*****************************************************************
07/21/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.167
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 IRNA: Nuclear states have not right to deprive others of civilian us
2 Korea Times: Interdependency of Energy Is Key to NK Deal
3 Korea Times: Electricity Aid to NK Raises Security Concern
4 US: Reminder: July 25 National Senate Call-in Day
5 [progchat_action] US Shifting Nuclear Stand With India
6 Hiroshima bomb was meant to kick-start the Cold War
7 [NYTr] USA Playing India against China, Pakistan
8 Las Vegas SUN: China Affirms 'No First Use' Nuke Policy
9 The Times of India: A nuclear India is born-
10 Taipei Times: Editorial: Pentagon's warning no surprise
11 Taipei Times: Beijing is ready to use its nuclear weapons
12 RIA Novosti: American senators impose restrictions on aid for Russia
13 Korea Times: US-India Nuclear Deal
14 NZ Scoop: Satellite Verifys Peaceful Use Of Nuclear Material
NUCLEAR REACTORS
15 US: Alliance invited to address aging nukes before state agency
16 AU ABC: Vic Govt speaks out against nuclear power
17 US: Hudson Valley News: Diana is displeased with failed Indian Point
18 US: NRC: In the Matter of Richard M. Probasco; Confirmatory Order
19 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for th
20 US: NRC: Union Electric Company; Notice of Withdrawal of Application
21 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Davis-Besse Nuclear
22 US: NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Biweekly Notice;
NUCLEAR SECURITY
23 US: AP Wire: Radiation cargo-scanning devices installed at ports of
24 US: Sun Herald: Radioactive material found at demolition site
25 US: NRC: NRC Proposes National Tracking System for Certain Radioacti
26 Interfax: Radioactive materials customs center opens in Moscow
27 US: CBS 3: Laboratory Misplaces Small Amount of Uranium
28 US: NEPA News: Nuclear regulator criticizes Teaneck lab that lost ur
29 US: The Courier: Nuclear safety priorities topic of meeting
30 MosNews: Russia, U.S. Open Anti-Nuclear Trafficking Center
NUCLEAR SAFETY
31 US: [shundahaialert] Bad news fo fallout victims, RECA cuts, and
32 US: [NL CBW] NS: Details of US microwave-weapon tests revealed
33 US: [du-list] [Fwd: MemHole > Chemical Corps report from 1953]
34 [NL CBW] ADS
35 US: NRC: RC to Meet July 27 with South Bend, Ind., Hospital to Discu
36 US: Albuquerque Tribune: Scientist will discuss depleted uranium ris
37 EurekAlert!: Nuclear weapons continue to pose a serious health risk
38 US: Sandia National Labs: Sandia completes depleted uranium study
39 US: EurekAlert: Sandia completes depleted uranium study
40 US: NRC: In the Matter of J. L. Shepherd & Associates; San Fernando,
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
41 US: deseret news: Bennett prevails on N-waste wording
42 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Another official to leave project
43 Las Vegas SUN: Deadline on Yucca documents is Friday
44 US: Montclair Times Community: EPA summing up decades of work at Sup
45 KVBC: Are There Alternatives To The Yucca Mountain Project?
46 Business Gazette: NUCLEAR CHIEFS INUNDATED WITH MORE THAN 1,000 JOB
47 Business Gazette: SELLAFIELD TEAM LEADS WORLD IN NUCLEAR CLEANING-UP
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
48 [NukeNet] Anti-nuke groups submit LANL bid
49 SF Chronicle: LIVERMORE / Lab officials say fire posed no toxic thre
50 Daily Texan - Opinion: Deconstructing Los Alamos -
51 lamonitor.com: Panel warms to lab director
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 IRNA: Nuclear states have not right to deprive others of civilian use
of nuclear energy, Ahmadinejad - Irna
Tehran, July 21, IRNA
Iran-President Elect-Nuclear Energy
President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday that the
nuclear states have not the right to deprive developing nations
of civilian application of nuclear energy.
He made the statement in his first public speech at premises of
holy shrine of Imam Reza (AS) in Mashhad.
"The developing nations are entitled to use nuclear energy for
civilian utility in line with international conventions," he
said.
"The world will not accept double standard from nuclear states,"
he said.
*****************************************************************
2 Korea Times: Interdependency of Energy Is Key to NK Deal
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times
This is the second installment in a series of articles
evaluating South Korea¡¯s offer to supply electricity to North
Korea as part of a deal to end the ongoing nuclear standoff. _
ED.
By Reuben Staines
Staff Reporter
North Korea will resist becoming dependent on South Korea for
electricity unless Seoul is also prepared to accept a companion
proposal that would put part of its own energy supply under
Pyongyang¡¯s control, according to a prominent U.S. expert.
Selig Harrison, director of the Asia program at the
Washington-based Center for International Policy, said it is
doubtful that North Korea will accept the South¡¯s offer of two
million kilowatts of electricity when the six-party nuclear
talks resume Tuesday.
``Seoul¡¯s proposal makes North Korea dependent on South
Korea,¡¯¡¯ he told The Korea Times in a telephone interview.
``The only way it could fly is if it is part of a larger energy
cooperation deal that would involve more interdependence.¡¯¡¯
Harrison said one such solution is a previously considered
pipeline project to pump Russian gas through communist North
Korea to the South.
Together, the gas pipeline heading to the South and the
electricity cables to the North would force the two Koreas to
trust each other and would promote stability, he argued.
``This would be a very desirable way to go,¡¯¡¯ said Harrison,
who has made frequent visits to the North to discuss the nuclear
issue with Pyongyang officials, most recently in April.
During former President Kim Dae-jung¡¯s administration, South
Korea considered routing a natural gas line from Siberia through
North Korea, but President Roh Moo-hyun¡¯s government has
favored a project bypassing Pyongyang.
North Korea has expressed keen interest in a pipeline that would
bring gas from Sakhalin in the Russian Far East, said Harrison,
who has been studying the energy proposals over several years.
Under his plan, the North would get pipeline royalties and be
able to tap into the pipeline for gas.
Harrison is not the only expert to question whether North Korea,
given its staunch policy of ``Juche,¡¯¡¯ or self-reliance, will
accept having Seoul¡¯s finger on a switch controlling roughly
half its total energy supply.
But the South Korean government has sought to play down these
concerns, pledging that Seoul would never use the energy as
leverage against Pyongyang. Unification Minister Chung
Dong-young, who made public the much-vaunted electricity
proposal last week, has said the electricity supply would be
controlled by all participants in the six-party talks, not just
South Korea.
Author of ``Korean Endgame: A Strategy for Reunification and US
Disengagement,¡¯¡¯ Harrison believes South Korea¡¯s energy
proposal should be treated as a starting point.
``It¡¯s an attempt to break the ice by offering something that
in itself is not entirely repugnant to the U.S.,¡¯¡¯ he said.
``I¡¯m sure the South Korean leaders realize that North Korea is
not likely to grab this right away.¡¯¡¯
He said South Korea¡¯s promise to begin construction of the
electricity transmission infrastructure immediately after the
North agrees to denuclearize _ rather than after the disarmament
is verified _ will be viewed as an important concession by
Pyongyang.
``I don¡¯t expect any major deal at this next round of six-party
talks, but I don¡¯t expect a complete train wreck either,¡¯¡¯ he
said.
North Korea might agree to hold ongoing working group
discussions on South Korea¡¯s energy proposal, he predicted.
But even if a satisfactory energy compensation deal were
reached, Harrison said, North Korea will still want to see some
conciliatory gestures from the U.S., such as agreeing to
normalize relations. This is unlikely under the administration
of President George W. Bush, he said.
There is a slim chance, however, that North Korea¡¯s recent
actions to press ahead with its nuclear programs will spur the
U.S. to soften its stance and cut a deal, said Harrison, who in
1972 became one of the first Americans to visit North Korea.
A Japanese media report late last month said Pyongyang has
restarted work on building two large nuclear reactors that were
frozen under a 1994 deal to end the first nuclear crisis.
``Some people in the U.S. government are quite concerned about
this, so maybe they will be ready to be more flexible,¡¯¡¯ he
said.
The 200,000-kilowatt reactor in Taechon and a 50,000-kilowatt
plant in Yongbyon would produce enough plutonium for North Korea
to produce 30 bombs a year, Harrison estimated. The completed
Yongbyon reactor that is at the center of the current crisis
generates just 5,000 kilowatts and produces much less plutonium.
``These new reactors are North Korea¡¯s trump card,¡¯¡¯ Harrison
said. ``They are a massive shadow hanging over these six-party
talks.¡¯¡¯
rjs@koreatimes.co.kr 07-21-2005 19:18
Selig Harrison Director of Asia Program at Center for
International Policy
*****************************************************************
3 Korea Times: Electricity Aid to NK Raises Security Concern
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Nation
By Seo Dong-shin
Staff Reporter
North Korea could use the 2 million kilowatts of electricity
offered by South Korea as an incentive for denuclearization to
build its military, a conservative lawmaker warned Thursday.
Rep. Song Young-sun of the main opposition Grand National Party
(GNP) said that the South¡¯s electricity aid could help the
North enhance its military 20 percent by 2010, quoting military
experts in the South.
``Especially if the North diverts the electricity aid to its
ammunition factories, estimated at around 50 facilities, experts
believe the North might be able to have some 2 million tons of
ammunition in store,¡¯¡¯ Song was quoted as saying by Yonhap
News Agency.
``It exceeds the amount of some 900,000 tons of ammunition
stored by South Korea and the United States here.¡¯¡¯
A close aide to Song contacted by The Korea Times said military
experts here estimate that the 2 million kilowatts of
electricity is enough for the North to increase its military
muscle by 10 to 30 percent.
``Most defense experts are worried about feeding a
military-oriented nation with electricity,¡¯¡¯ he said. ``The
North¡¯s shortage of electricity at present is because it uses
most of its supply for military purposes. They will do the same
thing with the extra help.¡¯¡¯
But Ham Taek-young, vice president of the Institute for Far
Eastern Studies and a specialist on Korean military issues,
rebuffed such concerns.
Even if the North chooses to divert the electricity provided
from the South to military facilities, it would not be used for
important military purposes as supply stability is a key factor
in such cases, Ham said.
``The electricity aid could help the North produce more minor
weapons. But even in that case, the military power of the
U.S.-South Korea alliance surpasses that of the North by far and
they know it,¡¯¡¯ Ham told The Korea Times, adding that the
supply could be cut in the case of an emergency.
Meanwhile, the conservative opposition party appeared split over
the government¡¯s electricity initiative, with lawmakers
uncertain about how the proposal will be treated at the
six-party nuclear talks.
During a committee meeting of the GNP, Song argued with Rep.
Maeng Hyung-kyu over party¡¯s policy toward the North.
Maeng, chief policymaker of the GNP, said that the party has
``no objection to expanding the amount of aid to the North¡¯¡¯
and is only concerned with the possible problems in the process.
But Song, former official of the Korea Institute for Defense
Analyses, countered that the GNP should focus more on human
rights in North Korea, for example, by cooperating with Freedom
House. The U.S. group hosted a conference on the issue in
Washington Tuesday.
Lee Jai-chun, chairman of the International Affairs Committee of
the GNP, faced inside criticism on Tuesday for being ``out of
sync with the changing inter-Korean relations.¡¯¡¯
The former South Korean ambassador to Russia had said that the
South¡¯s tourism business to Mt. Paektu operated by Hyundai Asan
will end up contributing to increasing North Korean leader Kim
Jong-il¡¯s cash and empowering the regime¡¯s nuclear
development.
saltwall@koreatimes.co.kr 07-21-2005 19:10
*****************************************************************
4 Reminder: July 25 National Senate Call-in Day
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:53:25 -0700
JULY 25NATIONAL SENATE CALL-IN DAY
STOP TAXPAYER FUNDING OF NUCLEAR REACTORS
DEMAND AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE PRIVATE FUEL STORAGE PROJECT
This is a reminder of the national call-in day to the Senate on Monday,
July 25 to stop the energy bill, stop taxpayer funding of nuclear power,
and call Congress to the carpet for its failure to oversee the proposed
Private Fuel Storage high-level waste dump on Skull Valley Goshute land in
Utah.
We urge each one of you to support the efforts of musicians Ani DiFranco
and The Indigo Girls, actors James Cromwell and Joan McIntosh, and Skull
Valley Goshute tribal members Margene Bullcreek and Lena Knight, all of
whom are coming to D.C. to hold a congressional and press briefing on these
issues, and meet with individual Senate offices throughout the day.
Even if youve called your Senators before, call them again on Monday!
Capitol Switchboard: 202-224-3121
Toll-Free Numbers: 1-888-355-3588 or 1-877-762-8762
The demands are simple:
*No taxpayer funding of nuclear power; stop the pollutersenergy bill
*Investigate the Bureau of Indian Affairs undocumented approval of the PFS
lease agreement
Activate your phone trees! If you dont have a phone tree, take a little
time this weekend to set one upMonday will be a perfect test of it. Send
this e-mail to everyone on your lists! Arrange Monday breakfast or lunch
call-in sessions with friends and co-workers. Try a 4 pm Call-in Hour
instead of Happy Hour.
This is also a good time to ask your friends and colleagues to sign the
Petition for A Sustainable Energy Future at
www.nirs.org and visit our animation at
www.nukeretro.com where you can send an e-mail
to your Senator on July 25 as well.
Lets keep the phones ringing all day in the Senate July 25! Together, we
can stop the waste of taxpayer dollars on nuclear power and prevent the
unjust PFS project.
Thanks!
Michael Mariotte
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
nirsnet@nirs.org
*****************************************************************
5 [progchat_action] US Shifting Nuclear Stand With India
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:06:53 -0500 (CDT)
The Christian Science Monitor from the July 20, 2005 edition
Why US is shifting nuclear stand with India
A bargain on nuclear technology may signal view of India as counterbalance
to China.
By Howard LaFranchi | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0720/p03s01-usfp.html
WASHINGTON US plans to broaden India's access to nuclear technology,
announced this week during an enthusiastic visit to Washington by Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, have their roots in designs from the earliest
days of the Bush administration to build India's stature as a counterbalance
to a rising and problematic China.
The proposed extension of nuclear access to what the White House likes to
call "the world's largest democracy" raises questions about potential impact
on other countries with nuclear ambitions and designs for international
status. That is especially true as the announcement comes just days before
the European Union is to return to negotiations with Iran to end its
nuclear-weapons programs and six-party talks are to take up again in Beijing
on North Korea's nuclear program.
But perhaps the greatest significance of the plan is what it says about
21st- century geopolitics and in particular about a Bush administration
vision for dealing with China, some analysts say.
"The crux of this announcement is what it tells us about the US grand
strategy, and that behind whatever else is going on here the US is preparing
for a grand conflict with China and constructing an anti-China coalition,"
says Joseph Cirincione, head of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Project at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "In that scenario, India is even
more valuable as a nuclear power, rather than as a nonnuclear country."
The White House plan, which would allow India broader access to
international technology for its nuclear power industry in exchange for
India granting some access to international inspections, still faces high
hurdles: Opposition is expected to be strong both in the US Congress and
among other nuclear powers who along with the US would have some say.
In the view of some specialists, the plan would certainly erode and perhaps
mean the scrapping of decades of international nonproliferation effort in
favor of an ad hoc, case-by-case approach that rewards certain countries
while punishing others. "This is a plan that chooses good guys and bad guys,
and says that what matters is power politics and not nonproliferation
principles," Mr. Cirincione says.
But for others, the plan reflects a realistic appraisal both of exploding
global energy needs and India's responsible track record in handling nuclear
technology.
"Yes, this does look at India on an individual basis, but it also rewards a
worthy country for its very good performance on nuclear proliferation, and
in that sense it reflects a desirable change in US policy," says Selig
Harrison, director of the Asia Program at the Center for International
Policy in Washington. The US shift will raise protests from Pakistan, Mr.
Harrison says, but in response to protests of special treatment for India,
the US "has an answer, and that is: A. Q. Khan," he adds, referring to the
"father" of Pakistan's nuclear program who developed a clandestine nuclear
bazaar.
Certainly, the US increasingly sees India as a "good guy," both in terms of
the South Asian region but also in international affairs. President Bush
referred to "our shared values" during Mr. Singh's White House visit Monday,
while State Department officials say the agreement points the way for
US-India relations for the coming decades.
In a speech to Congress Tuesday, Prime Minister Singh emphasized India's
record of guarding its nuclear technology from a dangerous spread, assuring
members of Congress that India "never will be a source of proliferation of
nuclear technologies." Harrison says the US agreement would also rectify an
anomaly in the "outdated" international nonproliferation regime that allows
the US to sell civilian nuclear technology to China but not to India.
The White House plan does not formally recognize India as a nuclear power,
but some critics say it does grant de facto recognition.
Karl Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of State for South Asian
affairs during the Clinton administration, recognizes the plan will be
controversial among many nonproliferation experts and in Congress. But he
adds: "It's the right call for us and for the world, really. This is a way
to bring India into a global nonproliferation regime, rather than leaving it
on the outside."
Yet while the nuclear agreement signals new thinking on US-India relations,
it won't really mean a new chapter in the partnership unless the
administration is willing to fight for the plan and convince Congress of its
merits, Mr. Harrison says. "This is a litmus test, for Indians and for
others as well, as to whether the US is really serious about seeing India as
a key and rising player in global calculations," he says.
No doubt China will be watching how far the US plans to take the
relationship. So will Europe - in particular a European Union that does not
see the rising challenge of China in the same terms as the US, but which has
put off arms sales to China in response to US concerns. China is clearly a
factor in US calculations on India, experts say, but some also warn that the
US has little to gain if it develops ties to India primarily as a
counterweight to another rising power.
