that the government does guarantee a 10 year fixed price to the owners for the electricity produced. Currently this is 7.2 cents per kilowatt hour. As a comparison, that's virtually identical to the current one year guaranteed price of the generation charge (7.1 cents per kWh) for our residential electricity here from the Cape Light Compact or from NStar. Not only has Denmark rejected the nuclear option, but their Ministry of the Environment has banned the construction of new coal plants. Remaining coal plants will be converted to other fuels or decommissioned by 2030. New renewable fuel power plants are being built that use sustainable fuels. Denmark has progressed from the situation where imported cheap oil was fuelling 90 percent of the electricity production in the years before the oil crisis of 1974. The Vestas story Vestas is the world's largest manufacturer of wind turbines with 32 percent of the market. During our visit to their plant our host escorted us into the nacelle production plant and the highly proprietary blade (or sail) manufacturing area. The huge factory reminded me of an assembly area in a Boeing aircraft plant. The nacelles start with a sturdy aluminum frame. As they progress down the line the huge transmission is installed, then the generator, transformers and other auxiliary components and finally the outer skin. Vestas employs about 10,000 highly skilled workers. The turbines we viewed on the production floor are the latest 3 MW units, 60 of which are going to two offshore wind farms under construction in Great Britain; Barrow and Kentish Flats. The turbines on Horns Rev had to be brought back to the factory on a rotating basis for refit, and all returned to service as of December. Sustainability Denmark is a national model of efficiency and sustainability. They became self-sufficient in energy in 1997, for the first time in recent history. In fact they now export 50 percent of their oil, 30 percent natural gas and 19 percent of their electricity with a positive balance of payments of some $2.3 billion a year. With domestic energy consumption decreasing and more reliance on wind power their CO2 emissions have fallen by 15 percent since 1990. Of course, Denmark and most European countries have a different culture imbued with a sense of responsibility for a sustainable future. Gasoline costs $6 a gallon and electricity is about double our price, which in itself encourages efficiency. Their policy of high consumer energy prices certainly curtails squandering their oil and gas reserves from the North Sea, which are estimated to run out in less than 20 years. To the contrary, our government refuses to recognize the impact of man-induced carbon emissions and retrogressively fosters more growth from ever-dwindling reserves of oil and natural gas. Here on Cape Cod, some quibble about the sight of half-inch high toothpicks on the horizon harvesting wind that is free and forever. We should learn from the Danes. Charles Kleekamp is the information director for Clean Power Now, a non-profit, volunteer organization. ***************************************************************** 13 Interfax: Ukraine vows not to host NATO nuclear arms Interfax.com Text version Site map Jun 30 2005 3:38PM ZAPORIZHZHYA. June 30 (Interfax) - No NATO nuclear weapons will be deployed on Ukrainian territory after the country joins the alliance, Defense Minister Anatoliy Hrytsenko said in a Thursday visit to the Zaporizhzhya region. "I want to calm those who fear that NATO may deploy nuclear armaments in Ukraine after its accession to the alliance: There will be no nuclear arms on our territory," he said. There is no need to deploy such weapons, as nuclear arms have almost unlimited range, he said. Ukraine had the world's third largest nuclear arsenal, but disposed of it, Hrytsenko said. Ukraine would not agree to have "anybody's nuclear weapons" on its territory, he said. 1991-2005 Interfax All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 14 Bellona: Russia, Denmark strike first Russian Kyoto Deal On June 28th, Russia marked the first commercial transaction under the Kyoto protocol. 2005-06-30 12:54 Orenburgenergo and Khabarovskenergo, subsidiaries of the national electricity giant Unified Energy Systems (UES), sold some of their greenhouse emission quotas to the Danish Environment Protection Agency for more than EUR 20 million, RIA Novosti reported. The electricity companies are going to invest the money into converting two coal-fuelled power plants to natural gas, which is expected to dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions. Analysts say Russia has managed to negotiate a good deal: The 5.5 to 6 euros per metric ton of greenhouse gas is an average European price. Critics warned, however, that Russia might soon wish it had not sold its quotas because an anticipated rise in industrial activity would raise emissions accordingly, narrowing the safety gap between Russia's Soviet-time high quotas and real emissions. Academician Yury Izrael, head of the Institute for Global Climate and Ecology, had said previously: "We might get $5 per metric ton of carbon dioxide now but later we will have to invest $150 to $160 per ton in new [emission-saving] technologies." Other experts, however, welcome the current price as a great success for the first deal. Negotiations had started at a mere 3 to 4 euros per metric ton, they said because Russia had failed to adopt laws regulating the quota trade. "UES, nonetheless, managed to sell the quotas at a market price," said Andrei Kokorin, head of the World Wildlife Fund's Climate and Energy Program. "The government did not give any state guarantees on the deal, which means that the Danes will assume all the related risks." Publisher: , President: Information: , Technical contact: Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 15 Bellona: US files formal extradition request for custody of former Russian atomic energy minister The United States has filed a formal extradition request to the Swiss government to try former Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov and his business partner for allegedly defrauding the US government for more than $9m in US Department of Energy nuclear aid funding to Russia in a US court. Former Russian Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov. AP Charles Digges, 2005-06-30 14:13 Adamov, who served as Russian Minster of Atomic Energy from 1998 until 2001, was arrested in Bern on a US warrant issued by the Pennsylvania Western Federal District Court on May 2nd. He was in Bern at the time to help his daughter, whose several bank accounts had been frozen. The US had until June 30th to file formal extradition requests following its extradition request, and had sent a 20-count US federal indictment of Adamov to Swiss authorities two weeks earlier. Swiss officials received the US extradition papers on June 25th, a spokesman for the Swiss Justice Ministry told Bellona Web Wednesday. Moscow will fight former nuclear chiefs extradition to the United States The Russian Foreign ministry requested this week that Switzerland send the detained former Russian atomic energy minister Yevgeny Adamov back to Moscow for prosecution and to reject demands to extradite him to the United States, where he is facing charges of diverting $9m in US nuclear aid money to personal businesses, among other accusations.  Read on » Russia, however, filed an extradition request on May 17th, in a possible effort to countermand Adamovwho is privy to man Russias nuclear secretsfrom falling into US hands. Some Russian parliamentarians, or Duma members, have even gone so far as to suggest Adamov be assassinated lest he fall into US hands. Russia has also filed an arrest warrant for Adamov with the Swiss courts, giving the case a distinctly political charge. What officials in Switzerland must weigh are the merits of the US and Russian extradition requests and whether they are based on criminal rather than political motivations, said the Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman.. As Russia filed its extradition request earlier, that could lend some weight to the Russian case, said the Swiss Justice Ministry spokesman. But the spokesman, who has read the indictment, said that the US case appears to be criminal rather than political in nature, which would possibly sway the Swiss Supreme Court, who will decide Adamovs final destination. Swiss court rules Adamov should be released from detention A Swiss court ruled that former Russian atomic energy minister, Yevgeny Adamov, should be released from detention in Bern, Switzerland, where he was picked up on a US warrant for allegedly laundering $9m in US nuclear aid money through a number of businesses he owns in the United State, news agencies reported. Political or criminal motives? In mid June, a Swiss court ruled that Adamov should be released from detention because of his immunity as a former governmental minister. That decision was overturned within hours when the Swiss Justice Ministry was granted an appeal. Adamov is therefor still behind bars. A spokesman for the US Department of Justice said Wednesday that the US has no interest in whatsoever secrets Adamov may have in his headUS and Russian efforts in nuclear aid have revealed to Cooperative Threat Reduction officials most of what they need to know, so the Russian charge [that Washington would extort information from Adamov] is absurd. He added that this is purely related to what we believe are illegal activities Adamov was financing with US cooperative threat reduction funding geared toward Russia that he used for his own personal financial gain. Partners in crime? Adamov and his business partner, Russian born US national Mark Kaushansky, stand charged in the extradition request of conspiring to transfer stolen money and converting government funds into personal assets in the 20-count indictment that was returned last month by a Pittsburg Federal Grand Jury. Kaushansky also faces tax evasion charges. Adamov meanwhile sits in a Swiss prison as officials there sort through the indictment that alleges he and a partner diverted the US aid cashincluding initial funding from the Argonne National Laboratory in the US state of Illinoisinto personal bank accounts in the United States, Monaco, and France. The alleged cash diversions, which included payments to Adamov by Argonne, made in March 2002, were one of the first sparks igniting the current investigation. The US Department of Energy launched an investigation into the accounts and businesses established by Adamov and Kaushansky in the United States. Adamov's US attorney Lanny Breuer, here photographed in 1997. CNN Adamov's American attorney, Lanny Breuer, said from Washington in a telephone interview that his client would like to come to the USbut not in custodyto face the charges. "We admit monies went into his account," Breuer said. "However, at the same time he was expending monies so that all the scientists were getting paid and all the projects were completed." Breuer said the Russian banking system was riddled with abuses, and that Adamov and Kaushansky, a Soviet-trained nuclear engineer who now lives outside Pittsburgh, sought to actually prevent the theft of US funds. Kaushansky, who appeared in federal court in Pittsburgh on May 17 and was released on a $100,000 bond, told US news outlets in 2002 that the accounts in question were created to help Russian scientists avoid facing steep taxes by paying them directly. His attorney did not return several phone calls Wednesday. The meat of the US Federal indictment Adamov and Kaushansky are accused in the indictment of using "multiple bank accounts and companies to conceal the nature of their activities." If convicted, Adamov faces a maximum total sentence of 60 years in prison, a $1.75 million fine or both. Kaushansky faces 180 years in prison, a $5 million fine or both. During the 1990s in the post-Soviet era, Adamov was one of Russia's most powerful scientists, commanding a crumbling civilian nuclear enterprise but also the Western aid that was intended to fix it. Adamov also presided over a legislative package that eventually allowed the import of radioactive waste for storage and reprocessing to Russia for profit put before the Russian Parliament in 2001a dubious concept for a country that can barely handle its own nuclear waste. Despite opposition by some 90 percent of the Russian population to the scheme, it sailed through the State Duma with little opposition. Several Duma members later interviewed by Bellona and The Moscow Times admitted to receiving bribes and other favours for their positive votes. Adamov was at the same time under Russian federal investigation for corruption History of a nuclear scientist During most of the 90s, Adamov was head of NIKIET, a Russian nuclear research institute. In 1990 Adamov also was named general director of Energopool, a forum for Soviet and Western scientists to discuss energy strategies, the US Federal indictment said. NIKIET named Energopool as the recipient agency for US nuclear safety financial assistance, read the indictment. In 1993, the indictment alleges, Adamov and Kaushansky formed a private Pennsylvania company with a similar name, Energo pool Inc., and opened a Pittsburgh bank account for their new firm. The company and bank account later were moved to Delaware. They were among the companies and accounts that Adamov and Kaushansky created to receive US aid payments, the US indictment alleged. The two also established a company in the Bahamas, Aglosky International Ltd., and bank accounts in Monaco and France to receive US funds, according to the indictment. Aid payment receipts obtained by the Chicago Tribune in 2002 showed the transfer of government funds to the private bank accounts. About $4.6 million was moved from Energo pool into the personal accounts of Adamov and his wife, the indictment said. A second company, Omeka Ltd., also was formed in Pennsylvania. In 2002, after his ouster by President Vladimir Putin, Adamov told The Moscow Times that he had "no relationship" to the U.S. companies and, "as far as I know, the [Russian nuclear] ministry never received any means from these firms or through them from nuclear laboratories." 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 ***************************************************************** 16 Guardian Unlimited: Micro-power hailed as cheap, safe energy of future Thinktank sees nuclear subsidy as bar to full use of renewables Paul Brown, environment correspondent Wednesday June 29, 2005 The Guardian Renewable power, particularly schemes where thousands of homes have their own microgenerators for heat and electricity, are a far cheaper way of meeting the UK's energy needs and combating climate change than nuclear stations, says a report out today. The New Economics Foundation, a radical thinktank, compares the costs of nuclear energy and renewables, their contribution to the economy, and security of electricity supply for Britain. It says renewable energy is quick to build and is abundant and cheap to harvest. It is also flexible, safe, secure and climate friendly. "The opposite conclusion is only possible if renewable energy technologies are negatively misrepresented and if the numerous weaknesses, high costs and unsolved problems of nuclear power are glossed over." The report is published in a week that the government has decided to encourage microgeneration in homes, offices and for whole streets of houses. The foundation report says such a new industry would create more jobs, with cheaper and faster results than nuclear energy. "Renewables also do not leave a legacy of radioactive waste that endures in the environment for tens of thousands of years," the report adds. One great plus of micro-power is that it produces electricity at the point of use so there is no need for large-scale grid connections and the 10% losses in transmission associated with big power plants. The report says 1m new gas-fired boilers are installed every year in the UK. If half these boilers micro-combined heat and power they would produce the equivalent electricity of a new power station each year, removing the need for new large-scale power plants. The other advantage of micro-power, which uses solar, wind, hydropower and tides, depending on location, is that it provides security of supply, since it uses such a variety of sources, the report says. Surplus electricity generated can be put into the local grid. The report estimates that the probable net benefit to the UK of micro-generation would be 35m a year, mainly because the generators use little or no fuel. The report calls on the government to withdraw the subsidies to nuclear power which "feather-bed" its prospects. So that renewables can reach their full potential, public support for renewables should rise to match the levels historically enjoyed by nuclear power. The government should have supported a recent private member's bill which would have set targets for renewables by area and removed planning restraints for rooftop wind turbines and other household micro-power. The report says an unacknowledged benefit of microgeneration is that it puts people back in touch with where energy comes from, and the need to live in balance with the ecosystems on which we all depend. "It is possible that nuclear power has only survived for as long as it has because its true costs have been hidden from us, and because its radioactive emissions are invisible," the report says. The costs of renewable energy vary enormously, with onshore wind and landfill gas being the cheapest, though many still in the earlier stages of development are far more expensive than fossil fuels. The nuclear industry's estimates of the cost of building new reactors, at 3p a kilowatt hour, are wild underestimates, according to the report. It calculates the price, based on past performance, delays and cost overruns, as up to 8p/kw hour, excluding insurance, pollution and the risk of terrorism. The issue explained 14.12.2001: Renewable energy Interactive guide Offshore wind farms Useful links Friends of the Earth Greenpeace British Wind Energy Association [UP] Guardian Unlimited Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 17 ThisisLondon: Nuclear power 'too slow' - report thisislondon.co.uk 29 June 2005 The cost of new nuclear power has been underestimated and the potential of small scale renewable power sources overlooked, according to a report by an independent think-tank. The New Economics Foundation says in its document "Mirage and Oasis" that nuclear power has been promoted in the UK and globally as the answer to climate change and energy insecurity. But as a response to global warming, nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too limited, it says. In an age of terrorist threats, it is also more of a security risk than a solution, warns the Foundation, which says its mission is to improve quality of life by promoting innovations that challenge mainstream economic thinking. Instead, says its report, renewable energy offers a safe, secure and climate friendly energy supply system. It leaves no toxic legacy and is abundant and cheap to harvest both in the UK and globally. Yet, early drafts of the G8 communique suggest a new international push to expand nuclear power, the report says. And next week, the United States is expected to use the G8 summit in Gleneagles to push its plans to "broaden the opportunities for the use of nuclear energy". The report claims that renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal could, in theory, each individually meet all of the world's energy needs. Practically, however, it would require a broader combination of renewable energy sources than is currently used, linked to a range of micro, small, medium and large scale technologies and applied flexibly. ©2005 Associated New Media| Terms | Privacy policy ***************************************************************** 18 TorontoSun.com: Nuke safety ignored? Thu, June 30, 2005 Nuke safety ignored? By ALAN FINDLAY, QUEEN'S PARK BUREAU THE PROVINCIAL government is overlooking public safety in favour of more nuclear power, Greenpeace charged yesterday. In a new report, entitled Pickering Nuclear Station: Shutdown or Meltdown, the environmental group warns that the province's oldest nuclear plant contains significant safety flaws that compromise public welfare. The report includes dozens of incidents it calls safety problems that the plant has reported to the federal watchdog, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. "The Pickering Nuclear Station has the oldest, most dangerous and most expensive reactors in the country -- they should be phased out for safety, environmental and economic reasons," the report states. Greenpeace energy co-ordinator Dave Martin said the province should abandon plans to start up two additional mothballed plants in Pickering and scrap a tentative agreement with Bruce Power to start up two more units there. "They're opting to save money ... we're arguing public safety should be paramount," Martin said. A spokesman for Energy Minister Dwight Duncan said the province's nuclear plants are constantly under the scrutiny of the watchdog. "If those plants aren't safe, they don't run," Duncan's press secretary Angie Robson said. "It's very tightly regulated." Ontario Power Generation, the provincially owned company that owns Pickering, announced yesterday that it had received a new, five-year operating licence from the commission. The company cited the licence as a reflection of its safety record. [Toronto Sun] CANOE home | We welcome your feedback. Copyright 2005, Canoe Inc.All rights reserved. Test--> ***************************************************************** 19 Times of India: Nuclear is not so clear - thinktank [ THURSDAY, JUNE 30, 2005 07:49:53 AM ] The cost of new nuclear power has been underestimated and the potential of small scale renewable power sources overlooked, according to a report released by an independent thinktank. The New Economics Foundation says in its document "Mirage and Oasis" that nuclear power has been promoted in the UK and globally as the answer to climate change and energy insecurity. But as a response to global warming, nuclear power is too slow, too expensive and too limited, it says. In an age of terrorist threats, it is also more of a security risk than a solution, warns the Foundation, which says its mission is to improve quality of life by promoting innovations that challenge mainstream economic thinking. Instead, says its report, renewable energy offers a safe, secure and climate friendly energy supply system. It leaves no toxic legacy and is abundant and cheap to harvest both in the UK and globally. Yet, early drafts of the G8 communique suggest a new international push to expand nuclear power, the report says. And next week, the United States is expected to use the G8 summit in Gleneagles to push its plans to "broaden the opportunities for the use of nuclear energy". The report claims that renewable energy sources such as wind, solar and geothermal could, in theory, each individually meet all of the world's energy needs. Practically, it would require a broader combination of renewable energy sources than is currently used, linked to a range of micro, small, medium and large scale technologies and applied flexibly. Daily Mail, London Copyright 2005 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 20 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: 2 nuclear power plants approved July 1, 2005 KST 14:29 (GMT+9) July 01, 2005 The Ministry of Science and Technology announced yesterday that it has given permission for two new nuclear power plants to be built in the town of Gijang, near Busan. Science Minister Oh Myung presided over a meeting to finalize the authorization based on the safety and overall viability of the new plants, which will be built by the state-run Korea Hydro &Nuclear Power Co. A ministry official said the plants should be reliable because the company has experience in building and managing nuclear power plants in other parts of the nation. The government did not say how much these projects would cost. The new plants, the 21st and 22nd such facilities in Korea, are expected to be completed by 2010 and 2011, respectively. In accordance with the nation's nuclear power laws, a review by the Korea Institute of Nuclear Safety found the safety, location, structure and equipment of the new plants acceptable. Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | ***************************************************************** 21 RIA Novosti: Science &Technologies - Floating nuclear power plants to resolve regional energy problems 1/07/2005 MOSCOW, June 30 (RIA Novosti) - Floating nuclear power plants could resolve some regions' energy problems, academician Yevgeny Velikhov said. "Installing a floating nuclear power plant may resolve regional energy problems," the head of the Kurchatov Institute, formerly the Nuclear Energy Institute, said at a round table in the State Duma, parliament's lower house. Velikhov said regions were supplied with energy differently. "The European North, Eastern Siberia, and the Far East demand special attention," he said. Russia has opportunities to start building floating nuclear power stations, Velikhov said. He said the first such facility could be constructed with a 70-megawatt capacity on the basis of icebreaker reactors. The development of the nuclear power industry is important for replacement of organic fuel, especially natural gas, he said. Oleg Samoilov, chief designer at the Afrikantov R machine-building bureau, said a draft of a station with a 600-megawatt capacity had already been developed in Russia. Samoilov said the floating station would be built at a shipyard and then transported to a fixed site. Floating nuclear power plants can be used to produce electricity and heat and to desalinate seawater. Such power stations can be installed in any littoral region. A floating nuclear power plant can be utilized for 12-15 years without refueling, the designer said. Samoilov said such a station had an increased level of radiation safety. The environment is not affected when the station is in normal mode. The worst disaster would not affect those beyond a 1-kilometer radius, he said. 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 22 Entergy to work with county on Indian Point sirens By MICHAEL RISINIT mrisinit@thejournalnews.com THE JOURNAL NEWS (Original publication: June 30, 2005) The company that operates the Indian Point nuclear power plants would be willing to work with Westchester County on determining how well its emergency-notification sirens are working, a spokesman said yesterday. Entergy Nuclear Northeast yesterday tested the 156 sirens in the four counties surrounding the nuclear plants in Buchanan. The sirens are meant to rotate several times, alerting residents in all directions to turn on radios and televisions for more information in the event of an emergency at the plant. All except one worked, Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said. Westchester County officials, however, said six of the 79 sirens in the county failed to rotate. Steets said the sirens did rotate. He said software used to monitor the siren tests allows technicians to determine if a reported failure is an actual breakdown or a "false negative." It's a capability of Entergy, he said, but one of which the county may not be aware. In an actual emergency, police would be sent to notify residents in an area with failing sirens. "We are looking forward to meeting with the county to modify the software, improving their ability to determine the functioning of the sirens and eliminating the need for route alerting," Steets said. Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano has long criticized the siren system and unsuccessfully advocated for backup generators for the sirens. Sending police officers out because of failing sirens would take them away from other duties during an emergency, said his chief adviser, Susan Tolchin. "We've had this issue for a while," Tolchin said. "The bottom line is, if we get a report that says they didn't rotate, we have to do route alerting." Copyright 2005 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 23 TheStar.com: Nuclear watchdog poised to intervene June 30, 2005Updated at PETER CALAMAI TORONTO STAR OTTAWAThe federal nuclear watchdog is weighing extraordinary legal action to ensure health and safety if more Ontario nuclear power plants are picketed by striking Hydro One workers. Officials of the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission told a regular public meeting here yesterday that contingency plans are being drawn up based on emergency provisions in the federal nuclear control law. An emergency provision of the Nuclear Safety and Control Act says the regulator may "make any order that it considers necessary to protect the environment or the health and safety of persons or to maintain national security." "We're looking at measures that are available to us for continued safe operations and to deal with emergencies," said Paul Webster, acting chief of power reaction regulation. Asked for details, he gave none. Commission staff cited picketing last week during a Darlington nuclear plant shift change that backed up traffic at its gate for several kilometres. Emergency vehicles would have had "considerable difficulty" reaching the station's four Candu reactors if something had gone wrong, said Garry Schwarz, the commission official who oversees Darlington. The pickets belong to the Society of Energy Professionals at Hydro One, Ontario's energy distributor. Unionized nuclear plant staff are not on strike. Legal Notice: Copyright Toronto Star Newspapers Limited. All ***************************************************************** 24 MercoPress: Chile considering an atomic energy plant Falklands-Malvinas & South Atlantic News [MercoPress - www.mercopress.com] - Thursday, 30 June The document was signed in Moscow by Russias Atomic Energy Federal Agency Director Alexander Rumiantsev and Chilean Mining Minister Alfonso Dulanto, during the first round of bilateral economic and commercial cooperation talks. Chile has few energy resources and is considering the possibility of building a nuclear plant, revealed Mr. Rumiantsev adding that Chile had invited Russia to participate in the project. Other fields of cooperation include a route map for closer action in bilateral development and infrastructure programs such as Chilean companies investing in Russias food industry and helping develop the copper deposits in Eastern Siberia. The Russian are interested in associating with fishing companies and building the necessary infrastructure for the import by Chile of liquid gas. Fin del Texto - Mercosur - Thursday, 30 June Volver a la pgina principal... MERCOPRESS is a news agency concentrating in Mercosur countries which operates from Montevideo, Uruguay, and includes in its area of influence the South Atlantic and insular territories. 1997-2001 Mercopress - E-mail: - Web technical ***************************************************************** 25 Economist.com: Nuclear power Jun 30th 2005 From Economist.com Nuclear power is a growing source of energy, but a highly controversial one. Brazil, which fears electricity shortages, wants a large nuclear-power industry. Sweden is divided, and Asia's enthusiasm for nuclear power flagged after the financial crisis of 1997-8. Britain, home to both a pro- and an anti-nuclear lobby, is struggling with the botched privatisation of its nuclear-power generator, British Energy. Much effort and cash that could have been spent on other forms of clean energy research has been poured into a joint fusion-reactor project involving America, most of the European Union, Japan, China, Russia and South Korea. The safety of the plants is one main concern. Russias decrepit nuclear industry threatens the whole world. EU candidate countries will be forced to close their most rickety reactors. Earthquake-prone Taiwan has its own worries, as does accident-prone Japan. Another difficulty is the disposal of nuclear waste. No country yet has a permanent waste-disposal facility, though Americawhere rising oil and gas prices have made nuclear power more attractivewants to build one in the Nevada desert. Italy last produced nuclear power in 1987 but is still pondering where to store its radioactive waste. Some scientists hope that uranium-eating bacteria will help. Copyright The Economist Newspaper Limited 2005. All rights ***************************************************************** 26 NRC: Governors' Designees Receiving Advance Notification of FR Doc 05-12903 [Federal Register: June 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 125)] [Notices] [Page 37873-37875] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn05-122] Transportation of Nuclear Waste On January 6, 1982 (47 FR 596 and 47 FR 600), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published in the Federal Register final amendments to 10 CFR parts 71 and 73 (effective July 6, 1982), that require advance notification to Governors or their designees by NRC licensees prior to transportation of certain shipments of nuclear waste and spent fuel. The advance notification covered in part 73 is for spent nuclear reactor fuel shipments and the notification for part 71 is for large quantity shipments of radioactive waste (and of spent nuclear reactor fuel not covered under the final amendment to 10 CFR part 73). The following list updates the names, addresses, and telephone numbers of those individuals in each State who are responsible for receiving information on nuclear waste shipments. The list will be published annually in the Federal Register on or about June 30 to reflect any changes in information. Questions regarding this matter should be directed to Rosetta O. Virgilio, Office of State and Tribal Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, (Internet Address: rov@nrc.gov) or at 301-415-2367. Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 1st day of June 2005. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Paul H. Lohaus, Director, Office of State and Tribal Programs. INDIVIDUALS RECEIVING ADVANCE NOTIFICATIOIN OF NUCLEAR WASTE SHIPTMENTS ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- State Part 71 Part 73 ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- Alabama.................................. Colonel W. M. Coppage, Same Director, Alabama Department of Public Safety, 301 South Ripley Street, P.O. Box 1511, Montgomery, AL 36104, (334) 242-4394, 24 hours: (334) 242-4128. Alaska................................... Kim Stricklan, P.E., Solid Same Waste Program Manager, Alaska Department of Environmental, Conservation, 555 Cordova Street, Anchorage, AK 99501, (907) 269-1099, 24 hours: (907) 457-1421. Arizona.................................. Aubrey V. Godwin, Director, Same Arizona Radiation Regulatory Agency, 4814 South 40th Street, Phoenix, AZ 85040, (602) 255-4845, ext. 222, 24 hours: (602) 223-2212. Arkansas................................. Bernard Bevill, Division of Same Radiation Control and Emergency Management, Arkansas Department of Health, 4815 West Markham Street, Mail Slot 30. Little Rock, AR 72205-3867, (501) 661- 2301, 24 hours: (501) 661- 2136. California............................... Captain Andrew R. Jones, Same California Highway Patrol, Enforcement Services Division, 444 North 3rd St., Suite 310, P.O. Box 942898, Sacramento, CA 94298-0001, (916) 445- 1865, 24 hours: 1-(916) 845-8931. Colorado................................. Captain Allan Turner, Same Hazardous Materials Transport Safety & Response, Colorado State Patrol, 700 Kipling Street, Suite 1000, Denver, CO 80215-5865, (303) 239-4546, 24 hours: (303) 419-8577. Connecticut.............................. Edward L. Wilds, Jr., Same Ph.D., Director, Division of Radiation, Department of Environmental Protection, 79 Elm Street, Hartford, CT 06106-5127, (860) 424-3029, 24 hours: (860) 424-3333. Delaware................................. David B. Mitchell, J.D., Same Secretary, Department of Safety & Homeland Security, P.O. Box 818, Dover, DE 19903, (302) 744- 2665, 24 hours: Cell (302) 222-6590. Florida.................................. Harlan W. Keaton, Same Administrator, Bureau of Radiation Control, Environmental Radiation Program, Department of Health, P.O. Box 680069, Orlando, FL 32868-0069, (407) 297-2095. Georgia.................................. Captain Bruce Bugg, Special Same Projects Coordinator, Law Enforcement Division, Georgia Department of Motor Vehicle Safety, P.O. Box 80447, 2206 East View Parkway, Conyers, GA 30013, (678) 413-8834, 24 hours: (404) 655-7484. [[Page 37874]] Hawaii................................... Laurence Lau, Deputy Same Director for Environmental Health, State of Hawaii Department of Health, P.O. Box 3378, 1250 Punchbowl Street, Honolulu, HI 96813, (808) 586-4424, 24 hours: (808) 247-2191. Idaho.................................... Lieutenant William L. Same Reese, Deputy Commander, Commercial Vehicle Safety, Idaho State Police, P.O. Box 700, Meridian, ID 83680-0700, (208) 884- 7222, 24 hours: (208) 846- 7500. Illinois................................. Gary N. Wright, Assistant Same Director, Illinois Emergency Management Agency, 1035 Outer Park Drive, 5th Floor, Springfield, IL 62704, (217) 785-9868, 24 hours: (217) 782-7860. Indiana.................................. Superintendent Paul Same Whitesell, Ph.D., Director, Indiana State Police, Indiana Government Center North, 100 North Senate Avenue, Indianapolis, IN 46204, 24 hours: (317) 232-8248. Iowa..................................... David Miller, Same Administrator, Homeland Security Advisor, Iowa Emergency Management Division, Hoover State Office Building, Level A, 1305 East Walnut Street, Des Moines, IA 50319, 24 hours: (515) 281-3231. Kansas................................... Frank H. Moussa, M.S.A., Same Technological Hazards Administrator, Department of the Adjutant General, Division of Emergency Management, 2800 SW Topeka Boulevard, Topeka, KS 66611-1287, (785) 274- 1408, 24 hours: (785) 296- 8013. Kentucky................................. Robert L. Johnson, Manager, Same Radiation Health Branch, Cabinet for Health and Family Services, 275 East Main Street, Mail Stop HS- 1C-A, Frankfort, KY 40621- 0001, (502) 564-7818, ext. 3697, 24 hours: (502) 667- 1637. Louisiana................................ Captain Robert Pinero, Same Louisiana State Police, 7919 Independence Boulevard, P.O. Box 66614 (A2621), Baton Rouge, LA 70896-6614, (225) 925-6113, ext. 270, 24 hours: (877) 925-6595. Maine.................................... Colonel Craig Poulin, Chief Same of the State Police, Maine Department of Public Safety, 42 State House Station, Augusta, ME 04333, (207) 624-7000. Maryland................................. Michael Bennett, Director, Same Electronic Systems Division, Maryland State Police, 1201 Reisterstown Road, Pikesville, MD 21208, (410) 653-4229, 24 hours: (410) 653-4200. Massachusetts............................ Robert J. Walker, Director, Same Radiation Control Program, Massachusetts Department of Public Health, 90 Washington Street, Dorchester, MA 02121, (617) 427-2944 ext. 2001, 24 hours: (617) 427-2913. Michigan................................. Captain Dan Atkinson, Same Commander, Field Operations Division, Michigan State Police, 714 South Harrison Road, East Lansing, MI 48823, (517) 336-6136, 24 hours: (517) 336-6100. Minnesota................................ John Kerr, Assistant Same Director, Administration and Recovery Branch, Minnesota Division of Homeland Security & Emergency Management, 444 Cedar Street, Suite 223, St. Paul, MN 55101-6223, (651) 296-0481, 24 hours: (651) 649-5451. Mississippi.............................. Robert R. Latham, Jr., Same Emergency Management Agency, P.O. Box 4501, Fondren Station, Jackson, MS 39296-4501, (601) 960- 9020, 24 hours: (601) 352- 9100. Missouri................................. Ronald M. Reynolds, Same Director, Emergency Management Agency, P.O. Box 116, Jefferson City, MO 65102-0016, (573) 526- 9101, 24 hours: (573) 751- 2748. Montana.................................. Dan McGowan, Administrator, Same Montana Disaster & Emergency Services Division, P.O. Box 4789, Helena, MT 59604-4789, 24 hours: (406) 841-3911. Nebraska................................. Major Bryan J. Tuma, Same Nebraska State Patrol, P.O. Box 94907, Lincoln, NE 68509-4907, (402) 479- 4950, 24 hours: (402) 471- 4545. Nevada................................... Stanley R. Marshall, Chief, Same Bureau of Health Protection Services, Nevada State Health Division, 1179 Fairview Drive, Suite 201, Carson City, NV 89701-5405, (775) 687-5394, ext. 276, 24 hours: (775) 688-2830. New Hampshire............................ Lieutenant Stephen A. Kace, Same Highway Patrol and Enforcement Bureau, New Hampshire Department of Safety, James H. Hayes Building, 33 Hazen Drive, Concord, NH 03305, (603) 271-2091, 24 hours: (603) 271-3636. New Jersey............................... Kent Tosch, Chief, Bureau Same of Nuclear Engineering, Department of Environmental Protection, P.O. Box 415, Trenton, NJ 08625-0415, (609) 984- 7700, 24 hours: (609) 658- 3072. New Mexico............................... Don Shainin, Hazards Same Materials Coordinator, New Mexico Department of Public Safety, Office of Emergency Management, P. O. Box 1628, Santa Fe, NM 87504-1628, (505) 476- 9681, 24 hours: (505) 476- 9635. New York................................. James W. Tuffey, Executive Same Deputy Director, New York State Emergency Management Office, 1220 Washington Avenue, Building 22--Suite 101, Albany, NY 12226- 2251, (518) 457-2222, 24 hours: (518) 457-2200. North Carolina........................... Lieutenant Mark Dalton, Same Special Operations Section, North Carolina Highway Patrol, 1142 SE Maynard, Cary, NC 27511, (919) 319-1523, 24 hours: (919) 733-3861. North Dakota............................. Terry L. O'Clair, Director, Same Division of Air Quality, North Dakota Department of Health, 1200 Missouri Avenue, P.O. Box 5520, Bismarck, ND 58506-5520, (701) 328-5188, 24 hours: (701) 328-9921. Ohio..................................... Carol A. O'Claire, Chief, Same Radiological Branch, Ohio Emergency Management Agency, 2855 West Dublin Granville Road, Columbus, OH 43235-2206, (614) 799- 3915, 24 hours: (614) 889- 7150. Oklahoma................................. Commissioner Kevin L. Ward, Same Oklahoma Department of Public Safety, P.O. Box 11415, Oklahoma City, OK 73136-0145, (405) 425- 2001, 24 hours: (405) 425- 2323. [[Page 37875]] Oregon................................... Ken Niles, Assistant Same Director, Oregon Department of Energy, 625 Marion Street, NE, Salem, OR 97301-3742, (503) 378- 4906, 24 hours: (503) 378- 6377. Pennsylvania............................. John Bahnweg, Director of Same Operations and Training, Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency, 2605 Interstate Drive, Harrisburg, PA 17110-3321, (717) 651-2001. Rhode Island............................. Terrence Mercer, Associate Same Administrator, Motor Carriers Section, Division of Public Utilities and Carriers, 89 Jefferson Boulevard, Warwick, RI 02888, (401) 941-4500, Ext. 150, 24 hours: (401) 465-2170. South Carolina........................... Henry J. Porter, Assistant Same Director, Division of Waste Management, Bureau of Land and Waste Management, Department of Health & Environmental Control, 2600 Bull Street, Columbia, SC 29201, (803) 896-4245, 24 hours: (803) 253-6488. South Dakota............................. Kristi Turman, Director of Same Operations, Emergency Management Agency, 118 W. Capitol Avenue, Pierre, SD 57501-5070, (605) 773-3231. Tennessee................................ Elgan Usrey, Manager, Same Technical Division, Tennessee Emergency Management Agency, 3041 Sidco Drive, Nashville, TN 37204-1502, (615) 741- 2879. After hours: (Inside TN) 1-800-262-3400, (Outside TN) 1-800-258- 3300. Texas.................................... Richard A. Ratliff, P.E., Colonel Thomas A. Davis, Director, Texas L.M.P., Radiation Program Department of Public Safety, Attn: EMS Officer, Division of Preparedness Section, P.O. Box 4087, Regulatory Services, Texas Austin, TX 78773-0223, (512) 424-7771, Department of State Health 24 hours: (512) 424-2208 Services, 1100 West 49th Street, Mail Code 2827, Austin, TX 78756-3189, (512) 834-6679, 24 hours: (512) 458-7460. Utah..................................... Dane Finerfrock, Director, Same Division of Radiation Control, Department of Environmental Quality, 168 North 1950 West, P.O. Box 144850, Salt Lake City, UT 84114-4850, (801) 536- 4257, After hours: (801) 536-4123. Vermont.................................. Commissioner Kerry L. Same Sleeper, Department of Public Safety, 103 South Main Street, Waterbury, VT 05671-2101, (802) 244- 8718, 24 hours: (802) 244- 8727. Virginia................................. Brett A. Burdick, Director, Same Technological Hazards Division, Department of Emergency Management, Commonwealth of Virginia, 10501 Trade Court, Richmond, VA 23236, (804) 897-6500, ext. 6569, 24 hours: (804) 674-2400. Washington............................... Steven L. Kalmbach, Same Assistant State Fire Marshal, Washington State Patrol Fire Protection Bureau, P.O. Box 42600, Olympia, WA 98504-2600, (360) 570-3119, 24 hours: 1-800-409-4755. West Virginia............................ Colonel H. E. Hill, Jr., Same Superintendent, West Virginia State Police, 725 Jefferson Road, South Charleston, WV 25309, (304) 746-2111. Wisconsin................................ Johnnie L. Smith, Same Administrator, Wisconsin Emergency Management, P.O. Box 7865, Madison, WI 53707-7865, 608-242-3210, 24 hour: (608) 242-3232. Wyoming.................................. Captain Vernon Poage, Same Support Services Officer, Commercial Carriers, Wyoming Highway Patrol, 5300 Bishop Boulevard, Cheyenne, WY 82009-3340, (307) 777-4317, 24 hours: (307) 777-4321. District of Columbia..................... Gregory B. Talley, Program Same Manager, Radiation Protection Division, Bureau of Food, Drug & Radiation Protection, Department of Health, 51 N Street, NE, Room 6025, Washington, DC 20002, (202) 535-2320, 24 hours: (202) 535-2180. Puerto Rico.............................. Esteban Mujica, Chairman, Same Environmental Quality Board, P.O. Box 11488, San Juan, PR 00910, (787) 767- 8056 or (787) 767-8181. Guam..................................... Fred M. Castro, Same Administrator, Guam Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box 22439 GMF, Barrigada, Guam 96921, (671) 457-1658 or 1659, 24 hours: (671) 635- 9500. Virgin Islands........................... Dean C. Plaskett, Esq., Same Commissioner, Department of Planning and Natural, Resources, Cyril E. King Airport, Terminal Building--Second Floor, St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00802, (340) 774-3320, 24 hours: (340) 774-5138. American Samoa........................... Peter Peshut, Manager, Same Technical Services, American Samoa Environmental Protection Agency, P.O. Box PPA, Pago Pago, American Samoa 96799, (684) 633-2304, 24 hours: (684) 622-7106. Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana John Castro, Director, Same Islands. Department of Environmental Quality, Commonwealth of Northern, Mariana Islands Government, P. O. Box 501304, Saipan, MP 96950, (670) 664-8500 or 8501, 24 hours: (670) 287-1526. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------- [FR Doc. 05-12903 Filed 6-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 27 NRC: Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, FR Doc E5-3434 [Federal Register: June 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 125)] [Notices] [Page 37872-37873] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn05-121] Units 1, 2, and 3; Notice of Availability of the Final Supplement 21 to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for the License Renewal of Browns Ferry Nuclear Plants, Units 1, 2, and 3 Notice is hereby given that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) has published a final plant-specific supplement to the ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (GEIS), NUREG-1437, regarding the renewal of operating licenses DPR-33, DPR-52, and DPR-68 for an additional 20 years of operation at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, 2 and 3 (BFN). BFN is located in Limestone County, Alabama, 16 km (10 [[Page 37873]] mi) southwest of Athens, Alabama. Possible alternatives to the proposed action (license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy sources. As discussed in Section 9.3 of the final Supplement 21, based on (1) The analysis and findings in the GEIS; (2) the TVA Environmental Report; (3) consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies; (4) the staff's own independent review; and (5) the staff's consideration of public comments; the recommendation of the staff is that the Commission determine that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for Units 1, 2, and 3 at BFN are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be unreasonable. The final Supplement 21 to the GEIS is available for public inspection at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland 20852, or from the Publicly Available Records component of NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The accession number for the final Supplement 21 to the GEIS is ML051730443. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. In addition, the Athens-Limestone Public Library, 405 East South Street, Athens, Alabama, has agreed to make the final plant- specific supplement to the GEIS available for public inspection. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Michael Masnik, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, 20555- 0001. Dr. Masnik may be contacted at 1-800-368-5642, extension 1191 or via e-mail at MTM2@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 23rd day of June, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Pao-Tsin Kuo, Program Director, License Renewal and Environmental Impacts Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E5-3434 Filed 6-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 28 NRC: Final Regulatory Guide: Issuance, Availability FR Doc E5-3435 [Federal Register: June 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 125)] [Notices] [Page 37875-37876] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn05-123] The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued a revision to an existing guide in the agency's Regulatory Guide Series. This series has been developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data that the [[Page 37876]] staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses. Revision 5 of Regulatory Guide 1.101, ``Emergency Response Planning and Preparedness for Nuclear Power Reactors,'' provides guidance to licensees and applicants concerning emergency response planning activities and interactions. This guidance describes a voluntary method that the NRC staff considers acceptable for complying with the NRC's recently amended regulatory requirements in Appendix E to Title 10, Part 50, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50), particularly as they relate to exercise requirements for co-located licensees. The NRC published the substance of this revised guide for public comment on July 24, 2003, in a Federal Register notice (68 FR 43673) concerning proposed amendments to the NRC's emergency planning regulations governing the domestic licensing of production and utilization facilities, as specified in Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50. Following the closure of the 75-day public comment period on October 7, 2003, the staff resolved all stakeholder comments in the course of preparing the final rule (70 FR 3591, effective April 26, 2005) and Revision 5 of Regulatory Guide 1.101. The NRC staff encourages and welcomes comments and suggestions in connection with improvements to published regulatory guides, as well as items for inclusion in regulatory guides that are currently being developed. You may submit comments by any of the following methods. Mail comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Hand-deliver comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Fax comments to: Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-5144. Requests for technical information about Revision 5 of Regulatory Guide 1.101 may be directed to Daniel M. Barss at (301) 415-2922 or by e-mail to DMB1@nrc.gov. Regulatory guides are available for inspection or downloading through the NRC's public Web site in the Regulatory Guides document collection of the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/. Revision 5 of Regulatory Guide 1.101 is also available electronically through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html , under Accession No. ML050730286. Note, however, that the NRC has temporarily limited public access to ADAMS so that the agency can complete security reviews of publicly available documents and remove potentially sensitive information. Please check the NRC's Web site for updates concerning the resumption of public access to ADAMS. In addition, regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), which is located at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555-0001. The PDR can also be reached by telephone at (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205, by fax at (301) 415-3548, and by e- mail to PDR@nrc.gov. Requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; by E-mail to DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov; or by fax to (301) 415-2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them. (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of June, 2005. For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Carl J. Paperiello, Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. E5-3435 Filed 6-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 29 ITAR-TASS: Ukraine, China sign nuclear power cooperation treaty 30.06.2005, 11.42 KIEV, June 30 (Itar-Tass) - Ukraine and China signed on Thursday a treaty on nuclear power cooperation. The document is aimed to contribute to bilateral interaction in peaceful uses of nuclear power, a source at the Ukrainian State Committee for Nuclear Regulation said. The treaty was signed within the framework of Deputy Minister of the Chinese State Environmental Protection Administration (SEPA) Wang Yuqings visit to Ukraine. The delegation is expected to visit the Chernobyl nuclear power plant later in the day. In February, Ukraine and China announced their intention to work out a five-year joint plan of actions on research and the peaceful use of outer space. ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy, ***************************************************************** 30 News & Star: Reveal full report on Thorp spill – demands Greenpeace 6:55 - 1 July 2005 Published on 30/06/2005 By Andrea Thompson GREENPEACE campaigners are calling for a full disclosure of the investigation report into last year’s nuclear leak at Sellafield’s Thorp plant. BNFL has published the 34-page report into how 83 cubic metres of highly-radioactive acid liquid leaked and lay undetected for months – but parts of the report, including the identity of the inquiry panel, are blacked out on the company’s web site. Greenpeace has now issued a Freedom of Information request for the full disclosure of the reports. Spokeswoman and former Cumbrian anti-nuclear activist, Jean McSorley, said: “I have asked the NDA [Nuclear Decommissioning Authority] why the full report wasn't available. The NDA told me the report was accepted in confidence from British Nuclear Group.” Yesterday BNFL published the full Board of Inquiry report into the fractured pipe which caused the leak into the Feed Clarification Cell. Although it happened inside a secure, stainless steel tank designed to withstand such leaks, the incident caused the flagship 1.8 billion reprocessing plant to be shut down and it is not yet known when it will re-open. Barry Snelson, managing director at Sellafield, said: “The report is written in a no-nonsense style, to ensure that we learn real lessons from whatever has happened. We will address and resolve every issue raised.” The BNFL report says: “The event caused no harm to any individuals and did not release any radioactivity to the environment. We have successfully accounted for all of the material on the floor of the cell and have been able to focus our attention on finalising the best repair option and working to implement the recommendations of the Board of Inquiry report.” BNFL is confident it has the capability to return Thorp to service and the NDA is said to be supportive of this. A team has been established to address the 18 recommendations in the report. ***************************************************************** 31 News & Star: Security of our ‘nuclear ships’ 6:55 - 1 July 2005 Published on 30/06/2005 THE security standards of ships carrying nuclear material out of two Cumbria ports were discussed yesterday. The Emergency Planning Society’s annual conference in Harrogate was told that boats and the containers they carry must meet stringent international standards. Vessels carrying spent nuclear waste regularly sail out of Workington and Barrow, often carrying materials to Japan. Since the American terror attacks of 9/11, British Nuclear Group’s senior emergency response manager Matt Fox said they now have a visible security presence on all their ships to protect against pirates and terrorism. ***************************************************************** 32 In Face Of Potential Nuclear Terrorism, States Seek To Strengthen UN Treaty Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:00:23 -0400 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,FROM_ORG, SPF_HELO_PASS,SP_HAM_SUPER,SUBJ_ALL_CAPS,WHITE_PHRASE autolearn=ham version=3.0.4 X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com IN FACE OF POTENTIAL NUCLEAR TERRORISM, STATES SEEK TO STRENGTHEN UN-BACKED TREATY New York, Jun 30 2005 3:00PM Concerned by the potential for nuclear terrorism, more than 350 delegates from 80 States Parties to a United Nations-backed treaty on safeguarding nuclear material open a five-day conference in Vienna, Austria, on Monday aimed at adopting additional measures to avert smuggling or sabotage that could further such acts. The Vienna-based UN International Atomic Energy Agency (<"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/MediaAdvisory/2005/MA200518.html">IAEA) is the depositary of the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material (CPPNM), the only legally binding international agreement providing physical protection of nuclear material and ensuring improved security in the aftermath of the September 2001 terrorist attacks against the United States. "Following the recent adoption of the International Convention on the Suppression of Acts of International Terrorism, the CPPNM amendments will be yet another milestone in international efforts to improve the physical protection of nuclear materials and facilities," IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei said earlier this month. Since 2001, a group of experts has worked to strengthen the physical protection regime under the current Convention, which was signed in Vienna and New York in 1980. It applies to the protection of nuclear material used for peaceful purposes while in international transport and also contains provisions related to offences relating to nuclear material used for peaceful purposes while in domestic use, storage a transport. Strengthening the current Convention entails a stronger and uniform physical protection regime applicable to both nuclear material and facilities used for peaceful purposes. The amendments will provide for an expanded regime that aims at the protection of nuclear material against theft, smuggling and sabotage, and nuclear facilities against sabotage. The regime also provides for expanded cooperation between States regarding rapid measures to locate and recover stolen or smuggled nuclear material, to mitigate any radiological consequences of sabotage and to prevent and combat relevant offences. 2005-06-30 00:00:00.000 ________________ For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news To change your profile or unsubscribe go to: http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml ***************************************************************** 33 White House: Statement on Nuclear Security Cooperation with Russia [White House Features - A Gallery of our special pages] For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary June 30, 2005 President Bush received the first progress report from a joint U.S.-Russia working group he established with President Putin in Bratislava to improve nuclear security cooperation to deal with one of the gravest threats we face- the danger that terrorists could gain access to nuclear material or weapons. Since that time, the U.S.-Russia Senior Interagency Working Group on Nuclear Security Cooperation, co-chaired by Secretary of Energy Bodman and Federal Atomic Energy Agency Director Rumyantsev has examined ways to advance cooperation in five areas: (1) emergency response, (2) best practices, (3) security culture, (4) conversion of research reactors, and (5) nuclear security. The report notes that the United and Russia have agreed to: + Prioritized timelines to return fresh and spent highly-enriched uranium fuel from U.S.- and Russian-designed research reactors in third countries, and to convert these reactors to low-enriched uranium and to develop other alternative fuels; + Developed a Joint Action Plan for security upgrades at Rosatom and Ministry of Defense facilities; + Conduct bilateral workshops on sharing "best practices" and establishment of a "security culture" in September 2005; + Undertake a tabletop exercise on emergency response to nuclear incidents in October 2005. The Working Group is scheduled to report again on December 31, 2005. # # # ***************************************************************** 34 Reuters: German police find radioactive container in street 30 Jun 2005 11:43:04 GMT Source: Reuters BERLIN, June 30 (Reuters) - Police in the German city of Wiesbaden sealed off a busy street on Thursday after a passer-by discovered a small container with a radioactive warning symbol and emergency services confirmed low levels of radiation. A police spokeswoman said there were faint traces of radiation from both the metal container and a nearby dustbin, but the levels were too low to pose any danger. "We're taking this very seriously and taking sensible measures, but at the moment it doesn't look like turning into an emergency situation," spokeswoman Gaby Goebel said. She said the area had not been contaminated and no one had been exposed to radiation or needed hospital checks. But residents had been told to stay indoors while specialists examined the container and dustbin. The street, popular for its cafes and restaurants, had been closed off. Police were working on the theory that the low-level radioactive material could have come from a hospital. ***************************************************************** 35 [NukeNet] NAS: No Such Thing As A Safe Dose Of Radiation Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:01:34 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Videos, Including Space Weaponization, Nuclearization: http://www.envirovideo.com http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/science/AP-Radiation-Risks.html? Panel Affirms Radiation Link to Cancer a.. E-Mail This b.. Printer-Friendly By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: June 29, 2005 Filed at 11:13 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- Even very low doses of radiation pose a risk of cancer over a person's lifetime, a National Academy of Sciences panel concluded. It rejected some scientists' arguments that tiny doses are harmless or may in fact be beneficial. The findings, disclosed in a report Wednesday, could influence the maximum radiation levels that are allowed at abandoned reactors and other nuclear sites and raises warnings about excessive exposure to radiation for medical purposes such as repeated whole-body CT scans. ''It is unlikely that there is a threshold (of radiation exposure) below which cancers are not induced,'' the scientists said. While at low doses ''the number of radiation-induced cancers will be small ... as the overall lifetime exposure increases, so does the risk,'' the experts said. Even common X-rays pose some risk of adverse health effects, the scientists found, although the panel said there was not enough information available to accurately estimate the cancer risk from X-rays. Nevertheless, the report said, there is evidence that per unit of absorbed radiation, X-rays may be more dangerous than other radiation. The panel also said that approximately one person out of 1,000 would develop cancer from exposure to the amount of radiation from a single, average whole body CT-scan. But the report should not scare people away from nuclear medicine, said Dr. Henry Royal, a professor of radiology at Washington University in St. Louis. He said most often the benefits of such tests and treatments outweigh the risks. But Royal also said that procedures such as CT scans should be used to deal with a specific medical problems and not part of annual medical screenings. ''You should not be exposed to radiation for superficial reasons,'' Royal said in a telephone interview. Scientists for years have debated how extremely low doses of radiation affect human health. Pro-nuclear advocates, as well as some independent scientists, have maintained that the current risk models for low-level radiation has produced more stringent requirements than is necessary to protect public health. It is an issue in determining decontamination requirements at abandoned reactors and at federal weapons sites. The academy's panel stood by the ''linear, no threshold'' model that generally is the acceptable approach to radiation risk assessment. This approach assumes that the health risks from radiation exposure decline as the dose levels drop, but that each unit of radiation -- no matter how small -- is assumed to cause cancer. ''The scientific research base shows that there is no threshold of exposure below which low levels of ionized radiation can be demonstrated to be harmless or beneficial,'' said Richard R. Monson, the panel's chairman. He is a professor of epidemiology at Harvard's School of Public Health. The panel said new and more extensive data developed over the past 15 years only strengthen the conclusions of the panel's last report, in 1990, on low-level radiation risks. The scientists estimated that one out of 100 people exposed to 100 millisievert of radiation over a lifetime probably would develop solid cancer or leukemia, and that half of those cases would be fatal. It also said that 42 additional cancers can be expected in the same group from other than low-level radiation sources. A millisievert is a measurement of radiation energy deposited in a living tissue. People absorb about 3 millisievert of radiation annually from natural sources and 0.1 millisievert every time they get a chest X-ray. The report noted that exposure from a whole body CT scan is about 10 millisievert, much higher than a normal X-ray. Some anti-nuclear advocates said the study reaffirms that stringent regulations are needed when cleaning up abandoned nuclear sites or considering health risks near nuclear power plants. ''The NAS panel puts to rest once and for all claims that low doses of radiation aren't dangerous ... nuclear advocates have been making this claim for years'' said Daniel Hirsch, president of Committee to Bridge the Gap, a Los Angeles-based nuclear watchdog group. Mitchell Singer, a spokesman for the Nuclear Energy Institute, the industry's lobbying arm, said the report ''is a positive finding. It shows there is very little risk of exposure from low levels of radiation.'' The academy is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters. ^------ On the Net: National Academy of Science: http://www.nationalacademies.org _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 36 [du-list] interesting letter from Rick DeSelm Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:03:17 -0700 http://www.telluridenews.com/articles/2005/06/30/news/opinion/opinion01.txt Dear Editor, The Fourth of July has arrived again. What is to celebrate? Is the country independent? Is it even still a republic? Trust builds morality. The trusted person stands up taller, has a higher self-regard, and treats others with increased trust. Trust is the actual bedrock of all social interaction. On the other hand, the morality of a people can be destroyed through betrayal of trust by its rulers. A war-causing criminal elite can control the people and destroy their standing in the world. The people become the criminals and are held responsible for the evils of their leaders. This is true for all countries and all peoples, whether claiming to be a "democracy" or not. It only goes to prove that all governments derive just powers from the consent of the governed people - who will be held responsible, in the long run, for unjust power exercised by their society. Carl Jung said, "The foundation of all mental illness is the unwillingness to experience legitimate suffering." It was such an unwillingness that carried the United States deeper into mass psychosis after the treasonous attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Although the true masterminds of that event remain unidentified and at large, the one thing any careful observer can verify is that the U.S. government story is lies from beginning to end. "War ... is worse than mass insanity. It is mass wallowing in evil." So said Lew Rockwell. With the careful suppression of all-important news by major print, radio and TV media in the U.S., it may be easy to forget (or never notice) the amazing and unprecedented immorality of the (unelected) Bush regime. This includes massive, daily war crimes such as an official policy of torture and the use of internationally-banned depleted uranium weapons. Never doubt that these evils will taint all future citizens of the United States of America. The people of the world know all about these things, although many in the U.S. do not. This bird will come home to roost. The attempt to control the entire world by military force is a publicly-stated neo-con plan that is still on their agenda. The next chapter, another unprovoked attack on a sovereign country (Syria, Iran, or other targets) will probably require a new dose of terror delivered to the people of the U.S. This will be blamed on Arabs or Moslems but will more likely be caused by Israeli and/or U.S. neo-cons themselves. "Deception is the essence of warfare," said Sun Tzu. "By deception we do war," is a Mossad motto. There it is. I cannot stand the unending lies. My father worked on the atomic bomb. I have been sensitive to Weapons of Mass Destruction for my entire life. Now U.S. people desperately need to live and demand the truth. "The one thing necessary, in life as in art, is to tell the truth." Rick DeSelm ---------- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.8.8/35 - Release Date: 6/30/05 [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/ ***************************************************************** 37 All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 10:41:09 -0400 The National Academies of Science released a report today on the risks from ionizing radiation