"I know a lot of people are busy devising the scenarios of India
counterbalancing China and joining us in confronting a rising power, but we
need to be careful not to get into a triangular trap," says Mr. Inderfurth,
now at George Washington University. The problems the global powers face,
from poverty to the spread of nuclear weapons, are nothing any one country
can address, he says. "We need to develop relations with both countries and
work in a cooperative, not a competitive way."
This email was cleaned by emailStripper, available for free from
http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/progchat_action/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
progchat_action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
*****************************************************************
6 Hiroshima bomb was meant to kick-start the Cold War
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:13:12 -0500 (CDT)
Hiroshima bomb may have carried hidden agenda - Breaking News | Print | New
Scientist
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7706
13:46 21 July 2005
NewScientist.com news service
Rob Edwards
The US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 was
meant to kick-start the Cold War rather than end the Second World War,
according to two nuclear historians who say they have new evidence backing
the controversial theory.
Causing a fission reaction in several kilograms of uranium and plutonium and
killing over 200,000 people 60 years ago was done more to impress the Soviet
Union than to cow Japan, they say. And the US President who took the
decision, Harry Truman, was culpable, they add.
"He knew he was beginning the process of annihilation of the species," says
Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at American
University in Washington DC, US. "It was not just a war crime; it was a
crime against humanity."
According to the official US version of history, an A-bomb was dropped on
Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, and another on Nagasaki three days later, to
force Japan to surrender. The destruction was necessary to bring a rapid end
to the war without the need for a costly US invasion.
But this is disputed by Kuznick and Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell
University in Ithaca, New York, US. They are presenting their evidence at a
meeting in London on Thursday organised by Greenpeace and others to coincide
with the 60th anniversary of the bombings.
Looking for peace
New studies of the US, Japanese and Soviet diplomatic archives suggest that
Truman's main motive was to limit Soviet expansion in Asia, Kuznick claims.
Japan surrendered because the Soviet Union began an invasion a few days
after the Hiroshima bombing, not because of the atomic bombs themselves, he
says.
According to an account by Walter Brown, assistant to then-US secretary of
state James Byrnes, Truman agreed at a meeting three days before the bomb
was dropped on Hiroshima that Japan was "looking for peace". Truman was told
by his army generals, Douglas Macarthur and Dwight Eisenhower, and his naval
chief of staff, William Leahy, that there was no military need to use the
bomb.
"Impressing Russia was more important than ending the war in Japan," says
Selden. Truman was also worried that he would be accused of wasting money on
the Manhattan Project to build the first nuclear bombs, if the bomb was not
used, he adds.
Kuznick and Selden's arguments, however, were dismissed as "discredited" by
Lawrence Freedman, a war expert from King's College London, UK. He says that
Truman's decision to bomb Hiroshima was "understandable in the
circumstances".
Truman's main aim had been to end the war with Japan, Freedman says, but
adds that, with the wisdom of hindsight, the bombing may not have been
militarily justified. Some people assumed that the US always had "a
malicious and nasty motive", he says, "but it ain't necessarily so."
*****************************************************************
7 [NYTr] USA Playing India against China, Pakistan
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 11:21:28 -0500 (CDT)
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Strategic Forecasting - Julyb 21, 2005
http://www.stratfor.com
U.S.-Indian Relations and the Geopolitical System
By George Friedman
Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh is in Washington and has addressed
a joint session of Congress. Most visiting heads of government don't get
that privilege, but Singh is no ordinary leader. The Indo-American
relationship is emerging as one of the foundations of the global system.
For the United States, India -- particularly since 9/11 -- has come to
represent a strategic partner in the U.S.-jihadist war: By its very
existence as a U.S. ally, it serves to keep the pressure for cooperation
very high on rival Pakistan. For India, the United States has come to
represent an alternative to its former relationship with the Soviet
Union, which helped to guarantee India's regional interests. Thus,
Singh's visit, while dealing with a range of the normal minutiae of
international relations, represents confirmation that something of
fundamental importance has happened.
Unlike many summits, this particular one has had the look, feel and
substance of a significant event. Foreign leaders do not usually get to
address Congress. The entire tone of the meetings implied a significant
turning point. But in this case, the concrete agreements were as
important as the symbolism: Significant deals were signed.
The most publicly significant was a deal giving the Indians access to
American nuclear technology for civilian uses. India became a nuclear
power in 1974, against strong U.S. opposition. The decision to give
India nuclear technology -- even for civilian uses -- marks a sea change
in American thinking about India's nuclear capability. To be more
precise, it marks the culmination of a sea change. Washington used a
series of severe, near-nuclear crises between India and Pakistan
following the Sept. 11 attacks to leverage Islamabad toward greater
cooperation with the United States. It was clear then that the United
States was changing its view of India "on the fly." This new agreement
represents a public affirmation that Washington regards India's nuclear
capabilities as non-threatening to American interests and, indeed, as a
potential asset.
In agreeing to increase India's nuclear technology base, albeit only for
civilian uses and under international supervision, the United States is
affirming that a special relationship exists with India.
At the same time that this public agreement was being reached, official
leaks from the Pentagon said that India would begin purchasing up to $5
billion worth of conventional weapons, once Congress approves the deal.
This requires an act of Congress because current law on
non-proliferation bars the sale of a wide array of military technology
to countries that have acquired nuclear weapons -- specifically focusing
on any technology that might be useful to a nuclear weapons program.
Since the technologies that are potentially useful are amazingly
diverse, large swathes of technology are excluded from sale. Should
Congress approve the bill, it would place India in a position similar to
that of Israel (save that Israel doesn't acknowledge publicly that it
has nuclear weapons).
The things being sold to India are also interesting. For example, India
will be allowed to purchase Aegis technology, which is designed to
protect naval vessels -- and battle groups -- from anti-ship missiles.
So far, only Japan has acquired the technology, partly because of its
cost. In addition, New Delhi will be able to purchase anti-submarine
patrol aircraft. The United States, which until a few years ago regarded
the Indian naval build-up -- based on Soviet technology -- as a threat
to U.S. control of sea lanes in the Indian Ocean, has now completely
reversed its posture. It is selling New Delhi naval technology that will
allow the Indians to fulfill one of their key strategic objectives,
which is to be able to control regional sea lanes. The United States
would not be providing this technology without having achieved a
far-reaching strategic agreement with New Delhi.
This, by the way, has the Pakistanis worried. Islamabad clearly
understands that its status as Washington's ally in the U.S.-jihadist
war will go only so far in terms of duration and dividends for Pakistan.
In other words, while India gets a long-term strategic relationship with
the United States, Pakistan's relationship is viewed as short-term and
tactical.
To understand the major shift taking place between Washington and New
Delhi, it is important to understand the geopolitical context that
created it. Almost from the beginning, there were tensions between the
United States and India. India's formal position was non-alignment
between the Soviet Union and the United States. It was one of the
founders and leaders of the non-aligned movement. Apart from its formal
position, India had fundamental problems with the geopolitical stance of
the United States, which during the Cold War was heavily focused on
developing Muslim allies.
The primary interest of the United States was the containment of the
Soviet Union. This inevitably caused Washington to focus on two
predominantly Muslim countries that bordered the Soviet Union: Turkey
and Iran. American strategy could not work if either of these nations
were not allied with the United States, and Washington did everything it
could to assure their alignment, including engineering a coup in Iran in
1953. The focus on Muslim countries extended beyond these two. The
Americans did not want their rear and flanks turned by the Soviets; the
United States and Britain, therefore, focused on both Syria and Iraq as
well as on the Arabian Peninsula. It is important to recall that during
the 1950s the United States had rather cool relations with Israel; it
was pursuing a pro-Muslim strategy out of geopolitical necessity.
During the 1950s, the Indians were the ones with a Muslim problem. The
partition of India into Muslim- and Hindu-majority nations had created
Pakistan, which represented India's primary national security concern.
In looking at India's geography, it should be noted that in many ways,
India is an island. Its northern boundary essentially consists of the
Himalayas, impassable for any substantial military force. Its eastern
frontier faces tropical jungles. Most of its borders consist of ocean.
Only to the west, where Pakistan lies, did there exist a strategic
threat. It is true that what is today Bangladesh was part of Pakistan in
those years, but it never posed a strategic threat. As the crow flies,
the Pakistani border is only a couple of hundred miles from Delhi and
Bombay; that was not a trivial concern.
The United States was pursuing the Muslim world. The Indians saw
themselves as threatened by the Muslim world. U.S. and Indian interests,
already strained by ideology, diverged fundamentally. India needed a
counterweight to the United States and found it in the Soviet Union.
Though it never became Communist, India became an ally of the Soviets.
The Indians built their armed forces on a foundation of Soviet
technology, and their highly bureaucratized economy found some
commonality with the Soviets.
From a purely strategic point of view, the Indo-Soviet relationship did
not mean all that much. Even after the Sino-Soviet split, the direct
impact that India or the Soviets could have on each other's strategic
situation was severely limited. India was never the military
counterweight to China that the Soviets needed -- not because its forces
couldn't challenge the Chinese, but because geography prevented the two
forces from coming to grips with each other. People speak of Sino-Indian
competition -- and there was a war (though not one that could threaten
the survival of either nation) between India and China in 1962 in the
Himalayas -- but the fact is that the two countries could be ten
thousand miles apart for the extent to which geography permits any
meaningful interaction. India's isolation limited the significance of
its confrontation with the Soviets. The value of the relationship was
marginalized by geography.
India therefore became marginal to the international system. Its major
point of contact was with Pakistan, with which it had fought a series of
wars -- major ones in 1948, 1965 and 1971 -- had serious territorial
issues and deep distrust. Pakistan was supported by the United States
and China, the two anti-Soviet powers in the 1970s and 1980s. This was
partly due to India's relationship with the Soviets and partly due to
American interests in the Islamic world.
Marginalization is the key concept for understanding India's position in
the world prior to 2001. Geography prevented it from having substantial
interaction with the great powers. Its point of contact, Pakistan, was
of some importance, but not decisive importance. Prior to becoming a
nuclear power, India had only one recourse: naval power. But its economy
would not support a full-blooded fleet-building program. Its strength
was in its army, but that army could not be projected anywhere.
Its economy was also marginalized. Built on a socialist model that took
the worst from Soviet planning and Western markets, the Indian economy
isolated itself by laws that severely limited outside investment. Its
infrastructure did not develop and, while several key industries --
pharmaceuticals and electronics -- emerged, this never created the
fabric of what might be called a national economy. India was a huge,
fragmented country, on the margins of the international system. Its
friendship with the Soviets and its enmity with the United States were
tepid on all sides.
Then came the 9/11 strikes, and the American relationship with the
Islamic world was transformed almost overnight. Suddenly, Pakistan
became a critical piece of the United States' long-term war plan, and
therefore India became an extremely valuable asset. The Indians
understood two things. First, that as marginalized as they had been in
the Cold War, they had become irrelevant to the international system in
the post-Cold War period prior to 9/11. Second, they understood that the
U.S.-jihadist war could become India's entry into the broader
international system.
U.S.-Indian collaboration began intensely shortly after 9/11. Part of it
consisted of a mutual interest in manipulating Pakistan; part of it had
broader implications. As the United States began to view the Muslim
world as an unreliable and threatening entity, it started to see India
in the same light as Israel. It was a potentially powerful ally that, in
spite of its hostility to the Islamic world, or perhaps because of it,
could be extremely useful. Long, complex negotiations ensued, leading up
the present summit. The terms of endearment, so to speak, were defined.
A range of issues on which the two sides could collaborate emerged.
A not-so-hidden issue at the summit in Washington was China. Sino-U.S.
relations are deteriorating fairly rapidly. There was much speculation
about India being an Asian counterweight to China. We have no idea what
this means, since geographically China and India occupy two very
different Asias. The United States doesn't need a nuclear counterweight
to China, and China is very far from becoming a major naval power
capable of projecting force outside of its regional waters. By that, we
do not mean sailing into these waters, but fighting, winning battles and
sailing home. The nuclear technology agreement that Singh obtained in
Washington increases the likelihood that China is not going to project
force west of Singapore. On the other hand, it was never likely to do so.
There is, however, another dimension to this. For a generation, China
has been the place where hot money in search of high returns was
destined. It was where the action was. It is no longer that place,
except in the minds of the nostalgic and delusional. But India could
well be. If one thinks of China in 1980, the notion that its
bureaucracy, lack of infrastructure and a culture antithetical to rapid
development would yield the economic powerhouse of 2000 would have been
unthinkable. It was unthinkable.
India is in China's position of 1980. It has a mind-boggling
bureaucracy, poor infrastructure and a culture antithetical to rapid
development. At the same time, it has the basic materials that China
built on. As the Sino-U.S. relationship deteriorates, India can be a
counterweight to China -- not in a military sense, but in an economic
sense. If the United States has an economic alternative to China for
investment, Washington develops leverage in its talks with Beijing on a
host of issues. China, after all, still courts investment -- even as the
Chinese buy anything that isn't Chinese.
Another factor underscoring the significance of the shift in Indo-U.S.
relations is New Delhi's relationship with Tehran. India's relations
with Iran have always been a serious point of contention and concern for
the United States. However, due to the situation in Iraq, tensions with
New Delhi over this issue are on the decline. The United States and Iran
at the moment are developing parallel interests, each with their own
reasons to work together to ensure the success of the fledgling
Shia-dominated government in Baghdad.
The Indo-American relationship did not develop out of the subjective
good will of the leaders. The Sept. 11 attacks created a dynamic that
couldn't be resisted, and that created a reality that the Bush-Singh
summit confirmed. It doesn't transform the world, but it changes it
fundamentally. India will come out of this a very different country, and
the United States will look at the Indian Ocean Basin in a very
different way.
***
sent by Steven Robinson (activ-l)
The Christian Science Monitor - July 20, 2005
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0720/p03s01-usfp.html
Why US is shifting nuclear stand with India?
A bargain on nuclear technology may signal view of
India as counterbalance to China.
By Howard LaFranchi
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON--US plans to broaden India's access to nuclear technology,
announced this week during an enthusiastic visit to Washington by Indian
Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, have their roots in designs from the earliest
days of the Bush administration to build India's stature as a counterbalance
to a rising and problematic China.
The proposed extension of nuclear access to what the White House likes to
call "the world's largest democracy" raises questions about potential impact
on other countries with nuclear ambitions and designs for international
status. That is especially true as the announcement comes just days before
the European Union is to return to negotiations with Iran to end its
nuclear-weapons programs and six-party talks are to take up again in Beijing
on North Korea's nuclear program.
But perhaps the greatest significance of the plan is what it says about
21st- century geopolitics and in particular about a Bush administration
vision for dealing with China, some analysts say.
"The crux of this announcement is what it tells us about the US grand
strategy, and that behind whatever else is going on here the US is preparing
for a grand conflict with China and constructing an anti-China coalition,"
says Joseph Cirincione, head of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Project at the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "In that scenario, India is even
more valuable as a nuclear power, rather than as a nonnuclear country."
The White House plan, which would allow India broader access to
international technology for its nuclear power industry in exchange for
India granting some access to international inspections, still faces high
hurdles: Opposition is expected to be strong both in the US Congress and
among other nuclear powers who along with the US would have some say.
In the view of some specialists, the plan would certainly erode and perhaps
mean the scrapping of decades of international nonproliferation effort in
favor of an ad hoc, case-by-case approach that rewards certain countries
while punishing others. "This is a plan that chooses good guys and bad guys,
and says that what matters is power politics and not nonproliferation
principles," Mr. Cirincione says.
But for others, the plan reflects a realistic appraisal both of exploding
global energy needs and India's responsible track record in handling nuclear
technology.
"Yes, this does look at India on an individual basis, but it also rewards a
worthy country for its very good performance on nuclear proliferation, and
in that sense it reflects a desirable change in US policy," says Selig
Harrison, director of the Asia Program at the Center for International
Policy in Washington. The US shift will raise protests from Pakistan, Mr.
Harrison says, but in response to protests of special treatment for India,
the US "has an answer, and that is: A. Q. Khan," he adds, referring to the
"father" of Pakistan's nuclear program who developed a clandestine nuclear
bazaar.
Certainly, the US increasingly sees India as a "good guy," both in terms of
the South Asian region but also in international affairs. President Bush
referred to "our shared values" during Mr. Singh's White House visit Monday,
while State Department officials say the agreement points the way for
US-India relations for the coming decades.
In a speech to Congress Tuesday, Prime Minister Singh emphasized India's
record of guarding its nuclear technology from a dangerous spread, assuring
members of Congress that India "never will be a source of proliferation of
nuclear technologies." Harrison says the US agreement would also rectify an
anomaly in the "outdated" international nonproliferation regime that allows
the US to sell civilian nuclear technology to China but not to India.
The White House plan does not formally recognize India as a nuclear power,
but some critics say it does grant de facto recognition.
Karl Inderfurth, a former assistant secretary of State for South Asian
affairs during the Clinton administration, recognizes the plan will be
controversial among many nonproliferation experts and in Congress. But he
adds: "It's the right call for us and for the world, really. This is a way
to bring India into a global nonproliferation regime, rather than leaving it
on the outside."
Yet while the nuclear agreement signals new thinking on US-India relations,
it won't really mean a new chapter in the partnership unless the
administration is willing to fight for the plan and convince Congress of its
merits, Mr. Harrison says. "This is a litmus test, for Indians and for
others as well, as to whether the US is really serious about seeing India as
a key and rising player in global calculations," he says.
No doubt China will be watching how far the US plans to take the
relationship. So will Europe - in particular a European Union that does not
see the rising challenge of China in the same terms as the US, but which has
put off arms sales to China in response to US concerns. China is clearly a
factor in US calculations on India, experts say, but some also warn that the
US has little to gain if it develops ties to India primarily as a
counterweight to another rising power.
"I know a lot of people are busy devising the scenarios of India
counterbalancing China and joining us in confronting a rising power, but we
need to be careful not to get into a triangular trap," says Mr. Inderfurth,
now at George Washington University. The problems the global powers face,
from poverty to the spread of nuclear weapons, are nothing any one country
can address, he says. "We need to develop relations with both countries and
work in a cooperative, not a competitive way."
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
8 Las Vegas SUN: China Affirms 'No First Use' Nuke Policy
Today: July 21, 2005 at 14:59:3 PDT
By JOE McDONALD
ASSOCIATED PRESS
BEIJING (AP) - China will not use nuclear weapons first in a
military conflict, the foreign minister said Thursday as he
tried to quell an uproar over a general's remark that Beijing
might use atomic bombs against U.S. forces in a conflict over
Taiwan.
Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing said China "will not first use
nuclear weapons at any time and under any condition," according
to the official Xinhua News Agency. Li said China has embraced
that stance since it developed nuclear weapons in 1964, and it
"will not be changed in the future."
Li made the comments to a group of academics from the United
States, Japan and China, Xinhua said.
Beijing has been trying to reassure the United States and its
Asian neighbors since Maj. Gen. Zhu Chenghu, a dean at China's
National Defense University, told foreign reporters last week
that Beijing might use nuclear weapons if U.S. forces attacked
China in a conflict over Taiwan.
According to Xinhua, Li said the general's comment was "only his
personal view."
The State Department on July 15 criticized the remarks as
"highly irresponsible" and asked for Chinese assurance that it
did not reflect official thinking.
China claims Taiwan, which split from the mainland in 1949, as
part of its territory and has threatened to invade if the
self-governing island declares formal independence or puts off
talks on unification.
Despite its efforts at diplomatic damage control, Beijing also
has reaffirmed its insistence that it will not tolerate formal
independence for Taiwan - a step the mainland has said could
lead to war.
Beijing said Saturday that China would "never tolerate Taiwan
independence" and would not allow "anybody with any means to
separate Taiwan from the motherland."
The three-sentence Xinhua report on Li's pledge Thursday did not
mention Taiwan.
Li's comments came a day after Beijing angrily rejected a new
U.S. government report that says growing Chinese military
ambitions could threaten other Asia-Pacific nations.
Li said Wednesday that China is "not a threat to anyone" and is
intent on "developing in a peaceful way."
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
9 The Times of India: A nuclear India is born-
TIMES NEWS NETWORK[ THURSDAY, JULY 21, 2005 11:12:36 PM ]
WASHINGTON: The landmark U.S-India nuclear deal has got a
crucial multilateral endorsement with Mohammed El Baradei, head
of the U.N nuclear watchdog IAEA, welcoming it in a formal
statement.
El Baradei, who heads the Geneva-based International Atomic
Energy Agency, responded quickly to a phone call from U.S
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice intimating him about the
deal, saying, "making advanced civil nuclear technology
available... will contribute to the enhancement of nuclear
safety and security,"
"Out of the box thinking and active participation by all members
of the international community are important if we are to
advance nuclear arms control, non-proliferation, safety and
security, and tackle new threats such as illicit trafficking in
sensitive nuclear technology and the risks of nuclear
terrorism," Dr. ElBaradei said.
Experts say El Baradeis backing is crucial to win the support
of the international community and the Nuclear Suppliers Group,
some of whose members have been stunned by the speed with which
Washington and New Delhi concluded an agreement aimed at
allowing India access the world nuclear marketplace while
prising open Indias nuclear program or what it chooses to
reveal in the civilian sphere to the IAEA.
Countries such as Canada, Australia and Japan, who have long been
brought up on the gospel that India should be kept out of the
nuclear loop because it is not a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty, are essentially being asked to
reexamine their belief in view of the new agreement concluded by
the Americans.
"Although ElBaradei has no official involvement in the NSG, his
word will carry weight with its members. His credibility is high
in nuclear circles and, with the Americans on board, the NSG will
not be too much of a hurdle," says T.P.Sreenivasan, a former
Indian diplomat who has worked with El Baradei as India's
governor at the IAEA in Geneva.
Sreenivasan revealed that El Baradei was always of the view that
India, and for that matter Pakistan, should be brought into the
nuclear mainstream and not treated as a maverick. "His only
condition will be that he will require extra resources to carry
out the inspections, which, I am sure, he has mentioned to Rice.
Unlike Japan and the US, India cannot be expected to pay for
these inspections," he said.
El Baradei incidentally has won a third term as the IAEA chief
with support from the United States.
In his statement from Geneva, he described India's intention to
identify and place all its civilian nuclear facilities under IAEA
safeguards and sign and adhere to an Additional Protocol with
respect to civilian nuclear facilities as a "a welcome
development."
"I have always advocated concrete and practical steps towards the
universal application of IAEA safeguards," he said.
Under the terms of the U.S-India nuclear understanding, New Delhi
will now separate its civilian nuclear reactors from its military
ones and open the former to IAEA inspections. In return, it will
also be able to shop for much-needed nuclear fuel and technology.
Copyright © 2005 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
10 Taipei Times: Editorial: Pentagon's warning no surprise
Thursday, Jul 21, 2005,Page 8
People's Liberation Army Major General Zhu Chenghu (¦¶¦¨ªê)
shocked foreign correspondents in Beijing last week when he said
that China could use nuclear weapons against the US in the event
of any military conflict with the US over Taiwan, adding that "we
Chinese will prepare ourselves for the destruction of all cities
east of Xian. Of course, the Americans will have to be prepared
that hundreds of cities will be destroyed by the Chinese."
Although Zhu's belligerent tone has drawn US condemnation,
Beijing has yet to respond except to say that "Zhu was merely
expressing his personal views." It is hardly surprising that in
an authoritarian nation such as China, soldiers should seek to
stand out by their hawkish views. The Chinese leadership is
apparently reluctant to condemn Zhu's words because he is simply
expressing their own thoughts. It is also hard to imagine that
he spoke out without official approval.
It is understandable that both Taiwan and the US were stunned by
Zhu's remarks, for democratic societies do not tolerate a
military officer exceeding his authority in such a way. The duty
of a soldier is to remain neutral and steer clear of politics.
If Zhu had been a soldier in a democratic country, he would have
been severely criticized and probably would have suffered
professionally.
Zhu's comments were typical of the Chinese military, indicating
the haughty and bellicose nature of the PLA. The rising jingoism
in China in recent years has gone hand-in-hand with its military
expansion. This has warned the whole world that China's
so-called "peaceful rising" is anything but that.
It is no surprise, therefore, that a Pentagon report published
on Tuesday in Washington affirmed the rapid pace of China's
military expansion. The report said that China now has between
650 and 730 CSS-6 and CSS-7 short-range missiles targeting
Taiwan, and that the number is increasing by around 100 every
year. This alone is frightening, quite apart from the expansion
in other areas.
This high level of military expansion shows us that Zhu's
statement is anything but an isolated incident or the opinion of
just one officer. There are probably thousands of people in the
PLA whose thinking is identical to Zhu's -- he's just the one
who spoke publicly.
The threat that China now poses is an issue that Taiwan and its
neighbors need to resolve. In fact, it concerns countries around
the world. The EU certainly must take a more responsible
attitude in its considerations over whether to lift its arms
embargo on China. It should stop focusing on the commercial
benefits of lifting the ban and do the responsible thing to help
ensure regional peace in Asia and the rest of the world.
As for the pan-blue camp, its members have simply buried their
heads in the sand as far as China's military threat is
concerned. Although they have long refused to face reality,
hopefully pressure from the US and other nations will convince
its leaders to greenlight passage of the long-delayed special
arms purchase bill.
In the face of China's military threat, Taiwan has no choice but
to acquire the means to defend itself effectively. It must not
always count so heavily on the aid of its allies.
This story has been viewed 1160 times.
Copyright © 1999-2005 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
11 Taipei Times: Beijing is ready to use its nuclear weapons
By Li Hua-chiu §õµØ²y
www.taipeitimes.com
Thursday, Jul 21, 2005,Page 8
Advertising [Advertising] During an official briefing for a Hong
Kong delegation on July 14, Chinese Major General Zhu Chenghu
(¦¶¦¨ªê), dean of the Defense Affairs Institute of the National
Defense University said that Beijing could respond with nuclear
weapons if the US militarily interfered in the Taiwan issue. I
would like to interpret this by citing the viewpoints proposed
in the article, Why Do States Build Nuclear Weapons?: Three
Models in Search of a Bomb by Scott Sagan, director of the
Center for International Security and Cooperation at Stanford
University.
First, the security model: a nation develops nuclear weapons to
strengthen its defenses against nuclear threat from outside.
China was repeatedly threatened by US nuclear weapons in both
the Korean War and the two crises across the Taiwan Strait.
Russia also targeted its nuclear arms against China when the two
countries fell foul of each other in the 1960s. China has
hastened its development of nuclear arms in order to resist such
pressure and secure its long-term growth. Viewed from Zhu's
"personal" opinion, we can see that Beijing is hinting at its
strength, and the possibility of using nuclear arms when any
foreign force interferes in a cross-strait war.
Second, the domestic politics model: a nation develops nuclear
weapons for its national leaders to gain power and interests
domestically.
After Chinese President Hu Jintao (JÀAÀÜ) became chairman of
the Central Military Commission last September, he adjusted its
membership right away. Viewed from the new members, Beijing is
eager to build a systematic and all-round joint operation
mechanism of the three services in response to the new
international strategic trend. If we examine their background,
those who have been involved in military affairs against Taiwan
have gradually come to the fore. We can therefore predict the
focus of its military development.
China has always attached great importance to the utterances of
its top government officials. Without the leadership's tacit
consent, Zhu wouldn't have dared make such statements. Judging
from this, Chinese leaders are in fact reaffirming their
determination to restrain Taiwan independence by force through
Zhu's words, so as to comfort the hawks and consolidate their
power, as well as that of the regime.
Third: the norms model: a nation develops nuclear weapons to
identify with the world's advanced countries.
After the Cold War era, although countries have different
motives regarding their development of nuclear weapons, the
political gains and international influence of their moves are
mostly similar. Thus, developing nuclear arms can strengthen not
only their "soft power," including their international strategic
roles and influence, but also their "hard power," such as
military strength.
Motivated by this, Beijing has put a great amount of money and
manpower into the development of nuclear arms, so it can play a
crucial role after its economic take-off with the world's four
other leading nuclear states -- the US, Russia, Britain and
France.
To sum up, I believe that Zhu's remarks revealed that China is
already capable of stopping foreign interference in its internal
affairs by nuclear force, and is also able to resolve Taiwan
independence by the same method. Although his statement caused
an uproar, I believe that China is ready now. Otherwise, Beijing
would not make such comments at a time when Sino-US relations
are so delicate.
As for the question of whether a new wave of competition over
the development of nuclear weapons will be triggered between
China and the US, or even affect the overall international
situation, these are issues that deserve our attention.
Li Hua-chiu is a part-time researcher with the National Policy
Foundation.
Translated by Eddy Chang
This story has been viewed 804 times.
Copyright © 1999-2005 The Taipei Times. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 RIA Novosti: American senators impose restrictions on aid for Russia
22/07/2005
WASHINGTON, July 21 (RIA Novosti, Arkady Orlov) - The U.S.
Senate approved the draft law on appropriations for foreign
operations in 2006, Wednesday. The bill, which 98 senators voted
for and one voted against, demands that Russia stop providing
Iran with technical assistance, technology and equipment for
nuclear or ballistic missile programs, and that Russia provide
international humanitarian NGOs with full access to refugees and
displaced persons in Chechnya.
Senators included $5 million for humanitarian assistance to
Chechnya, Ingushetia and other areas in the North Caucasus,
conflict resolution and post-conflict reconstruction.
The bill says that 60% of the funds allocated for these aims and
designed to assist the government of the Russian Federation
should be excluded from the U.S. obligations until the American
president has provided the Committee on Appropriations with a
written guarantee that the Russian government has implemented a
number of conditions.
The restriction in the bill does not extend to U.S.
nonproliferation and disarmament assistance programs in Russia.
The bill repeats the same conditions that were written into the
foreign operations appropriations bill for 2005, which was
adopted by the U.S. Congress last year.
The U.S. Administration accuses Iran of trying to develop
nuclear weapons and believes that the Bushehr nuclear reactor,
which Russia is helping Iran build and which is almost
completed, will help the theocratic regime access nuclear
technology. The U.S. includes Iran in "the axis of evil."
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
13 Korea Times: US-India Nuclear Deal
Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion
Arbitrary U.S. Criteria Hurt Global Nonproliferation Efforts
Whatever Washington may say, the U.S. agreement Monday to
transfer nuclear technology to India marked a setback for the
Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). The civilian nuclear equipment
and materials the U.S. provides can be used for military
objectives anytime. Seoul, one of the 187 signatories to the
NPT, might pass this as their bilateral matter _ if only it does
not have a neighbor wanting to follow in New Delhi¡¯s footsteps.
It is worrisome how the move would affect regional
nonproliferation talks next Tuesday.
A U.S. official said India is ``unique,¡¯¡¯ because the South
Asian country has ``told the truth about what it¡¯s doing.¡¯¡¯
Does this mean India has openly pursued nuclear programs by
refusing to accede to the NPT, while some others, such as Iran
and North Korea, ``signed the treaty and cheated?¡¯¡¯ Washington
also cites India¡¯s track record for keeping the program to
itself rather than exporting it abroad. North Korea has also
withdrawn from the NPT, and says its nuclear weapons are for
self-defense purposes.
Nonproliferation has been one of the U.S.¡¯ key security
policies. The Bush administration has developed it into a
counter-proliferation strategy that included preemptive strikes
against potential challengers. The U.S. invasion of Iraq and its
demand for Tehran and Pyongyang to scrap their nuclear programs
are based on this policy. But Washington recognized India as an
exception, probably because of the latter¡¯s huge markets, as
well as roles in the war on terrorism and counterbalancing
China¡¯s rise.
Come to think of it, however, America¡¯s double standards in
nonproliferation are hardly news. India and Pakistan have stayed
far away from the NPT and become nuclear powers through secret
atomic tests, threatening the global nonproliferation regime.
Israel is a similar case. A recent report revealed Washington
even recognized Iran¡¯s need to develop nuclear energy for
economic reasons 30 years ago. Now, it refutes Tehran¡¯s logic
as hard to understand, citing Iran¡¯s abundant energy resources.
.
Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter blames the U.S. and its
continuous development of new nuclear weapons for the near
collapse of the NPT system. Such being the case, one can¡¯t help
but wonder how Washington would dissuade Russia from providing
nuclear technology to Iran and block a similar transfer from
China to Pakistan. The Republican-led U.S. Congress and major
allies are urged to disapprove the latest deal.
Everyone knows Japan can always turn into a nuclear power if it
wishes, and would also be allowed to do so. A North Korean paper
already indicated Pyongyang would take issue with this at the
upcoming six-way talks. The escalation of nuclear proliferation
should be blocked by all means, and only the U.S. can do it.
07-21-2005 17:23
*****************************************************************
14 NZ Scoop: Satellite Verifys Peaceful Use Of Nuclear Material
Thursday, 21 July 2005, 8:34 pm
Press Release: United Nations
UN ATOMIC WATCHDOG USES SATELLITE FEED TO VERIFY PEACEFUL USE OF
NUCLEAR MATERIALS
New York, Jul 20 2005 10:00AM
The United Nations atomic watchdog agency has started using
direct satellite feeds from nuclear facilities to check that
sensitive materials are not being diverted for weapons or other
non-peaceful uses, executing every day operations previously
performed only every three months in what it hopes will be a
global network.
The first field trial connecting a nuclear power plant in
Slovakia to UN International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
headquarters in Vienna started in April, the agency
reported
today.
“It provides Agency inspectors with a continuous flow of
information,” Massimo Aparo of IAEA Safeguards Technical Support
said.
Images and electronic seal data recorded at a Slovak nuclear
spent fuel pool and reactor core are now downloaded daily to the
IAEA’s safeguards computer systems. The images are taken every
five minutes, the data is encrypted/authenticated, then
transmitted to Vienna. Inspectors review the data and determine
if the plant is operating as declared.
Previously inspectors needed to travel to the nuclear facility
to retrieve the data, making such a journey every three months.
The results of a feasibility study for a prospective global
roll-out of the use of satellites are expected by the end of the
year.
“The idea is to create secure, global communication networks
between IAEA headquarters, remote nuclear facilities and
regional offices,” Mr. Aparo said. Such a set-up would enable
several gigabytes of data to be transmitted each day to IAEA
headquarters for inspectors to scrutinize.
The IAEA is now working with the European Space Agency to assess
the feasibility and cost of using satellites to relay data from
more than 100 surveillance systems it operates in 13 countries.
The IAEA first started using remote monitoring of selected
nuclear facilities on a trial basis in the 1990´s, using
telephone lines and the Internet to transmit the data, but these
networks are not always reliable, especially when communicating
with less developed countries that lack established
telecommunications infrastructure.
“One advantage of satellites is you do not need to rely on the
infrastructure of the country,” Mr. Aparo said, adding that
telephone lines are also not optimal to transfer large amounts
of data.