NEWS FROM NIRS

Nuclear Information and Resource Service

1424 16th Street NW, #404, Washington, DC 20036

202.328.0002; fax: 202.462.2183; nirsnet@nirs.org; www.nirs.org

 

For Immediate Release                    Contacts: Diane D’Arrigo 202 328 0002 x 16

                                                                        Cynthia Folkers 202 328 0002 x 20

 

All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer

 

 

Washington, DC July 30, 2005           The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on “Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation” reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiation—that even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells.

 

Among the reports conclusions are:

 

There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure.

 

Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks.

 

Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result in these non-cancer health effects.

 

It is possible that children born to parents that have been exposed to radiation could be affected by those exposures.

 

The “bystander effect” is an additional, newly recognized method by which radiation injures cells that were not directly hit but are in the vicinity of those that were. “Genomic instability” can be caused by exposure to low doses of radiation and according to the report “might contribute significantly to radiation cancer risk.”  These new mechanisms for radiation damage were not included in the risk estimates reported by the BEIR VII report, but were recommended for further study.

 

The Linear-No-Threshold model (LNT) for predicting health effects from radiation (dose-response) is retained, meaning that every exposure causes some risk and that risks are generally proportional to dose. The Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor or DDREF which had been suggested in the 1990 BEIR V report to be applied at low doses, has been reduced from 2 to 1.5. That means the projected number of health effects at low doses are greater than previously thought.

           

RADIATION RISKIER THAN THOUGHT-- RISKS TO PUBLIC and NUCLEAR WORKERS

 

The BEIR VII risk numbers indicate that about 1 in 100 members of the public would get cancer if exposed to 100 millirads (1milliGray) per year for a 70-year lifetime.[1]  This is essentially the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s allowable radiation dose for members of the public.

 

In addition, 1 in about 5 workers[2] would get cancer if exposed to the legally allowable occupational doses[3] over their 50 years in the workforce. These risks are much higher than permitted for other carcinogens.

 

Specifically, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows members of the public to get 100 millirems or mr (1 milliSievert or mSv) per year of radiation in addition to background. The BEIR VII report (page 500, Table 12-9) estimates that this level will result in approximately 1 (1.142) cancer in every 100 people exposed at 100 mr/yr which includes 1 fatal cancer in every 175 people so exposed (5.7 in 1000)[4].


The risk of getting cancer from radiation (in BEIR VII) is increased by about a third from current government risk figures (FGR13):

BEIR VII estimates that 11.42 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem (1,000 millirems or 10 mSv).

The US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Guidance Report 13 estimates that 8.46 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem.

 

The Nuclear Information and Resource Service interprets this as further evidence that unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided.

 

“This means that the government is not justified in deregulating nuclear power and weapons waste—releasing it to regular trash or “recycling” it into everyday household items as proposed by 5 US federal agencies at the behest of nuclear waste generators hoping to save money,” stated Diane D’Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service Radioactive (NIRS). “This also means that remediation of radioactive sites should be done to cleaner levels and that nuclear transport standards should be strengthened.”

Cindy Folkers, NIRS Energy and Health Project Director stated “These findings confirm that all levels of radiation are harmful. Since nuclear power routinely releases long-lasting radiation into the air, water and soil, we must avoid a new generation of nuclear power to prevent unnecessary exposures.”

 

                                                           


Endnotes:

 

[1] NAS Report in Brief June 2005 BEIR VII: Health Effects from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation pp 2-3 (for 1 cancer in 100 people exposed to 100mSv or 10 r ).

Endnotes-continued:

 

More detailed calculation: National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. Table 12-9 indicates that average risk (cancer incidence for males and females) of getting leukemia or solid cancers is 1142 out of 100,000 exposed  to 10 r.  Thus a member of the public who lives for 70 years and receives the permitted 100 mr (or 0.1 r)/year could receive 7 r or 7000 mr in his/her lifetime.  [US Nuclear Regulatory Commission permits 0.1 r or 100 mr per year above background to members of the public.] Comparing to BEIR VII’s risk estimate of 1142  in 100,000 at 10 r, to the 7 r lifetime dose permitted by NRC:(7r/10r= 0.7) we get 0.7 x 1142 = 799 cancers  in 100,000 population at 7 r or 799cancers/100,000 exposed = 1 cancer in 125 exposed (to 7 r over lifetime).

 

[2] At 0.1 Sv (100 mSv or 10 r)  the risk is 1 in 100 getting cancer (NAS Report in Brief Jun 2005 pp2-3)

At 2.5 Sv (worker legal dose) the dose and risk are 25x higher or 25 in 100 (or 1 in 4) exposed getting cancer…but since workers are exposed later in life than the general public, adjusting for age would correct the risk to about  1 in 5 exposed to the full legal amount for their working lives getting cancer from those exposures.

 

[3] 10 CFR 20 subpart C, Occupational Dose Limits limit workers to total effective dose equivalent of 5000 millirems or 50 milliSieverts (5 rems or 0.05 Sv) per year. If it is low LET radiation, this is comparable to 5000 millirads or 50 milliGray.

 

[4] National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. There will be 570 fatal cancers in 100,000 exposed at 0.1Gy or 10 r. (100,000/570= 175) Approx 1 in 175 so exposed will get fatal cancer.