2005-07-20 00:00:00.000
*****************************************************************
15 Alliance invited to address aging nukes before state agency
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:55:10 -0700
lang="en-US">
7f485.jpg
Click to open in
your Browser
Alliance invited to address aging nukes before state agency
California must assert state's rights to avert the economic risk of
dependence on power from aging nuclear plants - which daily produce
radioactive waste. This August the Alliance will tell the California Energy
Commission that 6000+ tons of high-level radioactive waste sitting on
California's coast is enough.
Should we fix the problem or add to it?
California is NOT preempted from phasing out nuclear power plants and
ceasing the production of high-level radioactive waste if it is in the
state's best economic interest.
The economics of the nuclear power industry have never been presented in
one forum. The nuclear economy exists in a kind of provisional reality,
based on cradle to grave subsidies, exempted from financial liability for
the real cost of an accident, and isolated and protected from the
real-world economics of the energy market.
Adding to that dream-state, the federal government promised, when it
granted operating licenses, that a way would soon be found to provide safe,
permanent storage of the industry’s deadly byproduct. On that basis,
utilities were were told to go ahead and build. Five decades later, the
problem of high-level radioactive waste remains unsolved, yet the nuclear
industry is now being urged to embark on another binge of construction.
Subsidies and tax breaks that could be going to the research and
development of clean, renewable, sustainable and affordable energy are
earmarked to go to nukes instead.
More than 77,000 tons of high-level radioactive waste is temporarily stored
adjacent to our nation’s rivers and oceans, awaiting indefinitely that
safe, permanent storage. In California, 6000+ tons of high-level
radioactive waste sits on our coast, with 200+ additional tons produced
each year.
Enough is enough.
California must assert our state's right to reject dependency on aging
nuclear plants on our coast. Our state is the world’s 7th largest
economy. To risk California’s economic viability by continuing down an
expensive and dangerous nuclear path is an unacceptable risk.
The mission of the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility is to amend current
law to disallow license renewals for California’s existing aging nuclear
plants. This is the message we will bring to the California Energy
Commission workshop. Since January 2005, this is the message we have been
bringing to California's state legislators, businesses and individuals.
This is a feasible project. Minds are opening to the dangers of old nuclear
plants with expensive and degrading components. For the first time in
decades, there is a dialogue among our state's representatives and
oversight agencies to discuss whether the state should depend on nuclear
power for future energy needs.
Phasing out the production of high-level radioactive waste on our coast is
an achievable goal. Please join us.
Rochelle Becker, Executive Director Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility
www.a4nr.org (858) 337 2703
Upcoming Events
Important events for the Alliance
* O'merde Invitational will benefit the Alliance
* The O'Merde Celebrity Charity Pro-Am Invitational (Known in the
highest golf circles simply as "The O'Merde") Location: Boulder Creek Golf
and Country Club 16901 Big Basin Highway Boulder Creek, California 95006
www.bouldercreekgolf.com Entry fee: $125. Includes green fees, a donation
to the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility, and not much else.
Accommodations are available at the club Those wishing to be considered for
a invitation ( it is an invitational, after all) should contact Bob Brandes
at crashbrandes@sbcglobal.net or (415) 775-8430 to arrange an interview.
After in depth analysis of you sense of humor, ability to deal with bent
rules, and account balances, the competition committee will render its
decision. Note - Bribes will be accepted in the form of checks made out to
the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility. For those of you who don't wish to
be considered, you might want to send in a contribution anyway. We know who
you are. Swing Hard, Swing Often, The Bobinator
* Read more
* California Energy Commission holds workshop on nuclear power furture
* The California Energy Commission is holding a public hearing on
nuclear topics. This is the FIRST time in the CEC's 20-year history it has
convened a public meeting on nuclear power! If you care about our energy
future nationally and increasing economic risks in California you can't
afford to miss this. For those who cannot attend an action letter will be
sent July 15, 2005
* Read more
* At 20 Diablo becomes more expensive and a greater threat
* 20 years ago Diablo Canyon began nuclear operation. It has now been
licensed as a high-level radioactive waste dump. What opportunities exist
to phase out this growing nightmare on our earthquake active coast.
* Read more
Breaking News
Here's the latest news
* Business will reject Bush nuclear power plan, Wyden says
* Read more
* Disaster Costs Spark Global Warming Debate
* Read more
* Workers in N-plants 'risk cancer'
* The biggest and most comprehensive study ever among nuclear power
workers has established that the low doses of radiation they receive can
increase their cancer risk.
* Read more
* Nuclear staff told 'stay at home'
* Non-essential workers at the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant
have been told to stay at home on Friday in light of the London bombings.
* Read more
* Cost of nuclear 'underestimated'
* Cost of nuclear 'underestimated' The cost of new nuclear power has
been underestimated by a factor of three, according to a British think tank.
* Read more
----------
You subscribed to this newsletter or were added from a list of our friends.
You may change your preferences at...
http://a4nr.org/newsletters/a4nrMonthly/subscribers/subscriber.2005-02-21.0014529373/portal_form/Subscriber_editForm
You may subscribe to our other newsletters in the panel on the left side of
most of our pages at a4nr.org
Attachment Converted: 7f485.jpg: 00000001,3a82edbc,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
16 AU ABC: Vic Govt speaks out against nuclear power
12:29 (ACST)Thursday, 21 July 2005. 13:29 (AEDT)Thursday, 21
The Victorian Government is opposing suggestions by the Federal
Government that nuclear energy could be an option for
electricity generation.
Victorian Energy Minister Theo Theophanous says Victoria's
future economic security is tied to brown coal power generation
in the Latrobe Valley.
Mr Theophanous says Liberal Party support for nuclear energy and
the Nationals opposition to wind energy are both wrong.
He says Victoria has 500 years of coal reserves, he also says
there also questions that need to answered about nuclear energy.
"How do you dispose of nuclear waste, questions around that, the
operation of nuclear power stations," Mr Theophanous said.
"What to do with the power stations when they're closed down and
what we've found in our investigation is the numbers don't stack
up, it doesn't stack up on environmental grounds or economic
grounds to introduce nuclear power into this country."
*****************************************************************
17 Hudson Valley News: Diana is displeased with failed Indian Point siren system
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Copyright © 2005 Mid-Hudson News Network, a division of
Statewide News Network, Inc.
Orange County Executive Edward Diana yesterday told Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Chairman Nils Diaz the county is extremely
displeased with the state of the Indian Point siren system.
It was discovered on Tuesday morning that a transmitter that is
used to send the signal to the sirens in the Indian Point alert
area, failed and that diesel and battery powered back-ups ran
out in short order.
There is a battery backup system, but it only has one hour of
power that they can power those sirens by, and that is totally
unacceptable, said Diana. There is also no staffing 24 hours a
day, seven days a week to monitor the siren system.
Diana said Entergy, the company that owns Indian Point, has to
step up to the plate and staff the siren transmitter during the
overnight hours and provide longer life batteries.
HEAR today's news on , the Hudson Valley's only Internet radio
news report.
*****************************************************************
18 NRC: In the Matter of Richard M. Probasco; Confirmatory Order
FR Doc 05-14359
[Federal Register: July 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 139)]
[Notices] [Page 42110-42111] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21jy05-143]
(Effective Immediately) I Richard M. Probasco (Mr. Probasco) is
employed as a Shift Manager at the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station
(Pilgrim). Mr. Probasco is the holder of Senior Reactor Operator
(SRO) License Number SOP-11768 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 55. The license
authorizes Mr. Probasco to direct the licensed activities of
licensed operators at, and to manipulate all controls of, the
Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station, facility license number DPR-35.
The facility is located on an Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.
site in Plymouth, MA.
II An investigation was initiated by the NRC Office of
Investigations (OI) on August 27, 2004, at Pilgrim. This
investigation was initiated, in part, to determine if Mr.
Probasco did not take appropriate corrective actions when he
became aware of the inattentiveness of a Control Room Supervisor
(CRS) on June 29, 2004. Based on the evidence developed during
its investigation, OI substantiated that, in careless disregard
for requirements, Mr. Probasco did not immediately relieve the
CRS from duty, have him for-cause fitness-for-duty tested, inform
appropriate site personnel, and initiate a Condition Report (CR).
III In response to a March 23, 2005 letter, Mr. Probasco
requested the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to
resolve this matter with the NRC. ADR is a process in which a
neutral mediator with no decision- making authority assists the
NRC and Mr. Probasco in reaching an agreement on resolving any
differences regarding the enforcement action. An ADR session was
held between Mr. Probasco and the NRC in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania on May 17, 2005, and was mediated by a professional
mediator, arranged through Cornell University's Institute of
Conflict Management. During that ADR session, a settlement
agreement was reached. The elements of the settlement agreement
consisted of the following: 1. Mr. Probasco agreed that he
violated an NRC requirement by not properly documenting and
informing management of his observation that a CRS was
inattentive to duty in the control room on June 29, 2004.
2. The NRC maintained that Mr. Probasco's actions in violating
the requirement was in careless disregard of an NRC requirement.
Mr. Probasco contended that while he erred in violating the
requirement, his actions were not willful, in careless disregard
of an NRC requirement. The NRC and Mr. Probasco agreed to
disagree on this point.
3. Mr. Probasco, subsequent to the identification of this
violation, took actions to assure that he learned from this
violation and provided the NRC with assurance that it would not
recur.
These actions included: (a) Sharing the March 23, 2005 letter
from the NRC with his SRO peers at Pilgrim to emphasize the
significance of the violation; (b) participating actively to
share his experience with all Entergy plants via a corporate
notification; and (c) contributing to the preparation of an
[[Page 42111]] operating experience report with the Institute of
Nuclear Power Operations.
4. As a result of Mr. Probasco's actions, he recognized an
opportunity for licensed operators at Pilgrim, as well as
licensed operators at other nuclear facilities, to learn from his
violation. Mr. Probasco agreed to participate in future training
sessions at Pilgrim, including crew training, teamwork training,
lifestyle training, and requalification module development, to
convey his personal lessons- learned from this matter. Mr.
Probasco also agreed to convey his personal lessons-learned to
other licensed operators at other nuclear power plants by
issuance of a letter, within 90 days of issuance of the Letter of
Reprimand referenced in Section III.5 below, to the Communicator
(the publication of the Professional Reactor Operator Society)
requesting publication therein, and making a presentation at a
future symposium at a meeting of the Professional Reactor
Operator Society, if invited.
5. In light of the actions Mr. Probasco has taken as described in
Item 3 above, those actions he has committed to do as described
in Item 4 above, and his agreement to a Letter of Reprimand, the
NRC agrees not to issue an Order or a Notice of Violation to Mr.
Probasco. However, Mr. Probasco agreed to placement of this
Letter of Reprimand into ADAMS as a publically available
document, and its placement on the NRC ``Significant Enforcement
Actions--Individuals'' Web site for a period of 1 year (the
period of time the NRC routinely places Notices of Violation at
Severity Level III and above to individuals).
Since Mr. Probasco has agreed to take additional actions to
address NRC concerns, as set forth in Section III, the NRC has
concluded that its concerns can be resolved through the NRC's
confirmation of the commitments as outlined in this Confirmatory
Order.
I find that Mr. Probasco's commitments as set forth in Section
III above are acceptable. However, in view of the foregoing, I
have determined that these commitments be confirmed by this
Confirmatory Order. Based on the above and Mr. Probasco's
consent, this Confirmatory Order is immediately effective upon
issuance.
V Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182,
and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Part 55, it
is hereby ordered, effective immediately that: 1. Mr. Probasco
participate in future training sessions at Pilgrim, including
crew training, teamwork training, lifestyle training, and
requalification module development, to convey his personal
lessons- learned from this matter. Mr. Probasco will also convey
his personal lessons-learned to other licensed operators at other
nuclear power plants by issuance of a letter, within 90 days, to
the Communicator (the publication of the Professional Reactor
Operator Society) requesting publication therein, and making a
presentation at a future symposium at a meeting of the
Professional Reactor Operator Society, if invited.
2. Mr. Probasco provide the NRC with one letter detailing his
completion of all actions specified in Item 1 above, within 30
days of completion of these actions.
The Director, Office of Enforcement may relax or rescind, in
writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by Mr.
Probasco of good cause.
VI Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order,
other than Mr. Probasco, may request a hearing within 20 days of
its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be
given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for
extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555, and must include a statement of good cause for the
extension. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Chief,
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies
of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Director, Office
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC
20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation
and Enforcement, to the Director of the Division of Regulatory
Improvement Programs at the same address, and to Baxter. Because
of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States
Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either
by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail
to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General
Counsel by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or
e-mail to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If such a person requests a hearing, that
person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his
interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address
the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is
requested by a person whose interest is adversely affected, the
Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of
any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at
such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory Order shall be
sustained.
An answer or a request for a hearing shall not stay the
effectiveness date of this Order.
Dated this 14th day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 05-14359 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
19 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for the
FR Doc 05-14360
[Federal Register: July 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 139)]
[Notices] [Page 42107-42108] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21jy05-141]
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Review; Comment Request
AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). ACTION: Notice
of the OMB review of information collection and solicitation of
public comment.
SUMMARY: The NRC has recently submitted to OMB for review the
following proposal for the collection of information under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
Chapter 35). The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an
[[Page 42108]] agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a
person is not required to respond to, a collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
1. Type of submission, new, revision, or extension: Extension.
2. The title of the information collection: NRC Form 354, Data
Report on Spouse'.
3. The form number if applicable: NRC Form 354. 4. How often the
collection is required: On occasion. 5. Who will be required or
asked to report: NRC employees, contractors, licensees, and
applicants who marry after completing NRC's Personnel Security
forms, or marry after having been granted an NRC access
authorization or employment clearance.
6. An estimate of the number of annual responses: 60. 7. The
estimated number of annual respondents: 60. 8. An estimate of the
total number of hours needed annually to complete the requirement
or request: 12 hours (.20 hour per response).
9. An indication of whether Section 3507(d), Pub. L. 104-13
applies: N/A.
10. Abstract: Completion of the NRC Form 354 is a mandatory
requirement for NRC employees, contractors, licensees, and
applicants who marry after submission of the Personnel Security
Forms, or after receiving an access authorization or employment
clearance to permit the NRC to assure there is no increased risk
to the common defense and security.
A copy of the final supporting statement may be viewed free of
charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD 20852. OMB
clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide Web site:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days
after the signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions should be directed to the OMB reviewer
listed below by August 22, 2005. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but
assurance of consideration cannot be given to comments received
after this date: John A. Asalone, Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs (3150- 0026), NEOB-10202, Office of Management
and Budget, Washington, DC 20503.
Comments can also be e-mailed to John_A._Asalone@omb.eop.gov or
submitted by telephone at (202) 395-4650.
The NRC Clearance Officer is Brenda Jo. Shelton, 301-415-7233.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 14th day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. 05-14360 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
20 NRC: Union Electric Company; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for
FR Doc 05-14361
[Federal Register: July 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 139)]
[Notices] [Page 42111-42112] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21jy05-144]
Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of
Union Electric Company (the licensee) to withdraw its June 27,
2003, revised by letter dated December 19, 2003, application for
proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-30 for
the Callaway Plant, Unit 1, located in Callaway County, Missouri.
The proposed amendment would have revised Technical Specification
(TS) 3.8.1, ``AC Sources--Operating.'' The proposed change would
revise Required Actions A.3 and B.4 for TS 3.8.1 to allow a
longer required Action Completion Time (allowed outage time) for
an inoperable diesel generator, when removing the diesel
generator from service to perform voluntary, planned maintenance.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on July
22, 2003 (68 FR 43396). However, by letter dated June 28, 2005,
the licensee withdrew the proposed change.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
licensee's application for amendment dated June 27, 2003, as
revised by letter dated December 19, 2003, and the licensee's
letter dated June 28, 2005, which withdrew the application for a
license amendment.
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One
[[Page 42112]] White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference
staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 11th
day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jack Donohew, Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-14361 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
21 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Davis-Besse Nuclear Power
FR Doc 05-14362
[Federal Register: July 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 139)]
[Notices] [Page 42112-42113] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21jy05-145]
Station, Unit 1; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
is considering issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code
of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Appendix R, Section
III.G.3 for Facility Operating License No. NPF-3, issued to
FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC or the licensee),
for operation of the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Unit 1
(DBNPS), located in Ottawa County, Ohio. Therefore, as required
by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental assessment
and finding of no significant impact.
Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would be an exemption to certain requirements
of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix R, ``Fire Protection Program for
Nuclear Power Facilities Operating Prior to January 1, 1979,''
Section III.G.3, ``Fire Protection of Safe Shutdown Capability.''
Specifically, the licensee would be exempt from the requirements
to install a fixed fire suppression system in Fire Area HH for
DBNPS and to install fire detection in the approximately 4
percent of Fire Area HH not currently covered by a fire detection
system.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application dated January 20, 2004 (Agencywide Documents Access
Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML0420220470), as
supplemented by letters dated September 3, 2004 (ADAMS Accession
No.
ML0402520326), and February 25, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML050610249). The Need for the Proposed Action The requirements
specified in 10 CFR 50, Appendix R, Section III.G.3, require fire
detection and fixed fire suppression in areas for which alternate
shutdown capability is provided. The total combustible loading in
Fire Area HH is less than 20,000 BTU/ft \2\. Existing fire
protection capability in the area consists of a fire detection
system, protecting Room 603 (approximately 96 percent of Fire
Area HH, not including Rooms 603A and 603B) and manual fire
suppression capability consisting of portable fire extinguishers
and standpipe hose stations for the protection of the entire
area. The exemption is needed because the current fire detection
and fire suppression capability is sufficient to protect the
health and safety of the public.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC has
completed its evaluation of the proposed action and concludes
that the proposed exemption does not involve radioactive wastes,
release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, solid
radioactive waste, or liquid effluents released to the
environment. The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be
provided in the exemption that will be issued as part of the
letter to the licensee approving the exemption to the regulation.
The DBNPS systems were evaluated in the Final Environmental
Statement (FES) dated October 1975 (NUREG 75/097). The proposed
exemption will not involve any change in the waste treatment
systems described in the FES.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the
probability or consequences of accidents, no changes are being
made in the types of effluents that may be released off site, and
there is no significant increase in occupational or public
radiation exposure.
Therefore, there are no significant radiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites.
It does not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no
other environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant
non- radiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action''
alternative). Denial of the application would result in no change
in current environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of
the proposed action and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources The action does not involve the use
of any different resource than those previously considered in the
DBNPS FES dated October 1975.
Agencies and Persons Consulted On April 8, 2005, the staff
consulted with Ohio State official, Ms. Carol O'Claire of the
Ohio Emergency Management Agency, regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the
environmental assessment, the NRC concludes that the proposed
action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to
prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letters dated January 20, 2004, September 3, 2004, and
February 25, 2005. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a
fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One
White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records
will be accessible electronically from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, .
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the
NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-
[[Page 42113]] 397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to .
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
William A. Macon, Jr., Project Manager, Section 2, Project
Directorate III, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-14362 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
22 NRC: FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company; Biweekly Notice;
FR Doc 05-14363
[Federal Register: July 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 139)]
[Notices] [Page 42113] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21jy05-146]
Applications and Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations; Correction
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of issuance; correction.
SUMMARY: This document corrects a notice appearing in the Federal
Register on June 21, 2005 (70 FR 35737), that incorrectly
referenced the date of an amendment request. This action is
necessary to correct an erroneous date. The correct date of the
amendment request is April 13, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Timothy Colburn, Project
Manager, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone (301)
415-1402, e- mail: TGC@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On page 35737, in the third column,
the second-to-last paragraph is corrected to read ``Date of
amendment request: April 11, 2005'' to `` Date of amendment
request: April 13, 2005.'' Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this
14th day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Timothy G. Colburn, Project Manager, Section 1, Project
Directorate I, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-14363 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
23 AP Wire: Radiation cargo-scanning devices installed at ports of Long Beach
, Los Angeles
| 07/20/2005 |
JEREMIAH MARQUEZ
Associated Press
LOS ANGELES - The head of U.S Border Patrol on Wednesday
unveiled radiation detectors to scan incoming ocean cargo for
nuclear weapons and dirty bombs, a measure he says will not
choke the flow of trade at the nation's busiest port complex.
Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert C. Bonner said
the 20-foot-high devices would substantially boost security at
the Los Angeles-Long Beach harbor complex without causing major
delays.
"We have to save American lives, but we also have to do it in a
way ... that preserves American livelihoods," Bonner said during
a visit to the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles.
The dual ports handle more than 40 percent of all cargo shipped
into this country, and 80 percent of the imports from Asian
manufacturing countries such as China and India.
The federal government has installed about 14 of the monitors,
with plans to install a total of 90 by year's end.
Trucks carrying cargo unloaded from ships will pass through the
systems, a process that takes a matter of seconds.
If the machines find signs of radiation, the container will get
another scan and possibly inspection by hand-held devices to
help identify how much and what kind of radiation is present.
That secondary inspection can last 10 minutes or longer.
Should authorities still have trouble identifying the
container's contents, data will be sent to a federal research
center in Virginia to determine whether the cargo is harmless or
contains plutonium and highly enriched uranium, which are used
to produce nuclear weapons.
In the meantime, the container could be isolated instead of
closing the terminal.
"We're serious about doing everything we reasonably can to
secure this port, "Bonner said.
Nearly 540 radiation portal monitors, which cost approximately
$250,000 each and are federally funded, are being used at
seaports and border crossings nationwide, officials said.
About one out of every 100 to 150 containers bears cargo that
sets off the scanner, prompting a secondary inspection,
officials said. The error rate is about one in 10,000.
Still, terminal operators and shipping companies aren't overly
concerned about delays, said Tupper Hull, spokesman for the
Pacific Merchant Shipping Association, which represents the
ocean carriers and terminals.
"Right now there's a fair amount of confidence that these things
work and work well," he said.
*****************************************************************
24 Sun Herald: Radioactive material found at demolition site
| 07/21/2005
By JOSHUA NORMAN
GULFPORT - Two containers of depleted uranium and one empty
container believed to contain the radioactive material were
discovered Wednesday at an abandoned warehouse slated for
demolition, state environmental officials said.
Criminal investigators with the Environmental Protection Agency
were called in to assist in the situation because leaving the
material behind may have been an illegal act.
"This material is supposed to be kept under lock and key and
they're supposed to have security guards," Mississippi
Department of Environmental Quality emergency responder Earl
Ethridge said. He added the new owners, who bought the property
in a bankruptcy sale, had no idea the radioactive material was
there.
In addition, Ethridge said FBI agents were investigating the
whereabouts of the empty container's material because there was
concern a transient, many of whom are known to frequent the
desolate industrial complex close to Three Rivers Road and the
Bernard Bayou, may have taken the uranium elsewhere.
The previous property owners were industrial steel welders and
the depleted uranium was contained in source kits, which are
used in special cameras designed to test the quality of welded
joints, Ethridge said.
The source kits are about 3 feet long, half a foot wide and look
like giant tool boxes, Ethridge said. They are securely fastened
and do not leak, but Ethridge said he tested the area anyway and
found no nuclear contamination. State health department
officials were en route from Jackson Wednesday evening to also
test for possible contamination.
Ethridge said he discovered these containers while strolling the
grounds of the warehouse after noticing a few "Danger Radiation"
signs on the walls of the building that workers were preparing
to demolish. The workers had spilled some waste oil and Ethridge
said he had been called there around 3 p.m. to supervise the
cleanup.
*****************************************************************
25 NRC: NRC Proposes National Tracking System for Certain Radioactive Materials
News Release - 2005-10
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
No. 05-103 July 20, 2005
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is considering amending its
regulations to implement a national tracking system for certain
radioactive materials used for academic, medical and industrial
purposes.
The NRC is working closely with other federal agencies and the
states to develop the National Source Tracking System to track
certain radioactive materials in specific quantities. During
2002-2003, the NRC worked with other agencies and the
international community to reach agreement on which radioactive
materials and sources should be tracked. Those sources are set
forth in the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Code of
Conduct on the Safety and Security of Radioactive Sources.
The proposed amendment to NRC regulations would require
licensees to report information on the manufacture, transfer,
receipt or disposal of these sources of interest to an automated
National Source Tracking System, to be administered by the NRC.
The sources are considered sealed sources because they are
encased in a capsule designed to prevent leakage or escape of
the material. The radioactive materials that will be tracked
include, but are not limited to, certain amounts of Cobalt-60,
Strontium-90, Cesium-137, Iridium-192 and Americium-241.
Each licensee would also have to provide its initial inventory
of nationally tracked sources to the National Source Tracking
System and annually verify and reconcile the information in the
system with the licensees actual inventory. In addition, the
amendment would require manufacturers to assign a unique serial
number to each nationally tracked source.
This regulation would allow us to better understand and monitor
who possesses sources of interest on a national basis, said
Charles L. Miller, Director of the NRCs Division of Industrial
and Medical Nuclear Safety. It is consistent with
recommendations of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)
and a joint NRC/Department of Energy report.
Once fully operational, the National Source Tracking System
would help NRC and Agreement States (the 33 states that have
agreed with the NRC to regulate the medical and industrial uses
of radioactive material) to conduct inspections and
investigations, communicate nationally tracked source
information to other government agencies, and verify legitimate
ownership and use of nationally tracked sources. The NRC has
developed and is maintaining an interim database of radioactive
sources of interest for both NRC and Agreement State licensees.
This database will be maintained until the National Source
Tracking System is complete.
Radioactive materials provide critical capabilities in the oil
and gas, electrical power, construction and food industries; are
used to treat millions of patients each year in diagnostic and
therapeutic medical procedures; and are used in technology
research and development. In developing its requirements, the
NRC seeks to provide appropriate security for the materials
without discouraging their beneficial use.
Further details of the proposed amendments to NRCs regulations
are contained in a Federal Register notice, to be published
soon. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments
within 75 days after publication of the Federal Register notice
to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 2055-0001, Attention: Rulemakings and
Adjudications Staff. Comments may also be sent by e-mail to
SECY@nrc.govor submitted via the NRCs rulemaking web site at
http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.
Last revised Thursday, July 21, 2005
*****************************************************************
26 Interfax: Radioactive materials customs center opens in Moscow
Interfax.com Text version Site map
Jul 21 2005 5:51PM
MOSCOW. July 21 (Interfax) - A customs control center for
fissile and radioactive materials was opened on Thursday in
Moscow within the framework of a Russian-American project to
fight the illicit trade in such materials.
A diplomatic source told Interfax that the center "was opened
with the money of the U.S. State Department, because the
American side fears that Russian borders may be transparent to
the illegal export of radioactive materials."
© 1991-2005 Interfax
All rights reserved
News and other data on this web site are provided for
information purposes only, and are not intended for
republication or redistribution. Republication or redistribution
of Interfax content, including by framing or similar means, is
expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of
Interfax.
*****************************************************************
27 CBS 3: Laboratory Misplaces Small Amount of Uranium
Thu. Jul. 21, 2005 CBS.com
TEANECK, N.J. (AP) The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has
criticized a chemical laboratory that lost a small amount of
uranium.
The federal agency on Wednesday said LeDoux &Co. committed three
violations in the handling of the uranium-235, which is still
missing.
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan told The Record of Bergen County for
Thursday’s newspapers that the 3.3 grams of uranium is too
little to be used in a dirty bomb and the substance isn’t
radioactive enough to hurt people.
Investigators believe the powdered substance may have been
mistakenly thrown out and is in a landfill in New York or
Pennsylvania.
The uranium was shipped from a company in Virginia to LeDoux,
which analyzes chemicals used in the nuclear industry. LeDoux
alerted the NRC that the uranium was missing on April 13 after
the company found it had only six of the seven canisters of the
material that had been shipped.
In its report, the NRC said the Teaneck company overlooked one
of the canisters that was in the package from
Lynchburg, Va. Then, even though they knew they didn’t have all
seven canisters, LeDoux workers threw the packaging in which the
canisters came into the trash. Lastly, instead of throwing the
packaging in the garbage, workers should have transferred it to
a facility authorized to receive such material.
LeDoux, which says it has have already put in place measures to
correct the problems, has seven days to respond to the report.
(© 2005 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material
may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. )
Viacom Local Networks| Zope Corp.| Video Streaming by DayPort
© MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc., All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
28 NEPA News: Nuclear regulator criticizes Teaneck lab that lost uranium
AP State News
The Associated Press July 21, 2005
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has criticized a chemical
laboratory that lost a small amount of uranium.
The federal agency on Wednesday said LeDoux & Co. committed three
violations in the handling of the uranium-235, which is still
missing.
NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan told The Record of Bergen County for
Thursday's newspapers that the 3.3 grams of uranium is too little
to be used in a dirty bomb and the substance isn't radioactive
enough to hurt people.
Investigators believe the powdered substance may have been
mistakenly thrown out and is in a landfill in New York or
Pennsylvania.
The uranium was shipped from a company in Virginia to LeDoux,
which analyzes chemicals used in the nuclear industry. LeDoux
alerted the NRC that the uranium was missing on April 13 after
the company found it had only six of the seven canisters of the
material that had been shipped.
In its report, the NRC said the Teaneck company overlooked one of
the canisters that was in the package from Lynchburg, Va. Then,
even though they knew they didn't have all seven canisters,
LeDoux workers threw the packaging in which the canisters came
into the trash. Lastly, instead of throwing the packaging in the
garbage, workers should have transferred it to a facility
authorized to receive such material.
LeDoux, which says it has have already put in place measures to
correct the problems, has seven days to respond to the report.
Information from: The Record of Bergen County,
http://www.northjersey.com
Copyright © 1995 - 2005 PowerOne Media, Inc.All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
29 The Courier: Nuclear safety priorities topic of meeting
The Courier 201 East Second St P.O. Box 887 Russellville, AR
72811-0887
Thursday, July 21, 2005
By Josh Troy newseditor@couriernews.com
Communication between police and the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) of the United States Department of Energy
highlighted discussion at Tuesday’s quarterly Pope County Local
Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) meeting.
Pope County Sherriff Jay Winters briefly spoke on the matter and
presented a video with an in-depth explaination.
“The U.S. Department of Energy is responsible for the
transportation of nuclear materials, and we (Pope County
Sherriff’s Office) have met with them,” Winters said. “As far as
I know, the Russellville Police and Arkansas State Police met
with them also, and the meeting was just to understand and
communicate each other’s responsibilities.”
Winters said if someone attempted to sabatoge a truck trailer
with nuclear materials, the nuclear agency and police teamwork
would be different than usual.
“If we were to stop them, there is a particular protocal that
has to be handled, and that is different than what a normal
traffic stop would be,” Winters said. “Because we don’t have
access to their vehicles without going through their commander,
this meeting, we learned how to properly communicate and
coordinate any contact that we would have had with their
vehicle. The proper way would be to meet with their commander,
talk with their commander and handle the situation through their
commander.”
Winters said good communication was important locally because
Interstate 40 goes through Pope County.
“There’s a chance of us (police) coming into contact with them
(NNSA),” Winters said.
If a problem should arise, Winters said a truck trailer would
contact the main U.S. Department of Energy office in
Albequerque, N.M., who then contacts the local police.
Winters said he liked being able to communicate with the nuclear
agency.
“That’s a very good idea so that we can communicate better and
everybody understand each other’s limitations,” Winters said.
In other business:
n 911/Office of Emergency Management Director David Freeman said
National Incident Management System (NIMS) resolutions from Pope
County, Russellville, Atkins, Dover, Hector, London and
Pottsville have been adopted, and copies were forwarded to Bob
Johns with the Arkansas Department of Emergency Management
(ADEM);
n Freeman also said a full-scale Office of Domestic Progress
(ODP) / Emergency Management Planning Grant (EMPG) was
tenatively scheduled for Oct. 19;
n Pam Sellers said there were four possible dates for the mass
flu clinic — Oct. 21, Nov. 4, Nov. 18 and Dec. 2;
n Winters said there would be an emergency prepared crisis
workshop Aug. 10-12 and he needed a head count by Aug. 1.
The next meeting of the Pope County Local Emergency Planning
Committee is scheduled for Oct. 18.
Copyright © 2005, Russellville Newspapers, Inc.
*****************************************************************
30 MosNews: Russia, U.S. Open Anti-Nuclear Trafficking Center
MOSNEWS.COM
[Nuclear blast / Photo from: www.susanneangst.com]
Russia, U.S. Open Anti-Nuclear Trafficking Center
Created: 21.07.2005 14:28 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 14:32 MSK
MosNews
Russian and U.S. officials on Thursday are to mark the opening
of a new center designed to stop trafficking in nuclear and
radioactive materials, Itar Tass reported.
The center, set up with the help of the Russian customs service
and the U.S. Department of Energy, is intended to restrict the
possibility of atomic materials falling into the hands of
terrorists.
U.S. funds are already helping to outfit Russian border stations
with radiation detecting equipment.
The Itar Tass news agency said Russian customs agents in the
past five years have foiled more than 300 attempts to smuggle
radioactive materials across the border with Ukraine.
Since the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, concerns
have grown that terrorists might be trying to build dirty bombs
— conventional bombs that spread radioactivity over a wide area
when they explode
Write us: info@mosnews.com
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
31 [shundahaialert] Bad news fo fallout victims, RECA cuts, and
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:52:35 -0700
Dear friends,
It has been another beautiful, though very hot, day. The moon right now is
fantastic.
Unfortunately, however, we received some bad news in the form of an
editorial in Utah's Provo Daily Herald. It seems the US government wants to
cut funding for RECA, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, which
deserves expansion rather than cuts, at the same time as they are trying to
secure funding for developing new generations of nuclear weapons and
preparing the Nevada Test Site for that testing.
We have linked the editorial to our website for you to review. Please feel
free to browse and check the latest on the other issues we're working on.
http://www.shundahai.org/Downwinders_editorial_072005.htm
Also please donate! We are in serious need of funds to keep our 11 years of
operations running. We have major projects in motion on the issues of
nuclear waste, weapons, and environmental justice on Native land.
As with many other progressive organizations, we are currently experiencing
a funding shortfall that is putting our survival at risk. Every donation
helps!
You can donate on-line from our website by clicking on the link provided on
the top left hand of our home page.
Also checks can be mailed to
Shundahai Network
PO Box 1115
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Donations to Shundahai Network are tax-deductible.
Please continue to check our website www.shundahai.org for updates on
nuclear issues here in Indian country, throughout the West and beyond. With
your help we will continue to provide the information and organizing
resources you need to secure an environmentally just and nuclear
free-future for all of us, the future generations, and all life.
Thank you for your support.
In peace,
Shundahai Network
Shundahai Network
www.shundahai.org
P.O. Box 1115
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Phone- 801.533.0128
Fax- 801.533.0129
shundahai@shundahai.org
Online Fundraising Store- www.cafepress.com/shundahainet
If you are a Myspace user, you can now add us! www.Myspace.com/shundahai
Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word meaning "Peace and Harmony with
all Creation"
*****************************************************************
32 [NL CBW] NS: Details of US microwave-weapon tests revealed
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 09:35:50 -0500 (CDT)
[COMMENT: The human subject protocols and consent forms referenced
in this article may be downloaded at the following URL:
http://www.sunshine-project.org/ADShumantesting.pdf
BE CAREFUL! The PDF file is 10 megabytes. Because the file is very
large and might drain our bandwidth, it will be available for about a
week before going down.