 

 

-30-

 ***************************************************************** 38 News in Science: Nuclear industry-cancer link confirmed - 29/06/2005 "Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online [Radioactive] The largest study of its kind confirms that measurements taken to gauge workers' exposure to nuclear radiation are valid. It also finds that even exposure to low levels of radiation over many years increases the risk of cancer (Image: iStockphoto) Nuclear industry workers exposed to chronic low doses of radiation have a slightly higher risk of developing cancer, scientists say after conducting the largest study of its kind. "We have shown that even low doses of radiation cause cancer," says Dr Elisabeth Cardis, from the International Agency for Research on Cancer(IARC) in Lyon, France. But she adds the risk appears to be similar to what scientists had estimated based on data from Japan's survivors of the 1945 atomic bombings in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Radiation protection standards, which limit occupational exposure to ionising radiation to 100 millisieverts (mSv) over five years and 1 mSv per year for the public, are based mainly on data from survivors who had been exposed to high doses of radiation over a very short time. "There has been a controversy for decades about the use of data on A-bomb survivors for setting standards for the protection of the general public and radiation workers," Cardis says. But the findings, which are reported online in the British Medical Journalahead of print, may settle the issue. "Our study shows that the current basis for radiation protection appears to be reasonable," Cardis adds. Largest study of its kind In the largest study of nuclear workers ever conducted, researchers from IARC estimate that cumulative exposure could lead to a 10% raised risk of death from all types of cancer and a 19% increase from leukaemia, excluding lymphocytic leukaemia. The researchers studied 407,000 nuclear industry workers in 15 countries including Australia who had been exposed to low doses over an extended time span. The results suggest only a small proportion of cancer deaths in the study group were due to chronic, low-dose exposure. The scientists estimate that 1-2% of deaths from cancers, except leukaemia, in the nuclear workers in the study may be due to radiation. But they add that most were in older employees who had worked in the industry many years ago. "Those who had the highest doses worked in the 1940s and 1950s when the radiation protection standards were much less than they are today," says Cardis. Australian exposure Dr Ron Cameron, chief of operations at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, says the study confirms that current radiation protection practices are viable. He says a recently published study of ANSTO workers, many included in the international study, had cancer mortality rates 31% below the national average and cancer death rates 19% below. The average ANSTO worker receives 1 mSv a year and those working in the most active places less than 10 mSv, Cameron adds. with ABC Science Online ***************************************************************** 39 AU ABC: Study finds cancer risk among nuclear power plant workers negligable "Australian Broadcasting Corporation Online"> The World Today - Wednesday, 29 June , 2005 12:30:00 Reporter: Julia Limb ELEANOR HALL: Today has seen the release of the first international study on radiation exposure since the atom bomb was dropped on Japan more than half a century ago. The comprehensive scientific report is based on research into more than 400,000 radiation workers in 15 countries, including Australia. And it's found that people who work in nuclear power stations are at a higher risk of dying from cancer than the general population. But while the study identifies a health risk for plant workers, it concludes that this risk does not extend to people living near nuclear power stations. Julia Limb has more. JULIA LIMB: It's the largest ever study of its kind. A French team led researchers from 15 countries tracking thousands of nuclear industry workers. Over an average of 13 years they studied their risk of dying from cancer. The results, published in the British Medical Journal, found that workers who are exposed to low levels of radiation, that is those people working in nuclear power plants, research centres, waste management facilities or fuel and weapons production plants have a slightly higher risk of dying from cancer. Professor John Kaldor from the University of New South Wales was one of the researchers who concluded that the risks are minimal. JOHN KALDOR: Of the people who did die from cancer, it was estimated that about between one and two per cent of those deaths were due to any exposure they had from their occupation and that of course includes workers who were in the industry for an extended time period so it can be viewed as, in one sense, as showing that there is a contribution of radiation, albeit very small, to increased mortality. On the other saying that as we had predicted this risk is a very small contribution to the overall risk of death. JULIA LIMB: Professor Kaldor says the study was prompted by debate, mostly overseas, about the accuracy of past estimates of the risk to nuclear workers. Protection measures have been based on studies done on the survivors of the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II. JOHN KALDOR: The main finding was, in fact, it might sound to the average listener to be a little bit of a boring finding, which is that the risk estimates that we've been using, which have been largely based on the results of studies on the survivors of a-bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, that those estimates aren't actually too bad. Our risk estimates have been reasonably accurate, now that we've done the study on the people for whom those risk estimates are supposed to be applied. JULIA LIMB: The chief of operations at the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, Dr Ron Cameron, says the results confirm that practices are safe. RON CAMERON: I think the results are important in showing that the current radiation protection regimes that we have in place around the world and also in Australia are appropriate. The study didn't find that there was any need to change our current levels of radiation protection. JULIA LIMB: Dr Cameron says the study also estimates the cumulative effect of radiation exposure on nuclear industry workers. RON CAMERON: What they're saying in terms of this particular study is that exposure to radiation carries a very small risk and it has a very small increment in terms of the number of people who might have died because of these low levels. But it also looks at in all radiation workers, what's the total exposure that they might have had over their lifetime and what that might mean to them in terms of their chance of dying from cancer or other radiation-related illnesses and that that led to an increased exposure. However very few of the people in that study and none of the people in Australia are exposed to those higher levels where the 10 per cent risk factor came into account. JULIA LIMB: The Director of the Australian Cancer Council, Alan Coates, welcomes the study. ALAN COATES: What this says is that the levels that have been imposed for safety within radiation workers in the nuclear industry seem to be fairly safe. JULIA LIMB: And is that safe enough, do you think? ALAN COATES: Well, you can never be safe enough, can you? I mean, you can say even one extra cancer is one too many, but what the basic study says is that yes, there are standards and we are well within them, and that the excess that seems to be occurring at one to two per cent of the cancer deaths is getting so marginally small that it's very hard to measure. ELEANOR HALL: Professor Alan Coates from the Australian Cancer Council ending that report from Julia Limb. ***************************************************************** 40 NRC: NRC Reports Lowest Average Occupational Dose Ever for Nuclear Power Plant Workers in 2004 News Release - 2005-09 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 05-097 June 30, 2005 The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions latest compilation of nuclear power plant worker doses at U.S. reactors shows the average annual collective dose per plant is 100 person-rem, the lowest ever and half of the dose recorded 10 years ago. To determine a plant's collective dose, individual doses are added up and the result is expressed in person-rem. The average American receives a dose of about 360 millirem every year from all radioactive sources; the average nuclear plant worker in recent years received about an additional 160 millirem each year on the job. NRC regulations allow workers at nuclear power plants to safely receive a job-related dose of up to 5,000 millirem each year. This report shows nuclear power plant operators have very effective plans and procedures in place to reduce workers exposure while ensuring the necessary work is done to NRC requirements, said Bruce Boger, Director of the Division of Inspection Program Management in the NRCs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. The nations 69 pressurized-water reactors had an average annual collective dose of 71 person-rem, down 22 percent from 2003 and the lowest ever for PWRs. The 35 boiling-water reactors had an average annual collective dose of 156 person-rem, the second-lowest ever. The full report is available on the NRCs Web-based document database, ADAMS, by entering ML051530296 in the search function at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. Last revised Thursday, June 30, 2005 ***************************************************************** 41 NIRS: All Levels of Radiation Confirmed to Cause Cancer. - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE June 30, 2005 CONTACT Diane D'Arrigo, NIRS 202-328-0002 Cindy Folkers, NIRS 202-328-0002 Washington, DC July 30, 2005 The National Academies of Science released an over 700-page report yesterday on the risks from ionizing radiation. The BEIR VII or seventh Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation report on "Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation" reconfirmed the previous knowledge that there is no safe level of exposure to radiationthat even very low doses can cause cancer. Risks from low dose radiation are equal or greater than previously thought. The committee reviewed some additional ways that radiation causes damage to cells. Among the reports conclusions are: There is no safe level or threshold of ionizing radiation exposure. Even exposure to background radiation causes some cancers. Additional exposures cause additional risks. Radiation causes other health effects such as heart disease and stroke, and further study is needed to predict the doses that result in these non-cancer health effects. It is possible that children born to parents that have been exposed to radiation could be affected by those exposures. The "bystander effect" is an additional, newly recognized method by which radiation injures cells that were not directly hit but are in the vicinity of those that were. "Genomic instability" can be caused by exposure to low doses of radiation and according to the report "might contribute significantly to radiation cancer risk." These new mechanisms for radiation damage were not included in the risk estimates reported by the BEIR VII report, but were recommended for further study. The Linear-No-Threshold model (LNT) for predicting health effects from radiation (dose-response) is retained, meaning that every exposure causes some risk and that risks are generally proportional to dose. The Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness Factor or DDREF which had been suggested in the 1990 BEIR V report to be applied at low doses, has been reduced from 2 to 1.5. That means the projected number of health effects at low doses are greater than previously thought. RADIATION RISKIER THAN THOUGHT-- RISKS TO PUBLIC and NUCLEAR WORKERS The BEIR VII risk numbers indicate that about 1 in 100 members of the public would get cancer if exposed to 100 millirads (1milliGray) per year for a 70-year lifetime. [1] This is essentially the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission's allowable radiation dose for members of the public. In addition, 1 in about 5 workers [2] would get cancer if exposed to the legally allowable occupational doses [3] over their 50 years in the workforce. These risks are much higher than permitted for other carcinogens. Specifically, the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission allows members of the public to get 100 millirems or mr (1 milliSievert or mSv) per year of radiation in addition to background. The BEIR VII report (page 500, Table 12-9) estimates that this level will result in approximately 1 (1.142) cancer in every 100 people exposed at 100 mr/yr which includes 1 fatal cancer in every 175 people so exposed (5.7 in 1000).[4] The risk of getting cancer from radiation (in BEIR VII) is increased by about a third from current government risk figures (FGR13): BEIR VII estimates that 11.42 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem (1,000 millirems or 10 mSv). The US Environmental Protection Agency Federal Guidance Report 13 estimates that 8.46 people will get cancer if 10,000 are each exposed to a rem. The Nuclear Information and Resource Service interprets this as further evidence that unnecessary radiation exposures should be avoided. "This means that the government is not justified in deregulating nuclear power and weapons wastereleasing it to regular trash or "recycling" it into everyday household items as proposed by 5 US federal agencies at the behest of nuclear waste generators hoping to save money," stated Diane D'Arrigo, Radioactive Waste Project Director at Nuclear Information and Resource Service Radioactive (NIRS). "This also means that remediation of radioactive sites should be done to cleaner levels and that nuclear transport standards should be strengthened." Cindy Folkers, NIRS Energy and Health Project Director stated "These findings confirm that all levels of radiation are harmful. Since nuclear power routinely releases long-lasting radiation into the air, water and soil, we must avoid a new generation of nuclear power to prevent unnecessary exposures." -30- [1] NAS Report in Brief June 2005 BEIR VII: Health Effects from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation pp 2-3 (for 1 cancer in 100 people exposed to 100mSv or 10 r ). More detailed calculation: National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. Table 12-9 indicates that average risk (cancer incidence for males and females) of getting leukemia or solid cancers is 1142 out of 100,000 exposed to 10 r. Thus a member of the public who lives for 70 years and receives the permitted 100 mr (or 0.1 r)/year could receive 7 r or 7000 mr in his/her lifetime. [US Nuclear Regulatory Commission permits 0.1 r or 100 mr per year above background to members of the public.] Comparing to BEIR VII's risk estimate of 1142 in 100,000 at 10 r, to the 7 r lifetime dose permitted by NRC:(7r/10r= 0.7) we get 0.7 x 1142 = 799 cancers in 100,000 population at 7 r or 799cancers/100,000 exposed = 1 cancer in 125 exposed (to 7 r over lifetime). [2] At 0.1 Sv (100 mSv or 10 r) the risk is 1 in 100 getting cancer (NAS Report in Brief Jun 2005 pp2-3) At 2.5 Sv (worker legal dose) the dose and risk are 25x higher or 25 in 100 (or 1 in 4) exposed getting cancer...but since workers are exposed later in life than the general public, adjusting for age would correct the risk to about 1 in 5 exposed to the full legal amount for their working lives getting cancer from those exposures. [3] 10 CFR 20 subpart C, Occupational Dose Limits limit workers to total effective dose equivalent of 5000 millirems or 50 milliSieverts (5 rems or 0.05 Sv) per year. If it is low LET radiation, this is comparable to 5000 millirads or 50 milliGray. [4] National Academies of Science, Prepublication Copy, Health Risks from Exposure to Low Levels of Ionizing Radiation BEIR VII Phase 2, June 29, 2005 page 500 Table 12-9. There will be 570 fatal cancers in 100,000 exposed at 0.1Gy or 10 r. (100,000/570= 175) Approx 1 in 175 so exposed will get fatal cancer. ***************************************************************** 42 allAfrica.com: Ghana: Radiological & Nuclear Emergency Meeting Underway in Accra Accra Mail (Accra) June 29, 2005 Posted to the web June 30, 2005 Atiku Iddrisu The maiden African Regional Coordination and Planning meeting on establishment of national capabilities for response to radiological and nuclear emergency was opened yesterday in Accra. The five-day meeting is being organized by the Radiation Protection Board of the Ghana Atomic Energy Commission (GAEC) in collaboration with the National Disaster Management Organization (NADMO), with support from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) based in Vienna, Austria. Participants drawn from fourteen African countries are attending the meeting. The Director General of the GAEC, Professor Edward Akaho, in an address said the meeting forms part of IAEA's global efforts to assist member states to review policies in the area relating to establishing and strengthening technical capabilities for planning to respond to radiological and nuclear emergency in order to arrive at a specific action plan. 'It is also to ensure commitment to developing organizational and technical capabilities for setting up and implementing a realistic plan for response to radiological and nuclear emergencies', he added. The meeting, Prof. Akaho said, would discuss and access the current status of emergency preparedness and response capabilities to radiological and nuclear emergency in participating member states and identify priority needs in this area with a view to addressing this along the lines of guidance contained in related IAEA publications and the generic work plan. He said the meeting would prepare specific country action plans, based on the identified priorities and national commitment by the member states concerned on agreed IAEA's input for the project implementation for the years 2005 and 2006. Prof. Akaho acknowledged efforts made by the IAEA in sponsoring the meeting and expressed gratitude to NADMO for its collaborative effort at organizing the meeting. The Minister for Interior, Paapa Owusu Ankomah, who officially opened the meeting, said it was expedient to begin to prepare towards emergencies that may arise out of the increasing use of ionizing radiation and radioactive sources. He however said such preparedness must not end with accidents but also take into account individuals and groups with diabolical intentions who may illicitly traffic and use radioactive sources to cause panic, pain, grief and even death to innocent lives. Ghana, Mr. Ankomah said, has been a user of radiation sources for about fifty years for various purposes. Luckily, he said, "we have so far been safe from radiological accidents even though the use of radioactive sources has increased over the last decade". He said this record has been achieved because Ghana took good advantage of the IAEA's Model Project that encouraged participating countries to establish the necessary infrastructure for radiation protection and adhered strictly to it. He however warned that the states of affairs as at present "should not make us complacent", but rather we should remember the occurrence of accidents of which "we are not immune". Mr. Ankomah finally announced that Ghana has completed a draft National Nuclear and Radiological Emergency Response Plan which will soon be subjected to discussion and ratification by stakeholder institutions. Copyright 2005 Accra Mail. All rights reserved. Distributed ***************************************************************** 43 Southern Scientific: Radioactive waste management and decommissioning Range of instrumentation for nuclear waste management and decommissioning includes barrel monitors, a sort table, a barrel monitor for special material, and a scaffold monitor Edited by: Laboratorytalk Editorial Team on 30 June 2005 Southern Scientific now offers a complete range of instrumentation for nuclear waste management and decommissioning. This includes a range of barrel monitors, a sort table, a barrel monitor for special material and a scaffold monitor. The BM 204S monitor is scintillation based and designed for measurement of contamination of standard 200 litre barrels or large bags. Available in two, three and four detector versions with a wide range of scanning speeds, the turntable can be operated from either a single or three phase supply. The detectors feed directly into USB ports on a standard PC and can be summed and subsequently analysed through standard software. The process can also be automated by the use of proprietary software. Similar in construction to the BM 204S, the BM 212D has two environmental Geiger counters to provide surface doserate measurement. This is a highly cost effective system that is ideal for screening barrels before analysis, thus saving time on more expensive installations, says the company. Completing the range of Southern Scientific barrel monitors is the BM286 that has six large area plastic scintillation detectors, accommodates 500lb containers and 55 gallon drums and provides isotope identification over the energy range of 40KeV to 1.6KeV. The Southern Scientific Sort Table is designed to monitor high, medium and low levels of radioactive waste. It is built specifically to customer requirements and can significantly reduce the cost of waste and provide a return on investment within the first year of use, says Southern Scientific. Constructed from lead and covered in stainless steel for ease of decontamination, the sort table will accept waste direct from a standard 200 litre barrel onto the table, so the user does not come into contact with the barrel contents. The waste is then spread across the table allowing the user to measure using a variety of detectors. The waste is then pushed into one of three shielded containers for disposal. The Southern Scientific scaffold monitor has two rugged proportional counters and a variable sped conveyor. Facilities include detector height adjustment, emergency stop and reversing and audible and visual alarms. This extensive range of range of instruments allows Southern Scientific to provide a comprehensive service in the area of decontamination and the company says it is also in the position to advise and provide a bespoke service where required. " . | Get our FREE weekly newsletter | Home: About Us Copyright 2000-2005 Pro-Talk Ltd, UK ***************************************************************** 44 KOLD: Feds cite Palo Verde for changes in radiation monitoring July 1, 2005 PHOENIX The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station has been cited by federal regulators for changes that would have made the nuclear plant less effective in the event of a nuclear crisis. The Arizona Republic Web site reports the issue centers around the nuclear power plant's plan to measure radiation levels in an emergency. Plant workers rewrote parts in an effort to make it easier to follow. However, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the changes were "technically inaccurate" and impossible to execute. Plant operators that are hit with such a violation could face a 65-thousand dollar penalty. The feds opted not to fine plant manager A-P-S.The N-R-C says the utility responded promptly to correct the problem and has a clean record at Palo Verde. Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All KOLD News 13 More >> All content Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KOLD, a Raycom Media station. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 45 [NukeNet] Scientist Denies Falsifying Yucca Data Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 15:01:36 -0700 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) Mothersalert: http://www.mothersalert.org http://www.mothersalert.org/moreinfo.html http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Yucca-Mountain.html Scientist Denies Falsifying Yucca Data a.. E-Mail This b.. Printer-Friendly By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS Published: June 29, 2005 Filed at 5:24 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (AP) -- A government scientist told a congressional panel investigating possible paperwork fraud on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump that he didn't change documents or data and his work was sound. ''I have never falsified any documents related to Yucca Mountain or any other project,'' Joseph Hevesi, a United States Geological Survey hydrologist in Sacramento, told a House Government Reform subcommittee on Wednesday. The panel is investigating e-mails written by Hevesi and other scientists that, according to Yucca Mountain critics, suggest they changed work to reach a predetermined conclusion. The e-mails, written between 1998 and 2000 and released earlier by the subcommittee, are the subject of a scientific review and criminal investigations by the inspectors general of the Energy and Interior departments. The controversy has contributed to delays on the Yucca Mountain project 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, where the government wants to bury 77,000 tons of the nation's most radioactive waste for 10,000 years and beyond. The Energy Department recently abandoned a planned 2010 completion date. But John Arthur, Yucca Mountain project deputy director, told the subcommittee Wednesday that reviews so far have found nothing that undermines the scientific justification for the dump. ''Preliminarily, we believe there is ample corroborating data ... that validates the technical basis for the project,'' Arthur testified. Because of the criminal investigations, Hevesi, identified as the principle author of the e-mails, refused to meet with congressional staff until he was subpoenaed to appear before the panel chaired by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev. Before testifying, the thin, gray-haired scientist sat alone at the witness table with his hands clasped, occasionally shifting in his seat, as Porter read portions of e-mails Hevesi had written. Among them: ''In the end I keep track of two sets of files, the ones that will keep QA happy and the ones that were actually used.'' QA refers to quality assurance. Explaining that message, Hevesi said that the only difference between the two sets was that the set for quality assurance had a header field. ''All the numbers in those files are identical, so in essence they are identical files,'' Hevesi said. In another e-mail he wrote: ''I don't have a clue when these programs were installed. So I've made up the dates and names. ... This is as good as it's going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff.'' Hevesi said that that e-mail reflected his surprise that a few nonessential programs were being required to go through quality assurance protocols. ''I'm making an off-the-cuff remark to identify I may not know the exact date. My wording here is poor, and I should have used 'educated guess,''' Hevesi said. Hevesi and others were studying how water moved through the desert site where the dump is planned. The USGS validated Energy Department conclusions that water seepage was relatively slow, so radiation would be less likely to escape. Hevesi said he could not remember what he meant by statements in a couple e-mails. In several he had instructed the recipient to delete the message after reading it; asked Tuesday about one such admonition, he said it was a personal exchange and ''I realized that this is a not professional memo.'' He said that although he felt pressure to meet deadlines he never felt pressure from his managers to reach a specific result. ''I feel the work is sound, and I realize it doesn't seem that way with these e-mails,'' Hevesi told lawmakers. ''The e-mails I characterize, myself, as being water-cooler talk, and I would not do that again in hindsight.'' ^------ On the Net: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 46 Arizona Republic: Nuclear waste is real fear factor June 29, 2005 The nuclear power industry is successfully pulling off its sleight-of-hand diversionary trick of making us focus on the safety of nuclear power generation. That way we won't notice the real issue, the one the industry wishes would go away: nuclear waste. No one really knows what to do with all that hot stuff. No one wants it in his or her back yard. No one knows in what language to write warning signs to post around decommissioned plants so people thousands of years from now will stay away. There are plants in the Northeast that are still being used beyond their closing date because no one knows what to do with them or how to make them safe. Let's not allow the industry to take our eyes from the real issue. - David W. Polhemus, Prescott Copyright 2005, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 47 www.GovExec.com: Yucca Mountain e-mail author denies allegations (6/29/05) By Beth Dickey An author of e-mails that raised suspicions about the validity of scientific support for the nation's first nuclear waste dump said under oath Wednesday that the research is sound. Testifying under a subpoena from Congress, Joseph Hevesi denied falsifying documentation for computer models used in the late 1990s to predict water flow through Yucca Mountain, the Nevada ridge where Energy Department wants to bury 77,000 tons of spent fuel rods and other radioactive materials. The U.S. Geological Survey hydrologist said messages he wrote about Energy's quality assurance process for the research have been misinterpreted to suggest that data were faked. "The work was sound," Hevesi told members the House Government Reform Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization. He was ordered to appear in Washington after refusing to discuss the matter privately with subcommittee staff. The controversy focuses on e-mails sent by Hevesi and two other federal employees between 1998 and 2000. The messages were uncovered by contractors preparing a license application for the dump late last year and were made public in March. In a two-hour hearing Wednesday, subcommittee chairman Jon Porter, R-Nev., read excerpts from several e-mails and asked Hevesi to provide context. One message, dated March 20, 2000, discussed the installation of software being used in the Yucca evaluation. "I've made up the dates and names," Hevesi wrote. "This is as good as it's going to get. If they need more proof, I will be happy to make up more stuff." It was an "off the cuff" response to a request for quality assurance documents on software that was not essential to the modeling process, Hevesi said Thursday, apologizing for his poor choice of words. "I had a reputation for being flippant in my e-mails," he said. All the messages portray a worker who was frustrated about tight schedules, limited resources and evolving quality assurance procedures and who tended to vent his frustrations in writing. Hevesi said the controversy has taught him a lesson. "I have completely rethought how I use the whole e-mail system and how I communicate." In separate testimony, an Energy Department official noted that the e-mails in question amount to a handful among millions. W. John Arthur, deputy director of the agency's Nevada-based Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, said most quality assurance issues discussed in the e-mails were documented and corrected in mid-2000. Arthur said that although the e-mails did not suggest that any scientific measurement was falsified, the Energy Department is re-examining the data for accuracy. "Because our quality assurance requirements were not met," he said, "no matter how good Mr. Hevesi's work products and modeling may be, these products cannot be trusted today." The congressional inquiry continues in parallel with criminal investigations by the FBI and inspectors general of the Energy and Interior departments. 2005 by National Journal Group Inc. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 48 AU ABC: Commonwealth can overrule NT uranium ban - expert Australian Broadcasting Corporation Thursday, 30 June 2005. 08:39 (AEST)Thursday, 30 June 2005. A legal expert has cast doubt on the Federal Government's claims that it is powerless to overrule the Northern Territory Government's ban on uranium mining. Federal Resources Minister Ian Macfarlane told the ABC yesterday that he had no power to intervene if Clare Martin's Labor Government chose to ban uranium mines. "If they say the mine can't go ahead then we have no way of overriding that," he said. But Australian National University academic John Williams, who specialises in constitutional law, says the Minister has got it wrong. Dr Williams says the Commonwealth can enact legislation to overrule the Territory on any issue, including uranium. "In the abstract and in the theoretical I find it hard to understand where the Minister's saying the Commonwealth Parliament doesn't have the authority over the Northern Territory," he said. "The Commonwealth can limit the legislative power of the territories, as they have done with regard to say euthanasia in the Northern Territory. "So if the Commonwealth wanted to, and there's no doubt there may be other legislation, but if they wanted to they could clearly override anything that the Territory Government was to do." Meanwhile, a mining company that has just bought the rights to explore for uranium in central Australia says it will take advantage of geological surveys done by the previous owner, Tanami Gold. Subject to shareholder approval, Western Australia-based Deep Yellow will take over the rights to uranium found throughout 60,000 square kilometres around Alice Springs. Deep Yellow's director, Gary Steinepreis, says he will save years of research by inheriting Tanami Gold's geological data. Mr Steinepreis says the vast area could contain several separate deposits. "It's very positive for Deep Yellow because it's a very large land package," he said. "Tanami has been in the region for a long period of time and they have a detailed database of geological information, so for Deep Yellow it accesses land whereby we have a great database to work with and it's something that would take us years to develop in our own right. "The first goal for Deep Yellow is to review the database of information. From that point we will then find some target areas to do some initial exploration work and after the initial exploration work comes up we'd be then looking to do some drilling, so it's a long way away from taking it to any mine." Mr Steinepreis says exploratory drilling will begin this year but it will be at least five years before mining starts - notably, a time frame that falls outside the four year ban the Territory Government has put on new uranium mines. ***************************************************************** 49 AU ABC: NT accused of uranium double standard "Australian Broadcasting Corporation Friday, 1 July 2005. 08:07 (AEST)Friday, 1 July 2005. 08:07 The Northern Territory Opposition has challenged the Government to explain where it really stands on uranium mining. The Country Liberal Party's Fay Miller pointed out inconsistencies in Labor's stance on uranium in the Parliament last night. Ms Miller says she cannot understand why the Government bans uranium mining on one hand but grants exploration licences for it on the other. She says the 14 companies currently looking for uranium in the Territory are not taking the ban seriously. "Obviously the message they're getting from the Chief Minister is that maybe they can mine it, because why would she allow the exploration if you're not going to go ahead and mine it," she said. "Maybe the uranium miners that are coming to the Territory to explore for uranium are thinking that they will be outside that time limit but the Chief Minister has emphatically said that she will not allow uranium to be mined in the Northern Territory. "If that's the case, why is she still issuing licenses for exploration?" Ms Miller says Labor needs to explain why it keeps issuing licences if it does not intend to let them come to fruition. Mines Minister Kon Vatskalis was unavailable for comment. ***************************************************************** 50 WIBW: Five-State Nuclear Waste Compact Weighs Own Future A low-level radioactive waste compact is weighing its own future. The compact was formed to build a waste site for Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and Nebraska. But Nebraska denied a license for the facility and no dump was built. A judge found that then-Nebraska Governor Ben Nelson engaged in a politically motivated fight to keep the dump from being built in the state. Nebraska has lost its membership in the compact, and it has agreed to pay the compact $141 million to settle the lawsuit. The compact met in Omaha Wednesday, and members said they must find another site or disband altogether. The compact also has to decide what to do with the settlement money. A public meeting will be held in Arkansas next month to discuss the compact's future. Gray Television Group, Inc. Copyright 2002-2005 ***************************************************************** 51 Las Vegas RJ: Scientist denies falsifying Yucca Mountain data Thursday, June 30, 2005 Remarks in e-mails just `water cooler talk,' hydrologist tells Congress By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU "I have never falsified any documents regarding Yucca Mountain or any other project.'' JOSEPH HEVES GOVERNMENT HYDROLOGIST,TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS WASHINGTON -- A government scientist who wrote e-mails that ignited controversy over possible document falsification at Yucca Mountain told Congress on Wednesday that he did not alter reports or data. Joseph Hevesi, a hydrologist who wrote computer models and gathered field data on water flow at the possible nuclear waste site, said provocative comments he sent to colleagues about research and quality controls on the site were "water cooler talk" that did not affect science he conducted. Explaining one message, Hevesi said he was joking. Other e-mails, he said, were "raw emotional responses" that reflected work frustration but not malice. "I have never falsified any documents regarding Yucca Mountain or any other project," Hevesi told a House subcommittee investigating electronic messages that rocked the repository program when they were revealed in March. Hevesi's testimony failed to hand Nevada officials a smoking gun they hoped would reveal management lapses and flaws in science that they could use to sink the nuclear waste program. Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev., who organized the session as subcommittee chairman, said his panel's work was not done yet. He said some of Hevesi's answers were vague, and he planned for subcommittee staff to question the scientist further. "The fact that Mr. Hevesi denied falsifying any data does not close the door on the investigation," said Porter, whose staff has interviewed other scientists about the e-mails. Porter said he would refocus the subcommittee on the Department of Energy, which he alleged has refused, despite repeated requests, to provide him with documents concerning the e-mails and management's responses to them. John Arthur, Energy Department deputy director for Yucca Mountain, testified Wednesday and told Porter the department did not want to interfere with a separate inspector general investigation. Arthur could not say whether the department would respond to Porter's latest demand. "I think all avenues lead to the DOE," Porter said after the hearing. He said he would subpoena DOE documents if the department did not comply in the next two weeks. Hevesi's appearance and testimony under oath marked a turn in the e-mail controversy that has contributed to delays in the Yucca Mountain project. Arthur on Wednesday said again that DOE will not file a repository license until questions surrounding the messages are put to rest. Hevesi, a United States Geological Survey scientist in his mid-40s who is based in Sacramento, Calif., was subpoenaed to appear. He was questioned for about 90 minutes by Porter and a half-dozen members of the federal work force and agency organization subcommittee. He was accompanied by an attorney, Scott Treadway of Indianapolis. The witness said he had provided documents to the subcommittee through USGS but had been reluctant to appear because of a separate investigation being conducted by federal inspectors general. "I was trying to focus on one situation at a time," he said. Porter led Hevesi on a dissection of a dozen e-mail messages, part of a group written between 1998 and 2000 when the hydrologist was a USGS worker at Yucca Mountain. Other subcommittee members asked broader, and in some cases friendlier, questions. "I can only imagine what it is like being here to discuss a few e-mails out of 10 million e-mails and then be told these must be the epicenter of all that is important," Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., told Hevesi. "Do you think it is fair, considering the seriousness of the storage facility, or do you think, candidly, that we are looking for the proverbial needle in the haystack even if it is the shortest needle you ever saw?" Issa asked. Hevesi offered explanations of e-mails containing passages in which he wrote of using "fudge factors" and of keeping two sets of files: one for himself and one for quality assurance auditors. Hevesi said "fudge factor" was jargon referring to a simplified solution that served as a model placeholder until more detailed data could be inserted in its place. "Scientists use fudge factors in their work all the time," he said. On the dual files, he said one computer program he worked with could not use header information, and he had one set with identifying headers and one set without headers. Despite the difference in the header information, the data was identical on both files, he said. Hevesi said he was frustrated by quality assurance procedures, which he said in some cases were evolving as scientists were conducting their work. In one message Hevesi wrote, "Wait till they figure out that nothing I've provided them is QA. If they really want the stuff they'll have to pay to do it right." On Wednesday, he said that meant he had completed an engineering calculation before others decided it needed to be checked for quality assurance. "It was very poor wording on my part in the e-mail," Hevesi said. He said he "had a reputation for being flippant in my e-mail." Quizzed by Porter, Hevesi said he had only a vague recollection of deficiency reports concerning his work. Arthur testified later that a January 2000 audit identified deficiencies with Hevesi's adherence to quality assurance requirements, including problems with software controls and the lack of a scientific notebook. Although a DOE investigation has concluded that the e-mails do not suggest that science was falsified, Arthur said Hevesi's modeling "cannot be trusted today without reverification or replication of the specific work." Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 52 NRC: RIN 3150-AH70: Spent fuel Casts list FR Doc 05-12888 [Federal Register: June 30, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 125)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 37714-37715] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr30jn05-26] List of Approved Spent Fuel Storage Casks: VSC-24 Revision AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend its regulations revising the BNG Fuel Solutions Corporation Ventilated Storage Cask (VSC-24) System listing within the ``List of approved spent fuel storage casks'' to include Amendment No. 5 to Certificate of Compliance Number (CoC No.) 1007. Amendment No. 5 would change the certificate holder's name from Pacific Sierra Nuclear Associates to BNG Fuel Solutions Corporation. No changes were required to be made to the VSC-24 Final Safety Analysis Report nor its Technical Specifications. DATES: Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before August 1, 2005. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (RIN 3150-AH70) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on rulemakings submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address questions about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher (301) 415-5905; e-mail cag@nrc.gov. Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to: 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays (telephone (301) 415-1966). Fax comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-1101. Publicly available documents related to this rulemaking may be viewed electronically on the public computers at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O-1F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Selected documents, including comments, can be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999, are available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. An electronic copy of the proposed CoC and preliminary safety evaluation report (SER) can be found under ADAMS Accession No. ML050310446. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jayne M. McCausland, telephone (301) 415-6219, e-mail, jmm2@nrc.gov of the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information see the direct final rule published in the final rules section of this Federal Register. Procedural Background This rule is limited to the changes contained in Amendment 5 to CoC No. 1007 and does not include other aspects of the VSC-24 System. The NRC is using the ``direct final rule procedure'' to issue this amendment because it represents a limited and routine change to an existing CoC that is expected to be noncontroversial. Adequate protection of public health and safety continues to be ensured. The direct final rule will become effective on September 13, 2005. However, if the NRC receives significant adverse comments by August 1, 2005, then the NRC will publish a document that withdraws the direct final rule and will subsequently address the comments received, in a final rule. The NRC will not initiate a second comment period on this action. A significant adverse comment is a comment where the commenter explains why the rule would be inappropriate, including challenges to the rule's underlying premise or approach, or would be ineffective or unacceptable without a change. A comment is adverse and significant if: (1) The comment opposes the rule and provides a reason sufficient to require a substantive response in a notice-and-comment process. For example, in a substantive response: (a) The comment causes the NRC staff to reevaluate (or reconsider) its position or conduct additional analysis; (b) The comment raises an issue serious enough to warrant a substantive response to clarify or complete the record; or (c) The comment raises a relevant issue that was not previously addressed or considered by the NRC staff. (2) The comment proposes a change or an addition to the rule, and it is apparent that the rule would be ineffective or unacceptable without incorporation of the change or addition. (3) The comment causes the NRC staff to make a change (other than editorial) to the CoC or Technical Specifications. List of Subjects In 10 CFR Part 72 Administrative practice and procedure, Criminal penalties, Manpower training programs, Nuclear materials, Occupational safety and health, Penalties, Radiation protection, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Spent fuel, Whistleblowing. [[Page 37715]] For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 553; the NRC is proposing to adopt the following amendments to 10 CFR Part 72. PART 72--LICENSING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE INDEPENDENT STORAGE OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL, HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE, AND REACTOR- RELATED GREATER THAN CLASS C WASTE 1. The authority citation for Part 72 continues to read as follows: Authority: Secs. 51, 53, 57, 62, 63, 65, 69, 81, 161, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 68 Stat. 929, 930, 932, 933, 934, 935, 948, 953, 954, 955, as amended, sec. 234, 83 Stat. 444, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2071, 2073, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2095, 2099, 2111, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2238, 2282); sec. 274, Pub. L. 86-373, 73 Stat. 688, as amended (42 U.S.C. 2021); sec. 201, as amended, 202, 206, 88 Stat. 1242, as amended, 1244, 1246 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842, 5846); Pub. L. 95-601, sec. 10, 92 Stat. 2951 as amended by Pub. L. 102- 486, sec. 7902, 106 Stat. 3123 (42 U.S.C. 5851); sec. 102, Pub. L. 91-190, 83 Stat. 853 (42 U.S.C. 4332); secs. 131, 132, 133, 135, 137, 141, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2229, 2230, 2232, 2241, sec. 148, Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10151, 10152, 10153, 10155, 10157, 10161, 10168); sec. 1704, 112 Stat. 2750 (44 U.S.C. 3504 note). Section 72.44(g) also issued under secs. 142(b) and 148(c), (d), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-232, 1330-236 (42 U.S.C. 10162(b), 10168(c), (d)). Section 72.46 also issued under sec. 189, 68 Stat. 955 (42 U.S.C. 2239); sec. 134, Pub. L. 97-425, 96 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10154). Section 72.96(d) also issued under sec. 145(g), Pub. L. 100-203, 101 Stat. 1330-235 (42 U.S.C. 10165(g)). Subpart J also issued under secs. 2(2), 2(15), 2(19), 117(a), 141(h), Pub. L. 97- 425, 96 Stat. 2202, 2203, 2204, 2222, 2244 (42 U.S.C. 10101, 10137(a), 10161(h)). Subparts K and L are also issued under sec. 133, 98 Stat. 2230 (42 U.S.C. 10153) and sec. 218(a), 96 Stat. 2252 (42 U.S.C. 10198). 2. In Sec. 72.214, Certificate of Compliance 1007 is revised to read as follows: Sec. 72.214 List of approved spent fuel storage casks. * * * * * Certificate Number: 1007. Initial Certificate Effective Date: May 7, 1993. Amendment Number 1 Effective Date: May 30, 2000. Amendment Number 2 Effective Date: September 5, 2000. Amendment Number 3 Effective Date: May 21, 2001. Amendment Number 4 Effective Date: February 3, 2003. Amendment Number 5 Effective Date: September 13, 2005. SAR Submitted by: BNG Fuel Solutions Corporation. SAR Title: Final Safety Analysis Report for the Ventilated Storage Cask System. Docket Number: 72-1007. Certificate Expiration Date: May 7, 2013. Model Number: VSC-24 * * * * * Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of June, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Luis A. Reyes, Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. 05-12888 Filed 6-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 53 Irish Times: Sellafield leak went undetected for nine months July 01, 2005 An internal report into a major leak at the British Nuclear Fuels Limited plant in Sellafield has raised major concerns about the operation of the facility after it found evidence that staff had failed to identify the rupture for nine months. The report on the Thorp nuclear reprocessing facility found there was an "operational complacency" among staff who believed that major leaks at the plant were impossible because of its design, despite previous evidence to the contrary. The report by a board of inquiry found that checks continuously failed to identify the leak in the plant in Cumbria on the north west coast of England which began last July but which was not found until this April. It led to 83,000 litres of radioactive material, containing 20 tonnes of uranium and plutonium, spilling into a concrete containment tank. Staff initially dismissed evidence of a major leak as a calculation error because the volumes involved were so large, according to the report. It also said the company failed to carry out a detailed inspection of the pipework and containment tanks for a month after staff had evidence there was a major leak. The seriousness of the incident was not notified to international authorities until the second week in May, even though the latest report indicates that Thorp staff were aware of the volumes of radioactive waste involved from April 18th. As the leak was contained, it posed no current safety threat to the general public in Ireland or Britain. Minister for the Environment Dick Roche has sought an urgent meeting with representatives of the British government on foot of the report and has raised questions as to why the Irish Government was not informed about the seriousness of the leak from the outset. He accused BNFL, the main operator of Sellafield, of "gross incompetence at best, concealment of the facts at worst". The Government was informed of the leak on April 22nd, according to a new information-sharing agreement with the British government, but Irish officials say they were not made aware of the seriousness of the incident until May. Mr Roche said the report provided "ample evidence that the safety culture and practices at Sellafield do not measure up to the assurances provided by the UK government in relation to the safety operation of the plant". According to the board of inquiry report, the rupture of the pipe was caused by a design fault which meant it could not withstand the shaking motion of tanks or cells linked to the pipes. The report found there was evidence of a leak dating back to July in relation to the potential leak, and further evidence that it became extremely serious on January 15th, although the evidence, from volume discrepancies, would not have given rise to serious concerns. However, there were samples carried out on the cells which indicated the presence of radioactive waste in November 2004 and February 2005, but these failed to be acted on. In March calculations were carried out which indicated a major leak, but these were dismissed for a number of days because staff believed they were calculation errors. It took three weeks for staff to confirm the figures were correct and then there was a further delay of a week before they carried out a camera inspection of the tanks to confirm there had been a major leak, because it was not deemed by staff to be a priority. The report, which has made 16 safety recommendations, found that there had been "universal incredulity" among staff that there could have been a major leak. Mr Roche said last night: "After the last incident, I compared the managerial skills of those who run Sellafield to those of Homer Simpson. Well maybe I was doing Homer a disservice; on this occasion I would like to know who are the Mr Burns and Smithers of this operation," he said. The Irish Times An internal report into a major leak at the British Nuclear Fuels Limited plant in Sellafield has raised major concerns about the operation of the facility after it found evidence that staff had failed to identify the rupture for nine months." back to top [Back to Top] © 2005 ireland.com About Us | Privacy Policy | ***************************************************************** 54 Lincoln Journal Star: Utilities, Butte want slice of nuclear waste settlement By ALGIS J. LAUKAITIS / Lincoln Journal Star OMAHA A compact commission has received more than $100 million in claims while it waits for the state of Nebraska to pay a court settlement over the failed siting of a proposed low-level radioactive waste storehouse in Boyd County. A farmer expresses his opinion of the proposed Boyd County nuclear waste facility via a sign along Highway 12 between Butte and Naper in this May 23, 2002 file photo. (LJS file) Nuclear utilities in Arkansas, Louisiana, Kansas and Nebraska are asking for $88.5 million; developer US Ecology wants about $11 million; and the village of Butte is asking for about $4 million. Butte Mayor Cindy Schroetlin told that commission at its annual meeting Wednesday in Omaha the village deserves that amount and "possibly more" because residents have paid a high price, in terms of money and emotion, during the long siting process. "Because of our support for the waste site, the businesses of Butte have suffered financially through boycotts spanning over 15 years," she said. Schroetlin said the village made about $2.7 million in improvements to its water system in anticipation of the storehouse being built and people moving into the area. Now, it is struggling to operate the water system and make an annual bond payment of about $35,000. The mayor also said the village needs help paying for improvements in its wastewater treatment plant, which could cost between $260,000 and $600,000. "I'm not here to ask for money and spend it foolishly," Schroetlin told commissioners. "We have specific needs and need to meet our financial obligations." Ken Reiser, a longtime supporter of the project, urged the commission to give some of the settlement money to the village of Butte, the local education fund, the Niobrara Valley Hospital Foundation and the Butte Community Historic Center. The commission, made up of Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma, is expecting $142 million from Nebraska Aug. 1. The state was ordered to pay a $151 million judgment after U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf found former Gov. Ben Nelson acted in "bad faith" and blocked efforts to build the nuclear waste site. Nebraska negotiated a settlement and reduced the amount to $142 million. Nebraska is no longer a member of the compact, but it has been helping the commission find another location for a storehouse. Commission chairwoman Laura Gilson, who represents Arkansas, said the commission is negotiating with the owners of the Envirocare nuclear waste disposal facility near Clive, Utah, and the state of Texas, where a Dallas company, Waste Control Specialists, has applied for a license to build a storehouse in Andrews County. Commissioners went into executive session to discuss the negotiations and also the legal validity of the claims. No decision was reached. Instead, the commission decided to hold a special meeting July 14-15 in Little Rock, Ark., to discuss the future of the compact while it waits for the money. "We need a road map for next year or the next 10 years," Gilson said. To help them, the commission voted to negotiate a contract with James O'Connell, who once served as a commissioner from Kansas. Gilson said O'Connell has the expertise and is willing to take on the job for up to six months. Commissioners also heard presentations from two financial consultants Gregory W. Group of Tulsa, Okla., and Consulting Service Group of Memphis, Tenn. who want to advise the commission on how to invest its money. Reach Algis J. Laukaitis at 473-7243 or alaukaitis@journalstar.c om. Who wants the nuclear waste money? The Central Interstate Low-Level Radioactive Waste Commission expects to receive $142 million Aug. 1 from the state of Nebraska. The state owes the commission the money because it lost a lawsuit over the failed siting of a proposed nuclear waste storehouse in Boyd County. Most of the money spent on the project came from nuclear utilities in the compact region. Here is a breakdown of the $88.5 million in claims submitted by the nuclear utilities and the share they want: * Entergy Arkansas Inc., 20.48 percent, or $18,124,800 * Entergy Gulf States Inc., 17.22 percent, or $15,239,700 * Entergy Louisiana Inc., 16.01 percent, or $14,168,850 * Omaha Public Power District, 13.55 percent, or $11,991,750 * Wolf Creek Nuclear Operating Corp., 16.23 percent, or $14,363,550 * Nebraska Public Power District, 16.51 percent, or $14,611,350 Other claims * US Ecology, about $11 million * Village of Butte, about $4 million Copyright 2005, Lincoln Journal Star. All rights reserved. This content may not be archived or used for commercial purposes without written permission from the Lincoln Journal Star. 926 P Street Lincoln NE 68508 402 475-4200 ***************************************************************** 55 Pahrump Valley Times: Congress moving to limit DOE controls on repository funding June 29, 2005 By STEVE TETREAULT PVT WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON - Congress is moving to limit the Energy Department's controls on millions of dollars the government sends to Nevada counties each year to monitor Yucca Mountain. County officials no longer would be required to submit work plans for DOE review and approval before receiving their annual funding, under a Senate bill set for a vote his summer. 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 over 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 as troubling to some others. Nye County Commission Chairwoman Candice Trummell said the reviews could 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 that 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 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 will probably oppose DOE at repository hearings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, according to the Senate legislation. The measure calls for DOE to adopt a 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 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 be given 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, lawsuits or to seek allies against the project but they can use the money to participate in upcoming license hearings. Trummell 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." For comment or questions, please e-mail webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2005 ***************************************************************** 56 Tri-State Media: Space weapons are truly a bad idea Warricknews - Posted: Thursday, Jun 30, 2005 - 02:40:10 pm EST By Karl Grossman-Minuteman Media The White House is expected in coming weeks to declare space a new arena of war. It is anticipated that the Bush administration will give the go-ahead to long-developing strategy to--as U.S. military plans explicitly state--"control" the "ultimate high ground" of space and from it "dominate" the planet below. Indeed, after expending billions of dollars in preparation--especially for the Star Wars program of the Reagan era--the United States has the technology to move into space with weapons. But that the United States will end up as the only nation up there is a huge miscalculation. A tragic mistake is in the making that will lead to an arms race in space and no nation having any advantage. The United States can be first to deploy weapons in space, but then, in response, China and Russia--and who knows what other nation next will be up there, too. Vast amounts of financial resources will have to be expended by the citizens of all these countries--money desperately needed for medical care, education, the environment and all the other great wants on Earth. And, it will divert resources from the war on terrorism. Just a few decades ago, the United States joined with the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union to prevent the weaponization of space. The three nations put together a visionary document: the Outer Space Treaty, enacted in 1967 and now ratified by most of the nations on Earth. "Inspired by the great prospects opening up before mankind" as a result of the "entry into outer space, recognizing the common interest of all mankind in the progress of the exploration and use of space for peaceful purposes," it prohibits the placement of "nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction" in space. In recent years, our neighbor, Canada, has led--along with Russia and China--efforts to broaden the treaty and ban all weapons in space. The United States has opposed this and would now break the Outer Space Treaty by deploying weapons of mass destruction. One U.S. program, nicknamed "Rods From God," would hurl cylinders of tungsten, titanium or uranium at targets on Earth each striking with the force of a "small" nuclear weapon. That's a weapon of mass destruction. And to other nations responding and meeting us in kind in space, a high U.S. diplomat told me as he prepared to vote at the United Nations against a resolution barring all space weapons, U.S. military analyses have determined China is "30 years behind" in competing with the U.S. militarily in space, and Russia "doesn't have the money." I recounted travels in China, observing its technological strength, noted its space prowess, and pointed to the enormous space capabilities of Russia. A big error is being made, I said. He disagreed. In recent weeks, there have been declarations that China and Russia would counter with force if the United States moves to weaponize space. If "we find ourselves in a situation where we need to react, of course we will do it," said a Russian official. Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons &Nuclear Power in Space, says the proposed new Bush National Space Policy Directive must be "met with a resounding chorus that says we will not allow this plan for space warfare to go forward." People must demand warfare not be allowed to extend to the heavens. ----- Karl Grossman is a professor of journalism at the State University of New York/College at Old Westbury. Copyright 2005 Tri-State Media. All Rights Reserved. Princeton Daily Clarion | Daily Republican Register | Boonville Standard/Newburgh Chandler Register ***************************************************************** 57 Asia Times: Alternative nuclear tack for Japan By Anthony DiFilippo (Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus) Deterring attack is usually cited as the main motivation for states to keep or acquire nuclear weapons. Yet today's nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) stalemate involves both security and economic concerns. Nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states alike have associated nuclear-energy-generating capabilities with economic growth. By far the biggest problem that the NPT faces is that nations have come to see and use it as a self-serving accord. The NPT is also hampered by two other problems: the nuclear states' studied neglect of the treaty's obligations on them to disarm, and the substitution, especially since September 11, of counter-proliferation for non-proliferation. In addition to being accusatory and demanding, too often in a unilateral way, the trouble with pursuing a counter-proliferation policy is that it invites serious challenges to the NPT regime. By casting some countries as rogues while ignoring the behavior or weapons stockpiles of friends, a counter-proliferation policy provokes a confrontational environment that highlights differences and minimizes the prospects for prompt resolution. Breaking the stalemate There are several things that the international community can do to strengthen and universalize the NPT. Without amending and reinforcing the NPT, nations will continue to use the accord to serve their national interests, thus sustaining the stalemate. Article X, which gives countries the right to withdraw from the NPT, needs to be amended to make it extremely difficult, if not impossible, for any country to retract its commitment to the accord. This "divorce clause" threatens and undermines the disarmament and non-proliferation objectives of the NPT. Universal participation in the NPT needs to be encouraged and ultimately mandated. Any country that refuses to become a party to the NPT should be regularly informed of the expectation to explain to the United Nations General Assembly its reasons for not acceding to the accord. A majority vote by the General Assembly will determine if a country's reasons are valid. Invalid reasons will automatically cause the matter to be taken up by the Security Council, which will immediately issue a formal request for the country to accept the accord. After a specified period, any nation that continues to resist becoming a party to the NPT should face sanctions imposed by the Security Council, which should also work to coordinate the international efforts of other multilateral organizations to gain a country's acceptance of the accord. Complete acceptance of and compliance with the Additional Protocol, which allows for short-notice and comprehensive inspection of countries' nuclear facilities, needs to exist. This will go a long way to ensuring that countries are not clandestinely using their nuclear programs to build nuclear weapons. Article VI, which obligates the nuclear powers to disarm, needs to be given momentum so that it can be implemented, as intended by the NPT. Since 1970, the nuclear powers have shunned the responsibility of eliminating their nuclear weapons. What is more, at least three other nuclear-weapons countries have not even confronted this responsibility, since they remain outside of the NPT. Giving momentum to article VI will require the committed involvement of the international community. Considerably more pressure must be brought to bear on the nuclear-weapons powers, given their sustained reluctance to part with their arms. An amendment to the NPT needs to require that all nuclear-weapons countries biannually report to the UN General Assembly the status of their disarmament efforts. When progress has not been made, a specific and unequivocal explanation should be required so that the General Assembly can offer suggestions and direction to realize disarmament. Ideally, this amendment should include a target date of 10 to 15 years for the nuclear weapons states to have eliminated all of their nuclear weapons. More countries need to become associated with the New Agenda Coalition (NAC). Currently comprised of only seven countries, Brazil, New Zealand, Egypt, Ireland, Mexico, South Africa and Sweden, NAC, which has worked to expedite nuclear disarmament since India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests in 1998, has been insisting that the nuclear weapons states have not fulfilled their obligation to eliminate their arms. The more countries that join NAC, the more international pressure will be directed at the nuclear weapons states to conform with their obligation to abolish their nuclear arms. Japan's contribution to the NPT regime One of these countries should definitely be Japan. A Japan outside of NAC is an anomaly. Tokyo's refusal to join NAC since its inception centers on its inherently contradictory position toward nuclear disarmament: seeking the abolition of nuclear weapons while refusing to relinquish Japan's perceived security under the US nuclear umbrella, and opposing a nuclear free zone for northeast Asia. The continued existence of this contradiction in Japanese policy has caused Tokyo to accept a gradualist path to nuclear disarmament, much preferred by the US and the other nuclear weapons countries than the more expeditious course advocated by NAC. The gradualist position is fully consistent with virtually all politicians' views that nuclear weapons should be abolished - some day. Tokyo cannot continue to accommodate the nuclear-weapons states if it is genuinely committed to nuclear disarmament. By joining NAC, Japan will not only be creating more pressure on the nuclear-weapons states to abolish their arsenals, but it will also be sending a much stronger signal to the international community that it is ready to accept the moral authority to help direct the world toward disarmament. Tokyo understands the importance of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) to the NPT regime. Indeed, Tokyo's continued commitment to the CTBT, despite Washington's aversion of the accord, is commendable. However, Tokyo needs to reintroduce a specific time for the CTBT to come into force, similar to what appeared only in Japan's 2000 nuclear disarmament resolution to the General Assembly, which called for the accord to come into effect before 2003. Although Tokyo has been a reasonably strong advocate of the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty, here, too, it must overcome its reluctance to push harder for this accord because of balking by Washington, precipitated by a disagreement with Beijing on missile defense. Tokyo's overriding concern with strengthening the US-Japanese security alliance and maintaining the American nuclear umbrella afforded to Japan has caused it to abandon its efforts to normalize bilateral relations with North Korea. Moving away from supporting Washington's hardline position toward Pyongyang and working just as hard to normalize relations with North Korea is the best way for Tokyo to ensure Japan's security. Had Pyongyang believed that Tokyo was fully committed to rapprochement and to nuclear disarmament during the North Korean nuclear crisis that emerged in October 2002, this would have assuaged regional tensions and distrust and helped with negotiating a resolution, perhaps before North Korea announced its objective of increasing its nuclear deterrent force. Tokyo has long assumed that its position under the US nuclear umbrella is central to Japan's security. However, the extension of the US nuclear umbrella to Japan offers far less security than the assurance of non-proliferation and the abolition of nuclear weapons. If North Korea does possess nuclear weapons and if it makes the wrong choice of proving this by conducting a nuclear test, Tokyo should look critically at whether being under the US nuclear umbrella with a regional arms race perhaps imminent is better for Japan's security than a denuclearized Korean peninsula and normalized relations with Pyongyang. The best way to reduce threats to Japan's security is not to be seen as a threat. Tokyo's insistence to strengthen its military alliance with the US and its determination to seek a "normal country" status for Japan rather than work unreservedly to promote nuclear disarmament has meant that it has compromised the widespread Japanese sentiment supporting the abolition of nuclear weapons. By following Washington down the counterproliferation trail, Tokyo has moved off of its self-identified path of nuclear disarmament and, like the nuclear powers, has accepted the justification that nuclear weapons exist to deter potential adversaries. While Tokyo has stressed the importance of universalizing the Additional Protocol, it has not done much to persuade and push the nuclear powers to comply with the NPT's article VI. Nor has it promoted other substantive ways to fortify the weakened NPT. If Tokyo really believes that nuclear weapons need to be abolished, then it must begin to show its leadership skills by seriously seeking creative ways to improve and strengthen the NPT. Anthony DiFilippo is professor of Sociology at Lincoln University in Pennsylvania, US. His most recent book is The Challenges of the US-Japan Military Arrangement: Competing Security Transitions in a Changing International Environment, M E Sharpe, 2002. (Posted with permission from Foreign Policy in Focus) Hau Fook Mansion, No. 8 Hau Fook St., Kowloon, Hong Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110 ***************************************************************** 58 lamonitor.com: State pushes lab on water cleanup The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, , Monitor Assistant Editor Water from a municipal water well in the Mortandad Canyon may become affected by contamination from Los Alamos National Laboratory, identified in a nearby test well. A statement Wednesday by the New Mexico Environment Department said the finding, "although not currently a health concern, provides further evidence of LANL's impact on the deep ground water supplies that the lab and nearby communities rely on for drinking water." A companion report released Wednesday by the NMED's Department of Energy Oversight Bureau said no contamination has been found in the production wells that provide drinking water to Los Alamos County. But the state's analysts warned of rising levels of contaminants in a nearby test well and said the finding was "additional evidence that links contamination in the regional aquifer to a receptor pathway" - the drinking water supply well. "We do not want these findings to unduly alarm citizens in Los Alamos and White Rock," said NMED Secretary Ron Curry in the statement. "Their drinking water is tested and safe." That assurance was confirmed by Tim Glasco, the county water manager, in a phone call today. "The test well is just that, a test well," he said. "We do not get drinking water from it." He emphasized that the county's tests come from the actual supply wells themselves and that the water has been tested and found uncontaminated within the last three months. The NMED report cites data from the well known as R-15, located two miles downstream from the TA-50 radioactive liquid waste treatment facility outfall, in an area known to have absorbed a number of contaminants over a long history. Contaminants that have been documented include perchlorate and tritium. Perchlorate is a chlorine-based compound associated with explosives and industrial processes, for which EPA has yet to establish safe levels. Tritium is a radioactive substance with a 12-year half-life, making it a good indicator of a relatively recent migration. "We've published groundwater and testing data before on this well and we provided these results at public meetings, in fact just one in April that discussed pumping influences on the aquifer," said Kathy DeLucas, of the Los Alamos Public Affairs Office. The NMED announcement interprets the report as suggesting that the drinking water wells may be "potentially capturing contamination already present in the regional drinking-water aquifer." George Rice, a hydrologist and consultant from Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, a Santa Fe public interest group said, "The state is saying the R-15 well is contaminated and the pumping from water wells may be drawing contaminants toward them." Jon Goldstein, NMED information director, said, "The information would indicate that it's only a matter of time." DeLucas said, "We don't have enough data yet. R-15 is a young well." The contaminant samples do show a 30-fold increase in tritium and a three-fold increase in perchlorate over a period of 30 months. But there are only a few data points to go by so far, dating from 2001 and 2003, with nothing in 2002 because the R-15 pump was broken for more than a year. Neglect of a critical set of measurement is why the consent order prescribing environmental monitoring and cleanup procedures at the laboratory are important, Goldstein said, adding that more data points would be forthcoming under the order. "For us, its kind of old news; not anything we didn't already know," said Glasco. "We are very vigilant on the part of our customers. We do pay attention." 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 59 lamonitor.com: Lab bestows the gold ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor Los Alamos National Laboratory awarded its highest honor to two exemplary scientists Monday. LANL Interim Director Robert Kuckuck presented Los Alamos Gold Medals for 2004 to Frank Harlow, a theoretical physicist, and Conrad Longmire, a nuclear weapons designer during an afternoon ceremony at the Oppenheimer Study Center. Friends, family, colleagues and admirers joined in the tribute to the two men. Kuckuck recalled that when he first became involved with nuclear weapons at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in 1973, the two honorees were already legends. "If someone would have told me at that time that the end of my career they'd find me standing as director of Los Alamos, handing out Los Alamos gold medals to these two gentlemen, I could not have believed it," he said. Harlow has demonstrated a remarkably versatile intellectual career, as theoretician, paleontologist, Pueblo-style pottery authority and collector, and fine artist, said Duane Anderson, former director of the Museum of Indian Art and Culture in Santa Fe. At the laboratory, Harlow invented the science of computational fluid dynamics, studying the elusive patterns of turbulence in flowing, bubbling and exploding systems. Out of this came an influential wave of computational problem-solving techniques, including the Particle-in-Cell method for visualizing dynamic processes in two dimensions. He was in the initial cohort of Laboratory Fellows, set up in 1981. He was the first employee to work at the laboratory for 50 years. He gave the first lecture in the Heritage series, during the lab's 60th anniversary celebrations. "He was the one who thought differently about how you do things," said Sam Butler, who was recruited by Harlow and came after him as group leader of the Computational Fluid Dynamics (T-3). Harlow was also a gifted mentor and teacher, who coaxed and nurtured more than 150 students and 15 doctoral candidates during his career, Butler said. Longmire worked in the Theoretical Division from 1949 to 1969, in highly classified research. He was one of the first to calculate the explosive yield of a nuclear weapon before the computer age. He is still a Laboratory associate. "He stood at the blackboard when T-Division still had blackboards," said John Hopkins, former associate laboratory director for nuclear weapons. Longmire literally wrote the book on "Elementary Plasma Physics," one of the earliest textbooks on the subject. His remarks and those of colleague, Michael Bernardin, were written in advance for the uncleared audience, Bernardin said, in order not to breach the line, in terms of the sensitive information. Bernardin noted the lasting significance of Longmire's recognition of a dangerous after-shock of nuclear explosions, known as the electromagnetic pulse. EMP studies and defense against a hypothetical "E-bomb" have become ever more critical, he said, in the age of asymmetrical warfare. "Dr. Longmire originated a field of research, produced its founding theories and models and developed state-of-the art simulation tools predicting solution," said Bernardin. "Any one of these accomplishments that we've gone over here individually would have been recognized as outstanding achievements. Dr. Longmire accomplished all of these and is truly a legend in his lifetime. Both recipients acknowledged their colleagues for their contributions and families for their support. Harlow and Longmire bring the total of recipients of the Los Alamos Gold Medal to seven, since the award began. "Harlow is one of the nicest gentlemen I have ever known," said Louis Rosen, an experimental scientist and meson pioneer, who was one of the two winners of the 2002 prize, "I don't think he has an enemy in the world." "I knew Conrad very well," said George Cowan, a nuclear chemist, who helped found Los Alamos National Bank and Santa Fe Institute, also honored for 2002. "He was involved in almost everything that was important." Hans Bethe, the brilliant Manhattan Project theoretician who died in March, and Harold Agnew, a former laboratory director, won awards for 2001. "Krik" Krikorian, a chemist, who took on many roles after he came to Los Alamos, and contributed to building a new relationship with Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union, was honored for 2003. The criteria for awarding the medal, which may go to an individual or small group, includes a contribution that changed the course of science, a major enhancement of the laboratory's ability to accomplish its mission, a significant impact on laboratory sustainability and establishment of a major direction for the laboratory or nation. 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 60 csmonitor.com: Los Alamos to Kyoto's rescue | Commentary > Opinion from the June 30, 2005 edition By Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin WASHINGTON  Sixty years ago, J. Robert Oppenheimer, the World War II director of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, proved that there are some things that government-university partnerships can do better than any private-sector entity. In just 27 months - from April 1943 to August 1945 - Oppenheimer and his team of scientists produced a combat-ready atomic bomb. The military head of the Manhattan Project, Gen. Leslie Groves had awarded the contract for the new laboratory to the University of California because he understood that no private corporation was capable of attracting the talented scientists needed to meet this challenge. Important lessons for our national security are implicit in this history, lessons the Bush administration ignores as it prepares to turn over much of the management of the Los Alamos lab to a private defense contractor. Everything we know about the Manhattan Project and the subsequent history of the lab suggests that this is a mistake and a lost opportunity. Most people still think of Los Alamos as strictly a weapons lab. But since the end of the Cold War many of the lab's scientists have been doing research on fuel cells, solar energy, fusion, and other cutting-edge technologies. It is not an exaggeration to say that the viability of our nation's economic and environmental future depends on achieving breakthroughs in these fields. This is not work that can be done most effectively by a defense contractor. History suggests that only the government can marshal the commitment of will and resources necessary to effectively combat global warming. Only the government can inspire scientists with a sense that this is a national mission. And only a great university can create a research atmosphere that will attract the talented scientists needed to get the job done. Nevertheless, the Bush administration has decreed that the University of California must partner with a defense contractor if it is to bid to manage Los Alamos. UC, partnered with Bechtel, BWX Technologies, and the Washington Group, will compete against the University of Texas, which has paired with defense contractor Lockheed Martin. The administration will award the contract in December. Astonishingly, the government's bidding criteria amount to a corporate giveaway. You'd think this administration would assume the private sector could run this lab more efficiently and for less money than a nonprofit academic institution. Not so. The UC administrators have been operating the $2.1 billion lab for $8.7 million in management fees. By next year, according to the terms of the Bush administration bidding criteria, this yearly management fee will escalate to between $63 million and $79 million. All of this smacks of another corporate boondoggle. Worse, it probably will destroy an institution that has the potential to extricate us from our growing environmental quagmire. To ensure that Los Alamos work continues at the highest level, the facility should be divided into two separate entities: a weapons laboratory run by a defense contractor and an unclassified environmental research complex managed by a university. "Let's give it back to the Indians," Oppenheimer purportedly said of Los Alamos soon after the atomic bombing of Hiroshima. Unlike some of his colleagues, Oppenheimer never worked on atomic weapons again. Instead, he spent the rest of his career as the director of the Institute for Advanced Study. Over the years, its scholars have given us important theoretical insights that led to innovations including the first real computer. Oppenheimer understood how to encourage scientists to do their best work, and he would be appalled by the Bush administration's plans. It is time to change Los Alamos's mission. Give the defense contractors the job of dealing with our arsenal of nuclear weapons. But let's invest in a new Manhattan Project committed to winning the race against pollution in the 21st century. Otherwise, perhaps we really should "give it back to the Indians." " Kai Bird and Martin J. Sherwin are coauthors of "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer." 2005 Los Angeles Times. www.csmonitor.com | Copyright 2005 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************