Two additional notes:
1) The Sunshine Project is not getting into directed energy weapons
per se. What we requested was all human subject protocols for
'non-lethal' weapons. These ADS protocols is what came back.
2) These materials were apparently released in error. The situation
is identical to that which led to the release of the ARCAD-related
proposals. I was sent a letter indicating that the protocols had
been forwarded to another office for review and redaction, yet, a
copy of the unexpurgated protocols was inexplicably included in the
FOIA referral letter. Appears to be another case of sending the
wrong envelope to the requester. - EH]
---------
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18725095.600
New Scientist
23 July 2005
Details of US microwave-weapon tests revealed
VOLUNTEERS taking part in tests of the Pentagon's "less-lethal"
microwave weapon were banned from wearing glasses or contact lenses
due to safety fears. The precautions raise concerns about how safe
the Active Denial System (ADS) weapon would be if used in real
crowd-control situations.
The ADS fires a 95-gigahertz microwave beam, which is supposed to
heat skin and to cause pain but no physical damage (New Scientist, 27
October 2001, p 26). Little information about its effects has been
released, but details of tests in 2003 and 2004 were revealed after
Edward Hammond, director of the US Sunshine Project - an organisation
campaigning against the use of biological and non-lethal weapons -
requested them under the Freedom of Information Act.
The tests were carried out at Kirtland Air Force Base in Albuquerque,
New Mexico. Two experiments tested pain tolerance levels, while in a
third, a "limited military utility assessment", volunteers played the
part of rioters or intruders and the ADS was used to drive them away.
The experimenters banned glasses and contact lenses to prevent
possible eye damage to the subjects, and in the second and third
tests removed any metallic objects such as coins and keys to stop hot
spots being created on the skin. They also checked the volunteers'
clothes for certain seams, buttons and zips which might also cause
hot spots.
The ADS weapon's beam causes pain within 2 to 3 seconds and it
becomes intolerable after less than 5 seconds. People's reflex
responses to the pain is expected to force them to move out of the
beam before their skin can be burnt.
But Neil Davison, co-ordinator of the non-lethal weapons research
project at the University of Bradford in the UK, says controlling the
amount of radiation received may not be that simple. "How do you
ensure that the dose doesn't cross the threshold for permanent
damage?" he asks. "What happens if someone in a crowd is unable, for
whatever reason, to move away from the beam? Does the weapon cut out
to prevent overexposure?"
During the experiments, people playing rioters put up their hands
when hit and were given a 15-second cooling-down period before being
targeted again. One person suffered a burn in a previous test when
the beam was accidentally used on the wrong power setting.
A vehicle-mounted version of ADS called Sheriff could be in service
in Iraq in 2006 according to the Department of Defense, and it is
also being evaluated by the US Department of Energy for use in
defending nuclear facilities. The US marines and police are both
working on portable versions, and the US air force is building a
system for controlling riots from the air.
From issue 2509 of New Scientist magazine, 23 July 2005, page 26
_______________________________________________
Distributed via the Sunshine Project's NL CBW list. Please visit http://www.sunshine-project.org for more information. To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit: http://www.sunshine-project.org/mailman/listinfo/nlcbw_sunshine-project.org
*****************************************************************
33 [du-list] [Fwd: MemHole > Chemical Corps report from 1953]
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:57:28 -0700
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: MemHole > Chemical Corps report from 1953
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:35:04 -0400
From: The Memory Hole
The Memory Hole
http://www.thememoryhole.org/
Russ Kick, publisher and editor
20 July 2005
>>> Please forward this email to all interested parties. <<<
The following material has been added:
*** Chemical Corps Document: "Summary of Major Events and Problems"
(Fiscal Year 1953)
Formerly classified Secret, now completely unredacted. "During the
period from January to June 1953, research and development proceeded in
both the offensive and defensive aspects of chemical, biological, and
radiological warfare. The search for new toxic agents continued, and
hundreds of compounds that had possible toxic chemical structures were
considered. The interest was not confined to gaseous substances, but
extended on a larger scale to poisonous solids."
http://www.thememoryhole.org
Also be sure to check out the companion site, The Memoryblog, for links
to more documents and articles:
http://www.thememoryblog.org/
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/
*****************************************************************
34 [NL CBW] ADS
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 13:31:54 -0500 (CDT)
But Neil Davison, co-ordinator of the non-lethal weapons research
project at the University of Bradford in the UK, says controlling the
amount of radiation received may not be that simple. "How do you ensure
that the dose doesn't cross the threshold for permanent damage?" he
asks. "What happens if someone in a crowd is unable, for whatever
reason, to move away from the beam? Does the weapon cut out to prevent
overexposure?"
You mean like when the police order a crowd to disperse and then block
off the exit routes so they can then arrest protesters for not
dispersing when they are told to?
--
Kellia Ramares
R.I.S.E. - Radio Internet Story Exchange
Read "Kellia's 2 x 4" in News and Politics on Blogit.com
"Peak Oil" "Oil, Immigration and Population Growth"
and other topics available on CD through http://www.rise4news.net/
Home Office: 510-834-9737 Pacific Time Zone
_______________________________________________
Distributed via the Sunshine Project's NL CBW list. Please visit http://www.sunshine-project.org for more information. To subscribe or unsubscribe, please visit: http://www.sunshine-project.org/mailman/listinfo/nlcbw_sunshine-project.org
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: RC to Meet July 27 with South Bend, Ind., Hospital to Discuss Apparent Violations
Associated with Unintended Radiation Doses
News Release - Region III - 2005-03
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region III
No. III-05-035 July 20, 2005
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail:
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet Wednesday,
July 27, in Lisle, Ill., with officials of St. Joseph Regional
Medical Center of South Bend, Ind., to discuss apparent
violations of NRC requirements associated with unintended
radiation doses to five patients during treatments last year.
The hospital reported to the NRC in March 2005 that the patients
had received unintended radiation exposures to their legs during
treatment for cervical cancer. The unintended exposures occurred
when a small sealed capsule containing a radiation source
shifted during treatment, resulting in the unintended radiation
doses to the skin of each patients leg.
The meeting will be at 1 p.m. CDT in the NRC's Region III
Office, 2443 Warrenville Rd., Suite 210, in Lisle. The meeting
is open to public observation. At the conclusion of the business
portion of the meeting, NRC officials will be available for
questions and comments from members of the public attending the
meeting.
Two special NRC inspections have reviewed the incidents and the
hospitals response. NRC inspectors identified four apparent
violations of NRC requirements associated with the unintended
radiation doses.
This meeting will allow the hospital officials to provide their
perspective on the incidents and describe the measures they have
taken to correct the problems and prevent a recurrence, said
James Caldwell, NRC Regional Administrator.
Our inspectors have reviewed the hospitals radiation therapy
program and found that, with the exception of these five cases,
it is complying with NRC requirements, he said. The unintended
radiation doses to these five patients occurred under very
specific circumstances that have since been corrected, he said.
The four apparent violations, identified during the inspections,
included the failure to prepare adequate procedures, failure to
instruct hospital staff in the procedures and requirements,
failure to report the five unintended radiation doses promptly
after discovery, and failure to ensure that radiation safety
activities are performed in accordance with procedures and
regulatory requirements. A fifth violation, not associated with
the unintended radiation doses, involved the failure to approve
a medical physicist before the individual began work.
The meeting between the NRC staff and the hospital, called a
predecisional enforcement conference, is an opportunity for the
hospital to provide its perspective on the apparent violations
and to offer any other information that they believe the NRC
should take into consideration in making an enforcement
decision. No decision on the apparent violations or any
enforcement action will be made at the conference. Those
decisions will be made later by NRC officials.
The inspection report describing the apparent violations is
available from the Region III Office of Public Affairs or from
the agency's online document library (known as ADAMS):
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html - use
accession number ML051750196 in the search box to locate the
report. For assistance in using ADAMS, you may contact the NRC
Public Document Room staff at 800/397-4209.
Last revised Thursday, July 21, 2005
*****************************************************************
36 Albuquerque Tribune: Scientist will discuss depleted uranium risk
By Tribune Reporter
July 21, 2005
It was toxicity more than radiation that put a handful of Gulf
War veterans at risk after exposure to depleted uranium,
according to a new study by Sandia National Laboratories.
Depleted uranium, a weakly radioactive heavy metal, is used to
tip bullets and bombs because it is about twice as dense as
lead. That makes it penetrate more deeply into tanks on a
battlefield, said Al Marshall, author of the study.
Marshall studied three groups of soldiers at risk of being in
contact with depleted uranium during the first Gulf War. Those
at the highest risk levels were those who survived in tanks hit
by friendly fire. That group included 160 soldiers. Of those,
five would have received a dose dangerous enough to have a toxic
effect on kidneys, according to the study.
All five are still alive and have not reported kidney failure,
Marshall said.
TOXICITY TALK
Sandia National Laboratories scientist Al Marshall will present
his findings from a recent study on depleted uranium tonight at
the University of New Mexico Law School, 1117 Stanford Dr., from
6 p.m.-8 p.m. in amphitheater 2405. Admission is free.
"Very few individuals got a very high dose," Marshall said. "My
calculations show a very high kidney burden on those. In fact if
the calculation was correct, they had a good chance of not
surviving without medical attention."
"You can have a lot of kidney damage before you have symptoms,
and also kidneys can self-repair," he added. "So either they
were very lucky or my calculations were too high."
Marshall will present his findings to the public tonight at a
free lecture at the University of New Mexico School of Law.
Environmentalists and other activist groups would like the
government to stop using depleted uranium because of the risks,
said Susan Dayton, director of Citizen Action, which is
sponsoring the event.
"We find there's a lot of interest in the community on depleted
uranium and the potential health risks to veterans and
civilians," Dayton said. "This is a local scientist doing his
own research, and we thought this was a great opportunity to
bring the information to the public. We're hoping a lot of
veterans show up."
Marshall created computer models of battle situations in which
depleted uranium was spread into the environment and how humans
would react to that.
Beyond the potential kidney problems, the highest risk group had
about a 1 percent increase in the risk of lung cancer over a
lifetime.
That's due to the radioactive component of the depleted uranium,
when it is inhaled or otherwise ingested in the body, Marshall
said.
Marshall also examined the dangers to children who might live
near a battlefield and play in abandoned tanks contaminated with
the substance.
"I'm not sure if there were many children around there, but I
wanted to do a what-if scenario," Marshall said. "Children's
organs are smaller and they also have a lot of hand-to-mouth
action, which would make their exposure more severe. What I
found, however, was that they might have increased their
lifetime cancer risk by about 0.2 percent."
Still, how much of a dose is acceptable remains an open subject
for argument, Dayton said.
"Even though DU is weakly radioactive, it still increases your
risk for cancer," she said. "A new study by the National Academy
of Sciences recently said that no dose of radiation should be
considered safe."
The study, released in late June, estimated that even people
exposed to a very low dose of radiation had an increased risk of
developing cancer or leukemia.
"I'm not a scientist and Mr. Marshall is," Dayton said. "This is
a chance for the public to talk to a scientist about what these
studies mean. It's our duty in many ways to have a conversation
about this."
*****************************************************************
37 EurekAlert!: Nuclear weapons continue to pose a serious health risk in Europe
]] Public release date: 21-Jul-2005
Contact: Emma Dickinson
edickinson@bmj.com
44-207-383-6529
BMJ-British Medical Journal
Letter: Nuclear weapons are another post-communist health hazard
BMJ Volume 331, p 237
Nuclear weapons in various European countries, particularly
Russia, pose a serious threat to health, argues a letter in this
week's BMJ.
Recent estimates are that Russia alone has 7,800 operational
nuclear warheads - some of which are on high alert status says
Nick Wilson, a public health lecturer and member of
International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War.
Their continued presence means that accidental explosion or
missile launch is always a threat. There is also a risk of
nuclear weapon materials being stolen or sold on to terrorists,
he argues.
Maintaining these weapons eats in to national economies adds the
author, leaving less funds for healthcare and other vital
services.
The threat posed by these weapons can only be tackled if
European countries progress quickly towards a Europe free of
nuclear weapons, and relevant countries - particularly Russia,
France and the UK - meet their nuclear disarmament obligations.
Within Europe, states with US nuclear weapons based on their
territories should follow Greece in removing these weapons, says
the author.
These weapons are "not able to deal with real security threats
now facing the world", concludes the author. Unless removed they
will continue to put European countries and others at risk.
###
EurekAlert!
*****************************************************************
38 Sandia National Labs: Sandia completes depleted uranium study
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
July 21, 2005
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. Sandia National Laboratories has completed a
two-year study of the potential health effects associated with
accidental exposure to depleted uranium (DU) during the 1991
Gulf War.
The study, An Analysis of Uranium Dispersal and Health Effects
Using a Gulf War Case Study, performed by Sandia scientist Al
Marshall, employs analytical capabilities used by Sandias
National Security Studies Department and examines health risks
associated with uranium handling.
U.S. and British forces used DU in armor-piercing penetrator
bullets to disable enemy tanks during the Gulf and Balkan wars.
DU is a byproduct of the process used to enrich uranium for use
in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. During the enrichment
process, the fraction of one type of uranium (uranium-235) is
increased relative to the fraction found in natural uranium. As
a consequence, the uranium left over after the enrichment
process (mostly uranium-238) is depleted in uranium-235 and is
called depleted uranium.
The high density, low cost, and other properties of DU make it
an attractive choice as an anti-tank weapon. However, on impact,
DU particulate is dispersed in the surrounding air both within
and outside the targeted vehicle and suspended particulate may
be inhaled or ingested. Concerns have been raised that exposure
to uranium particulate could have serious health problems
including leukemia, cancers, and neurocognitive effects, as well
as birth defects in the progeny of exposed veterans and
civilians.
Marshalls study concluded that the reports of serious health
risks from DU exposure are not supported by veteran medical
statistics nor supported by his analysis. Only a few U.S.
veterans in vehicles accidentally struck by DU munitions are
predicted to have inhaled sufficient quantities of DU
particulate to incur any significant health risk. For these
individuals, DU-related risks include the possibility of
temporary kidney damage and about a 1 percent chance of fatal
cancer.
Several earlier studies were carried out by the U.S. Department
of Defense, by University Professors Fetter (University of
Maryland) and von Hippel (Princeton), and by an Army sponsored
team from Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and Los Alamos
National Laboratory.
The conclusions from the Sandia study are consistent with these
earlier studies. The Sandia study, however, also includes an
analysis of potential health effects of DU fragments embedded as
shrapnel in the bodies of some U.S. veterans. The Sandia study
also looked at civilian exposures in greater detail, examined
the potential risk of DU-induced birth defects in the children
of exposed individuals, and provided a more detailed analysis of
the dispersion of DU following impact with a number of targeted
vehicles.
For a full copy of the report, download the following pdf file:
An Analysis of Uranium Dispersal and Health Effects Using a
Gulf War Case Study
Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia
Corporation, a Lockheed Martin company, for the U.S. Department
of Energys National Nuclear Security Administration. Sandia has
major R&D responsibilities in national security, energy and
environmental technologies, and economic competitiveness.
Sandia media contact: Michael Padilla, mjpadil@sandia.gov, (505)
284-5325
©2005 Sandia Corporation | Questions and Comments | Privacy and
Security
*****************************************************************
39 EurekAlert: Sandia completes depleted uranium study
]] Public release date: 21-Jul-2005
Contact: Michael Padilla
mjpadil@sandia.gov
505-284-5325
DOE/Sandia National Laboratories
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. -- Sandia National Laboratories has completed
a two-year study of the potential health effects associated with
accidental exposure to depleted uranium (DU) during the 1991
Gulf War.
The study, "An Analysis of Uranium Dispersal and Health Effects
Using a Gulf War Case Study," performed by Sandia scientist Al
Marshall, employs analytical capabilities used by Sandia's
National Security Studies Department and examines health risks
associated with uranium handling.
U.S. and British forces used DU in armor-piercing penetrator
bullets to disable enemy tanks during the Gulf and Balkan wars.
DU is a byproduct of the process used to enrich uranium for use
in nuclear reactors and nuclear weapons. During the enrichment
process, the fraction of one type of uranium (uranium-235) is
increased relative to the fraction found in natural uranium. As
a consequence, the uranium left over after the enrichment
process (mostly uranium-238) is depleted in uranium-235 and is
called depleted uranium.
The high density, low cost, and other properties of DU make it
an attractive choice as an anti-tank weapon. However, on impact,
DU particulate is dispersed in the surrounding air both within
and outside the targeted vehicle and suspended particulate may
be inhaled or ingested. Concerns have been raised that exposure
to uranium particulate could have serious health problems
including leukemia, cancers, and neurocognitive effects, as well
as birth defects in the progeny of exposed veterans and
civilians.
Marshall's study concluded that the reports of serious health
risks from DU exposure are not supported by veteran medical
statistics nor supported by his analysis. Only a few U.S.
veterans in vehicles accidentally struck by DU munitions are
predicted to have inhaled sufficient quantities of DU
particulate to incur any significant health risk. For these
individuals, DU-related risks include the possibility of
temporary kidney damage and about a 1 percent chance of fatal
cancer.
Several earlier studies were carried out by the U.S. Department
of Defense, by University Professors Fetter (University of
Maryland) and von Hippel (Princeton), and by an Army sponsored
team from Pacific Northwest National Laboratories and Los Alamos
National Laboratory.
The conclusions from the Sandia study are consistent with these
earlier studies. The Sandia study, however, also includes an
analysis of potential health effects of DU fragments embedded as
shrapnel in the bodies of some U.S. veterans. The Sandia study
also looked at civilian exposures in greater detail, examined
the potential risk of DU-induced birth defects in the children
of exposed individuals, and provided a more detailed analysis of
the dispersion of DU following impact with a number of targeted
vehicles.
###
For a full copy of the report, download the following pdf file
from
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/def-nonproli
f-sec/snl-dusand.pdf: "An Analysis of Uranium Dispersal and
Health Effects Using a Gulf War Case Study"
Sandia is a multiprogram laboratory operated by Sandia
Corporation, a Lockheed Martin company, for the U.S. Department
of Energy's National Nuclear Security Administration. With main
facilities in Albuquerque, N.M., and Livermore, Calif., Sandia
has major R responsibilities in national security, energy and
environmental technologies, and economic competitiveness.
Release available at
http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2005/def-nonproli
f-sec/depleted-uranium.html
Sandia Media contact: Michael Padilla, mjpadil@sandia.gov, (505)
284-5325
Sandia National Laboratories' World Wide Web home page is
located at http://www.sandia.gov. Sandia news releases, news
tips, science photo gallery, and periodicals can be found at the
News Center button.
EurekAlert!
*****************************************************************
40 NRC: In the Matter of J. L. Shepherd & Associates; San Fernando, CA;
FR Doc 05-14358
[Federal Register: July 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 139)]
[Notices] [Page 42108-42110] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21jy05-142]
Confirmatory Order Rescinding Order (Effective Immediately) I J.
L. Shepherd & Associates (JLS) was the holder of Quality
Assurance (QA) Program Approval for Radioactive Material Packages
No. 0122 (Approval No. 0122), issued by the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part
71, Subpart H. The approval was originally issued January 17,
1980, pursuant to the QA requirements of 10 CFR 71.101. QA
activities included: design, procurement, fabrication, assembly,
testing, modification, maintenance, repair, and use of
transportation packages subject to the provisions of 10 CFR Part
71. In addition to an NRC-approved QA program satisfying the
provisions of 10 CFR Part 71, Subpart H, JLS was required to
comply with the requirements in 10 CFR Part 71, Subpart C, which
grants a general license authorizing licensed material for which
a Certificate of Compliance (CoC) had been issued by the NRC to
be transported or delivered to a carrier for transport. Based on
JLS failure to comply with these requirements, QA Program
Approval No. 0122 was withdrawn, by the immediately effective NRC
Order, dated July 3, 2001 (July 2001 Order) (66 FR 36603, July
12, 2001).
II The NRC issued the July 2001 Order because the NRC lacked
confidence that JLS was implementing its NRC-approved QA Program
(71- 0122, Revision No. 5) in full conformance with the terms and
conditions of an NRC CoC and with 10 CFR Part 71, Subpart H.
On several occasions subsequent to imposition of the July 2001
Order, JLS has requested, based on its proposed Near-Term
Corrective Action Plan (NTCAP), interim relief from the July 2001
Order to allow shipments in U.S. Department of Transportation
(DOT) specification packaging designated as 20WC. On August 17,
2001, in response to the July 2001 Order, JLS requested interim
relief pursuant to its proposed NTCAP to allow 68 shipments to 16
customers, subject to JLS's commitment to take certain actions
regarding implementation of its 10 CFR Part 71 QA Program. On
September 19, 2001, the NRC issued a Confirmatory Order Relaxing
the July 3, 2001, Order (September 2001 Order) based on JLS
commitment to hold all shipments until NRC completed an
inspection which confirmed JLS's satisfactory completion of the
actions identified in its August request. Subsequent to
certifications under oath and affirmation from both the
Independent Auditor and J. L. Shepherd, the President of JLS,
that the conditions for issuance of an Order had been met, the
NRC conducted an inspection at the JLS facility on November
13-15, 2001. As a result of the inspection findings, the
inspection team authorized JLS to commence the shipments in
accordance with the September 2001 Order.
By letter dated December 7, 2001, JLS requested that provisions
of the July 2001 Order be relaxed based on a showing of good
cause. Specifically, JLS requested interim relief to ship an
irradiator to Surry Nuclear Power Station and return the replaced
unit to JLS's facility in California. JLS proposed to use the
NTCAP specified in the September 2001 Order to authorize these
two shipments in DOT specification packaging designated as 20WC.
The NRC Staff reviewed JLS's relief request to determine whether
the requested relief would be consistent with assurances that
public health and safety are maintained. As a result, the NRC
issued a Confirmatory Order Relaxing Order dated December 13,
2002 (December 2002 Order), which relaxed the July 2001 Order to
grant interim relief to allow two shipments to one customer in
20WC packages in accordance with JLS's NTCAP, provided certain
commitments were met.
By letters dated February 26, 2002, as supplemented March 13, 18,
and 25, 2002, JLS requested that provisions of the July 2001
Order be relaxed based on a showing of good cause. Specifically,
JLS requested an extension of the September 2001 Order expiration
date from March 31, 2002 to June 30, 2002, to authorize JLS to
[[Page 42109]] complete shipment of Type B quantities of
radioactive material in DOT 20WC specification packaging that was
authorized by the September 2001 Order. The extension of the
expiration date was necessary since many of the JLS customers did
not obtain the necessary licensing approval or building
modification in time for the shipments to be completed by March
31, 2002. In addition, JLS requested authorization to make
additional shipment to customers not approved by the September
2001 Order. JLS proposed to use the NTCAP specified in the
September 2001 Order. JLS committed to: (1) Inspect the 20WC
package (both shield and overpack); (2) document the inspection
in a separate report; (3) perform the shipping and inspection
function only by trained personnel; and (4) have the Independent
Auditor verify compliance of each shipment with the foregoing
commitments and certify such compliance in the routine monthly
reports to the NRC.
This Order only granted additional time to complete the shipments
previously authorized by the September 2001 Order to be completed
by March 31, 2002. On February 26, 2002, JLS consented to
issuance of a Confirmatory Order (February 2002 Order) granting
interim relief from the July 2001 Order subject to the
commitments, as described, agreed that the Confirmatory Order
would be effective upon issuance, and agreed to waive its right
to a hearing on this action.
Implementation of these commitments, as described, provided
assurance that sufficient resources were applied to the QA
program, and that the program would be conducted safely and in
accordance with NRC requirements.
In response to JLS's most recent request for interim relief, and
based on a showing of good cause, the NRC issued a Confirmatory
Order dated May 30, 2003, Confirmatory Order Relaxing Order (May
2003 Order) (68 FR 34010, June 6, 2003), that allowed JLS to make
shipments through June 1, 2005, and expanded JLS's shipment
authorization to transportation packaging as authorized by JLS's
implementation of Revision 7 of the conditionally approved QA
Program Approval No.
0122. The May 2003 Order contained an expiration date of June 1,
2005.
By letter dated April 7, 2005, JLS requested the NRC to rescind
the July 2001 Order that withdrew JLS's Quality Assurance Program
Approval No. 0122. Because the Staff's review of JLS's request
could not be completed by June 1, 2005, the Staff issued a
Confirmatory Order on June 1, 2005, which extended the expiration
date of the May 2003 Order to July 1, 2005 (70 FR 34165, June 13,
2005), to allow JLS to continue limited operations under Revision
7 of the conditionally approved QA Program Approval No. 0122,
while the Staff completed its review.
III The Staff has completed its review and concluded that the
July 2001 Order should be rescinded. JLS has completed all of the
elements of its NTCAP and has demonstrated, on multiple occasions
after relaxation of the July 2001 Order, that it can safely
transport Type B radioactive shipments in both DOT Specification
20WC overpacks and NRC-approved CoC packages under their new
NRC-approved QA program. In addition, the NRC Spent Fuel Project
Office has inspected JLS in 2003 and again in 2004 and although
minor program implementation deficiencies were found, these
findings were of lower safety significance and none were of a
severity level comparable to the original findings which
precipitated the issuance of the July 2001 Order. In addition, in
JLS's April 7, 2005 letter, JLS committed to the following
conditions: 1. JLS shall continue implementing its new QA
Procedures such that reviews are conducted to ensure that all
activities under the scope of Part 71 are governed by procedures
defining the activity, documenting the activity, and providing
audit trail of the activity performed.
2. The Independent Auditor shall continue to perform quarterly
audits verifying the implementation of the conditionally approved
JLS Quality Assurance Program Plan and Implementing Procedures.
Reports shall be provided quarterly by the 20th day of the month
following completion of the audit. Any areas of nonconformance,
not self identified by JLS, shall be reported to NRC.
3. JLS shall keep monthly statistics regarding QA Program
implementation and procedure adherence. Such statistics shall
include the number of nonconformances, the nature of the
nonconformances, and indicate those nonconformances that are
referred to the corrective action processes. Such information
shall be provided to the Independent Auditor who will report any
areas of concern to NRC during scheduled reports.
4. JLS shall immediately stop work or cause to be stopped any
work which would result in a potential hazard to public health
and safety.
5. Conditions 1 though 4 shall remain in effect for one year from
date of rescission of the July 3 Order, or until the Independent
Auditor shall issue four successive quarterly reports that show
no violation of NRC regulations and effective implementation of
the JLS Quality Assurance Program.
On June 23, 2005, JLS consented to issuance of this Order with
the commitments, as described in Section IV below. JLS further
agreed in its June 23, 2005, letter that this Order is to be
effective upon issuance and that it waived its right to a
hearing.
Implementation of these commitments will provide enhanced
assurance that sufficient resources will be applied to JLS's
Quality Assurance Program Plan and Implementing Procedures, and
that the plan and procedures will be conducted safely and in
accordance with NRC requirements. I find JLS's commitments as set
forth in Section IV acceptable and necessary and conclude that
with these commitments, the public health and safety are
reasonably assured. In view of the foregoing, I have determined
that the public health and safety require that JLS's commitments
be by this Order. Based on the above and JLS's consent, this
Order is immediately effective upon issuance.
IV Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 62, 81, 161b, 161i, 161o,
182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Section 2.202 and 10 CFR parts
71 and 110, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that the
July 3, 2001, Order is rescinded, reinstating JLS's quality
assurance program approval and granting relief to J. L. Shepherd
and Associates to allow full participation in 10 CFR part 71
transportation activities in accordance with NRC-approved quality
assurance program approval, revision 7, based on the following
conditions: 1. JLS shall continue implementing its new QA
Procedures. Reviews shall be conducted to ensure that all
activities under the scope of 10 CFR part 71 are governed by
procedures defining the activity, documenting the activity, and
providing an audit trail of the activity performed.
2. The Independent Auditor shall continue to perform quarterly
audits verifying the implementation of the conditionally approved
JLS Quality Assurance Program Plan and Implementing Procedures.
Reports shall be provided quarterly by the 20th day of the month
following completion of the audit. Any areas of nonconformance
[[Page 42110]] included in such reports that are not self
identified by JLS, shall also be reported to NRC, in writing, by
the 20th day of the month following completion of the audit.
3. JLS shall keep monthly statistics regarding QA Program
implementation and procedure adherence. Such statistics shall
include the number of nonconformances, the nature of the
nonconformances, and those nonconformances referred to the
corrective action processes. Such information shall be provided
to the Independent Auditor who will report any areas of concern
to NRC through scheduled reports.
4. JLS shall immediately stop work or cause to be stopped any
work which would result in a potential hazard to public health
and safety.
5. Conditions 1 though 4 shall remain in effect for one year from
date of rescission of the July 3 Order, or until the Independent
Auditor shall issue four successive quarterly reports that show
no violation of NRC regulations and effective implementation of
the JLS Quality Assurance Program, whichever is later.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may in writing, relax or
rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by JLS of
good cause.
V Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other
than the Certificate Holder, may request a hearing within 20 days
of its issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be
given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for
extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the
extension. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings
and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall
be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant
General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the
same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region IV, 611
Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400, Arlington, TX 76011 and to JLS.
Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United
States Government offices, it is requested that answers and
requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the
Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to
301-415-1101 or by e-mail to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General
Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725
or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the
licensee requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with
particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely
affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth
in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f). If a hearing is requested by a person
whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue
an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a
hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall
be whether this Confirmatory Order should be sustained.
In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of
an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the
provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 20 days
from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings.
If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been
approved, the provisions specified in Section IV shall be final
when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been
received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the
immediate effectiveness of this Order.
Dated this 30th day of June, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael R. Johnson, Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. 05-14358 Filed 7-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
41 deseret news: Bennett prevails on N-waste wording
[deseretnews.com]
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Committee scraps federal role in Utah's Skull Valley fight
By Jerry Spangler Deseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — At the insistence of Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, a
Senate appropriations committee has stripped language from a
House bill that would have directed government attorneys to fight
Utah's attempt to keep high-level nuclear waste out of the state.
"The federal government should not be in the business of
mounting legal challenges for a privately owned company,"
Bennett said. "The language passed by the House specifying
shipments of nuclear waste to Skull Valley is in direct conflict
with administration policy and something I was happy to
eliminate from the Senate bill."
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Transportation —
of which Bennett is a member — removed authorization language
specifying that the Department of Transportation's Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Admin- istration was authorized to
hire two attorneys "to support the legal challenges regarding
shipments of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste
to Skull Valley, Utah."
Utah's two senators and Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. interpreted
the language to mean the government was charting a course of
supporting Private Fuel Storage, the private consortium of
nuclear power utilities that wants to store up to 40,000 tons of
spent nuclear fuel on Goshute tribal lands southwest of Salt
Lake City.
Last week, Huntsman issued a terse statement saying he
was shocked and dismayed by a vote in the U.S. House of
Representatives to allocate federal funding to address
anticipated "legal challenges" that might be brought by the
State of Utah.
"The federal government should not be funding the
litigation expenses of a privately owned, for-profit enterprise
in its efforts to force spent nuclear fuel on a state that
doesn't want it," Huntsman said. "This is public policy at its
worst and represents a dramatic departure from previous
statements made by congressional leaders."
On Tuesday, members of Utah's congressional delegation
said they were still trying to determine who in the House
requested the language, which slipped through unnoticed by
Utah's three representatives.
Fingers were pointing at the Bush administration and the
Office of Management and Budget. But both Bennett and Sen. Orrin
Hatch, R-Utah, said Tuesday they had received separate
assurances from White House officials that the language is a
mistake and should not be taken as White House support of PFS.
Bennett said Office of Management and Budget Director
Josh Boltento confirmed the Bush administration's support for
Utah's efforts to block the waste and assured him the language
would not resurface in conference committee discussions to
resolve differences between the House and Senate versions of the
transportation bill.
The Senate Appropriations Committee is scheduled to act
on the bill today.
Hatch said White House Chief of Staff Andy Card assured
him the language in the bill requesting funding for staff
positions to review and possibly defend waste transit plans was
not what the administration intended and that it would not be in
the final bill.
"I remain firmly opposed to any shipment of spent nuclear
fuel to the state of Utah and appreciate the administration's
recognition that the PFS proposal to do so is contrary to the
nation's nuclear waste policy," Bennett said.
Bennett has added language to the Senate's version
stating the committee "denies funding for new positions to
administer activities related to shipment of spent nuclear fuel
and high-level radioactive waste to a private interim storage
facility."
The House language runs counter to assurances by former
Secretary of Interior Spencer Abraham, who wrote a letter to
Utah officials pledging that no federal funds would be expended
on the PFS proposal.
The move is seen by some in the Utah delegation as a
stealth maneuver by PFS supporters similar to an unsuccessful
attempt by opponent Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, who last year
quietly tried to insert language in a defense bill that would
have designated lands around the PFS site as wilderness, thereby
blocking the construction of a rail spur needed to transport the
waste.
Bishop's efforts were blocked during a conference
committee resolution of the bill by Republican senators who were
opposed to adding new language during the negotiation process.
Bishop is attempting the same legislation this year, but is
doing so openly and much earlier in the process.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is poised to grant PFS
a license to store spent nuclear fuel in above-ground casks for
up to 40 years in what is seen as temporary storage pending the
completion of a permanent site at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The
earliest that delay-plagued site could open is 2012.
Officials are trying to resolve court setbacks that
ordered the Environmental Protection Agency to revisit radiation
standards used to design the facility. Investigations are also
under way into allegations that government scientists falsified
data related to water studies at Yucca Mountain.
Utah's two senators are holding hope in a letter from
eight of nine members of the PFS coalition that they will not
proceed with PFS as long as Yucca Mountain is open for business.
E-mail: spang@desnews.com
© 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
42 Las Vegas RJ: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Another official to leave project
Thursday, July 21, 2005
Subpoenas in e-mail issue signed, sent to Energy Department
By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department's licensing director for
Yucca Mountain has resigned, the second senior manager to leave
the nuclear waste project in the past month, DOE officials
confirmed Wednesday.
Joseph Ziegler submitted his resignation last week citing
personal reasons, DOE spokesman Allen Benson said. His last day
is July 26, employees were told in an e-mail.
Ziegler, who worked in Las Vegas, was director of license
application and strategy, the office responsible for preparing
licensing materials to be filed with the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission in support of DOE's request to build a Nevada nuclear
waste repository.
Yucca license preparations have been marked by delays, however,
that have postponed an anticipated application date from last
December until this December and possibly later.
At an hearing before NRC administrative judges on Tuesday, an
attorney for DOE said the department may need even more time,
perhaps up to six months, to reformat sets of electronic
documents to a required standard for a licensing database.
In a follow-up Wednesday, however, DOE attorney Donald Irwin
said the department is still working out a schedule and he could
not pinpoint possible delays.
Ziegler's departure from Yucca Mountain comes two weeks after
the announced transfer of John Mitchell, the president of the
project's operating company Bechtel SAIC. Bechtel said it
routinely transfers managers after two or three years.
Benson maintained the turnover among senior managers does not
signal Yucca Mountain is in turmoil.
"People at that level move and there's nothing unusual about
that," Benson said. "Joe Ziegler was here about five years or so
and after five years of a rather intense amount of work, that is
not unusual."
Bob Loux, a Yucca Mountain critic and executive director of the
Nevada Agency for Nuclear Projects, shrugged at Ziegler's
departure.
"My sense of things is that they are so far away from having an
actual license application that it doesn't even matter," Loux
said. "They will probably just have someone else take his place."
Meanwhile Wednesday in Congress, a House committee chairman
followed through on a threat to subpoena Yucca Mountain
documents held by the Energy Department.
Rep. Tom Davis, R-Va., signed subpoena documents that were
issued to Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.
The subpoenas order DOE to deliver by Friday 10 categories of
documents including personnel and research records of scientists
tied to e-mail messages that suggest quality assurance
documentation may have been falsified.
Also subpoenaed were communications between DOE and its
contractor, and a copy of a draft repository license application.
Davis is chairman of the House Government Reform Committee. A
federal worker subcommittee headed by Rep. Jon Porter, R-Nev.,
is conducting an investigation of the e-mails.
Porter said the subpoenaed documents "are just one more piece,
an integral part of getting information. Unfortunately we're
having to force (DOE) to hand them over."
The Energy Department was reviewing the subpoena, spokesman
Craig Stevens said. DOE officials say they have resisted because
of the likelihood Porter would publicize documents that could
threaten repository licensing.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
43 Las Vegas SUN: Deadline on Yucca documents is Friday
Today: July 21, 2005 at 11:5:38 PDT
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department has until Friday to deliver
Yucca Mountain project documents to the House Government Reform
Committee under a subpoena delivered Wednesday by Chairman Tom
Davis.
Davis, R-Va., sent the subpoena at the recommendation of Rep.
Jon Porter, R-Nev., who is conducting an investigation into
possible falsified documents at the proposed nuclear repository,
90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.
Porter had been requesting documents since April, but the
department did not deliver them by a deadline he set for 4 p.m.
Monday.
The subpoena lists 10 different sets of records, including
employee records and the draft license application.
"The department has made every effort to provide the
information the congressman has requested while ensuring that
the documents are handled in a way that does not impair the
department's ability to carry out its responsibility under the
Nuclear Waste Policy Act," said department spokesman Craig
Stevens.
"The department's lawyers are currently reviewing the
subpoena," he said.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
44 Montclair Times Community: EPA summing up decades of work at Superfund site
: Trailers expected to vacate Nishuane Park this summer
northjersey.com -
Wednesday, July 20, 2005
By ALICIA ZADROZNY
of The Montclair Times
The end is near for Montclair’s Superfund site.
The 30-day public comment period for the groundwater plan for
the Superfund site in Montclair, Glen Ridge and West Orange is
ending this week after it began with a public meeting at
Nishuane School at the end of June. This is the first part of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s two-pronged plan to
wrap up remediation activities on the site that was contaminated
with radon for the better part of 90 years and cost about $220
million to clean up, as reports estimate.
By the end of this summer, EPA project managers expect to wrap
up final tests of the soil and send out remaining documents to
owners of the properties affected by the contamination.
EPA trailers have been stationed on the edge of Nishuane Park
for about 15 years and will be gone when all the final work is
completed.
The contamination of the site that encompassed the three towns
with 271 properties in Montclair — 265 residential and six
municipal — began with U.S. Radium factory of Orange, a company
that manufactured luminous watch dials.
Radioactive waste from the company, which went out of business
in the mid-1920s, was used as landfill in low-lying areas of the
towns, and homes were subse-quently built on top of the fill.
Elevated levels of radon gas present in soil or groundwater,
mostly due to low-ventilation rates, are linked to an increased
risk of lung cancer.
In the early 1980s, an aerial survey discovered the presence of
gamma radiation in the three towns. In the following years, the
EPA designed remediation plans and began the excavation of
contaminated soil from underneath and around the homes. Some of
the remediation involved outfitting homes with basement
ventilators. The most serious corrections involved the
demolition of four homes located on Franklin and Virginia
avenues in 1990. Throughout the years, contaminated soil was
disposed of at special sites in Nevada, Utah and more recently,
Idaho.
Soil remediation activities were completed in December of 2004.
The EPA then divided the project into two parts to address
groundwater and soil separately. After examining groundwater,
the EPA is recommending that “no action” be taken.
About 40 to 50 people attended the public meeting held at
Nishuane School and varied concerns were raised, said EPA
Project Manager Fred Cataneo. Among them, Cataneo said, were
some residents concerned about an existing well in Nishuane Park
and whether contamination would occur if it were pumped. Cataneo
explained that levels of radon-222 were consistent with amounts
that naturally occur due to the bedrock throughout the area.
Officials do not consider any amounts to be totally safe, but
said there would not be a problem in this case as Montclair’s
water supply comes from public sources.
“It’s comparable to the level throughout northwestern New
Jersey,” Cataneo said. “There’s no site-related contamination
left in the groundwater.”
Although the EPA is not recommending further action, Cataneo
said that nothing is final until it considers all public
comments, which will be studied in the coming weeks. The final
“record of decision” will be submitted to the Montclair
Environmental Commission for review.
According to EPA Project Manager Betsy Donovan, she has less
than 50 letters to send to property owners in Montclair that
will detail the work done at their homes. The EPA has routinely
conducted one-year follow-up tests on properties where soil was
excavated, and has several left to do, Donovan said.
“It pretty much happened in Montclair the way we envisioned,”
Donovan said. “It’s a lot of work, a lot of dirt, a lot of
properties, a lot of memories. It’s a good feeling to know we’re
done, almost done.”
After the trailers are removed, Donovan said she expects that
the EPA will work with Montclair to see how it can restore a
piece of land back to Nishuane Park.
The end could not come soon enough for Sam Pinkard.
Pinkard has been a leader in the grassroots effort to make sure
the soil remediation was done right. A mechanical engineer and
longtime Montclair resident, Pinkard headed the township’s Radon
Task Force since 1984 and is a member of the Montclair
Environmental Commission.
The triumph of the end of the project does not erase the pain
that came along the way. Pinkard remembered contentious meetings
with the residents of Vernon who fought against the disposal of
soil in their town with angry signs posted in Montclair. He
recalled how neighborhood children used to smart at the taunts
that they “glowed in the dark.” He also remembered the pain of
his neighbors who had to move from their homes.
“It goes on and on, but this is closure now,” Pinkard said.
Copyright © 2005 North Jersey Media Group Inc.
Copyright Infringement Notice User Agreement &Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
45 KVBC: Are There Alternatives To The Yucca Mountain Project?
July 22, 2005
Part II Of Mitch Truswell's Interview With Victor Gilinsky
It's being called a bad idea that's only gotten worse over the
years. That's how one man sums up the Yucca Mountain Project.
Victor Gilinsky is a former member of the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission. He's now helping Nevada fight the Nuclear Waste
Repository. As News 3's Mitch Truswell reports, despite the 8
billion dollars spent on Yucca Mountain so far, Gilinsky still
sees many problems with it.
"They've resisted any independent look at this, they're doing
this all in house completely." That's one of
Victor Gilinsky's main complaints about the Yucca Mountain
project. Not enough science and too much effort by the
department of energy to just get the project done.
"If they resist an independent look, how can you have any
confidence in what they do?"
Even though radioactive waste would be encapsulated in multiple
layers of metal, and put in casks, not everyone is convinced.
What we don't know is how these containers will hold up over
hundreds or thousands of years. Will they corrode or leak?
That's why DOE has suggested putting in a drip shield. It's a
barrier to keep water from getting to the containers, limiting
the possibility of corrosion and leaks. Gilinsky says the drip
shield could come years after waste arrives at Yucca Mountain.
"They're not putting in the drip shield when they put in the
waste. They're talking about putting in the drip shield at the
time the repository is closed. That could be 300 years from now."
There's another concern. Gilinsky wonders how the tunnels, which
provide access to the repository site, will hold up far into the
future.
"The idea that they're gonna have these trolleys running around
200 or 300 years from now putting in the drip shield, that's
just pie in the sky, it's ridiculous."
Concerns about the project also come from former DOE employees.
Gilinksy claims a former DOE undersecretary told him Yucca
Mountain was a terrible site and full of problems. The
undersecretary never expressed that opinion until after leaving
the agency.
"I think the feeling is among knowledgeable people, sympathetic
to nuclear power, this is a poor choice."
So what would Gilinsky do with the waste, instead of burying it
at Yucca Mountain? He says if the DOE is so confident in their
containers which will hold the radioactive waste, those
containers should be used to contain the waste where it is right
now, at hundreds of sites, including nuclear power plants,
around the country. That also means the waste won't have to be
transported though cities and towns across the country.
The Department of Energy expects to submit its application for a
license sometime in 2006. The DOE originally hoped to submit
that license request in December of last year.
Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KVBC. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
46 Business Gazette: NUCLEAR CHIEFS INUNDATED WITH MORE THAN 1,000 JOB APPLICATIONS
Published in Whitehaven News on Thursday, July 21st 2005
response: Richard Mrowicki
By Jon Colman
NUCLEAR Decommissioning chiefs say that they have been inundated
with job applications to bring its Cumbrian operations up to
full strength.
Richard Mrowicki, the NDAs head of stakeholder relations, said:
We have had a very healthy response to the administrative roles
advertised in the local area recently, with over 1,000
applications.
This meant we were able to ensure the best fit between person
and role in the organisation.
The NDA, which has 100 staff at its interim Pelham House HQ, is
now in its last round of recruitment, prior to its forthcoming
move to Westlakes.
Mr Mrowicki added: The prime role of the NDA is to ensure the
safe, secure and cost-effective clean-up of the UK civil, public
sector nuclear legacy.
We also have clear duties to maximise the opportunities that
arise from nuclear decommissioning in the area surrounding our
sites.
The location of the NDA HQ in West Cumbria brings with it
significant opportunities not only for local companies but also
for the community in which we have chosen to base ourselves.
The NDA is only two months old but is already making a
difference, not only to the progress of clean up but also by
establishing a visible presence in the local community.
*****************************************************************
47 Business Gazette: SELLAFIELD TEAM LEADS WORLD IN NUCLEAR CLEANING-UP OPERATION
Published in Whitehaven News on Thursday, July 21st 2005
A MASSIVE 1000TBq of radioactivity from the 1950s has been made
safer thanks to a groundbreaking process at Sellafield.
In the culmination of a world-leading clean-up achievement at
Sellafield intermediate level radioactive sludges from the aging
B241 tank complex were encapsulated in cement and safely placed
into long term storage.
A trio of outstanding feats led to the overall success of the
project.
The first was the transfer in March of 1500 cubic metres of
radioactive sludge (representing almost 1000TBq of activity)
from a fifty-year-old tank into modern, high integrity buffer
storage.
Hailed as a world first for radioactive sludge retrieval on such
a large scale, this was also a major triumph for clean-up at
Sellafield, moving half of the total radiological inventory of
B241 into safe containment.
The transfer was founded on many years of meticulous planning as
well as the use of leading-edge technology. For instance sliding
into place a huge containment building over the whole of the
tank complex.
Once safely in buffer storage the waste underwent detailed
analysis before the first batch was processed through the
Enhanced Actinide Removal Plant (EARP). Indications from this
first processing is that EARP will prove to be a highly
efficient route for concentrating the waste, minimising the
volume to be stored and eventually disposed of and all well
within environmental regulations.
The Waste Packaging and Encapsulation Plant (WPEP) then took
over, immobilising the waste in cement inside stainless steel
containers. The plant produced a fully conforming product from
the outset, achieving normal production rates from the start.
Putting the first drums into the WPEP store is a major
milestone, proving the whole process from transfer from historic
storage, through treatment and encapsulation and then placement
of the final product into store.
Production Director John Clarke said: This is a great example
of the capabilities of the people here at Sellafield and another
demonstration of our progress in dealing with the legacy of the
early years of site operation. Innovative thinking, attention to
detail and a commitment to safety and environmental
responsibility have been the hallmark of the project throughout.
All those concerned can feel justifiably proud of their efforts".
MEANWHILE it has taken five years on another Clean-up task.
The B38 decommissioning team has successfully cleaned up the
floor of compartment seven of the swarf retrieval facility
heavily contaminated following a spillage five years ago.
Conditions in the compartment were so challenging that a
Sellafield operator would have received their daily dose in less
than a second and a remotely operated robot was required to
carry out the work.
*****************************************************************
48 [NukeNet] Anti-nuke groups submit LANL bid
Date: Thu, 21 Jul 2005 14:53:29 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Hi, peace and environmental colleagues -- here is a news article that
quotes from our bid to run the Los Alamos Lab. --Marylia
July 20, 2005
Watchdog: Elevate science, dismantle nukes
Anti-nuke groups submit LANL bid
By DIANA HEIL The New Mexican
http://tinyurl.com/bvfgj
Dismantling all nuclear weapons is at the forefront of a proposal written by
two anti-nuke groups in the competition to run Los Alamos National
Laboratory.
In a 24-page joint proposal to the U.S. Department of Energy, Santa Fe's
Nuclear Watch of New Mexico and California's Tri-Valley Communities Against
a Radioactive Environment submitted dramatic changes for the birthplace of
the bomb.
"Our fundamental position is that all nuclear-weapons activities should be
conducted in a purely custodial role while all nuclear arsenals await
irreversible dismantlement. In the year 2000, the United States and the
other nuclear-weapons signatories to the Nonproliferation Treaty made a
binding pledge to implement 13 concrete steps toward nuclear disarmament,"
they wrote in a proposal submitted Tuesday. "It is in our highest
national-security interests to fulfill those pledges because a failure to do
so can have deep negative impact on discouraging the proliferation of
nuclear weapons."
Under their vision, the future for the lab would involve environmental
restoration and a heavy bent toward civilian sciences; that is, renewable
energy, green manufacturing techniques and resolutions to the threat of
global warming. "We believe that U.S. national security is seriously
impaired by our lack of energy independence," the proposal says.
The anti-nuke groups would sidestep the government's push for nuclearweapons
research and development as well as heightened production for plutonium
triggers for weapons.
"We believe that so-called 'great science' at the lab is all too intertwined
with nuclear-weapons science, a science that is arguably already overly
mature, if not internationally provocative and dangerous in encouraging
nuclear-weapons proliferation by example," the proposal says.
Accountability to the public would be a priority for the watchdog groups.
Protections for whistle-blowers at the lab would be increased.
Community-access programs would be developed. Grossreceipts taxes would be
paid to New Mexico -- up to $80 million a year. And they would not seek
indemnification from penalties for occupational safety, nuclear safety,
security, fiscal management and environmental violations, as allowed in the
bidding process.
"For too long Los Alamos County has been a privileged enclave with only
limited benefits for New Mexico," the proposal says. "It's time to change
that, to better spread both the economic wealth and the lab's intellectual
resources for the greater benefit of all in meeting important regional and
national needs for long-term security."
On the Web
www.nukewatch.org
www.trivalleycares.org
Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551
- is our web site address. Please visit us
there!
(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
49 SF Chronicle: LIVERMORE / Lab officials say fire posed no toxic threat /
EPA requests results of air quality tests from Superfund site
Keay Davidson, Chronicle Science Writer
Thursday, July 21, 2005
A large grass fire penetrated into and burned about 200 acres of
an outdoor explosives test site at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory late Tuesday and Wednesday morning, raising concerns
that contaminants at the Superfund site may have been released
into the atmosphere.
But lab officials denied there's any danger that the fire might
have vaporized toxic contaminants and expelled them into the
atmosphere. The 200 acres that burned -- a small part of the
7,000-acre explosives facility known as Site 300 -- have
suffered "little ground contamination" from years of explosives
tests, lab spokeswoman Lynda Seaver said.
The state's environmental agencies are still trying to decide
whether to get involved in investigating the possible
environmental effects of the fire.
"We'll probably be working with the (state) Department of Health
Services to determine what the next step should be," state
Department of Toxic Substances Control department spokesman Ron
Baker said late Wednesday afternoon.
For several decades at Site 300, scientists have conducted test
explosions -- both inside buildings and in the open air -- of
simulated nuclear weapons and chemical explosives. As a result,
the site is contaminated with toxics including
trichloroethylene, tritium and depleted uranium.
In 1987, the federal Environmental Protection Agency gave Site
300 Superfund status, which makes it eligible for funding for
cleaning up highly contaminated sites.
"Past activities at the site have resulted in releases of
contaminants to the subsurface such as volatile organic and
high-explosive compounds, radionuclides, and metals. The
affected areas are being treated in a variety of ways that
integrate groundwater extraction and treatment, source
isolation, and hydraulic control," according the lab's Web site.
An EPA Web site says that the "primary health threat posed is
drinking contaminated groundwater."
As a routine precaution Wednesday, the EPA asked the lab to
submit its post-fire measurements of local air quality at Site
300 to the agency, EPA spokesperson Mark Merchant said.
Otherwise, however, the EPA is not actively involved in the
investigation of the fire's atmospheric effects.
The fire began early Tuesday evening and remains unexplained.
More than 650 firefighters from the lab, California Department
of Forestry, Livermore- Pleasanton, Tracy, and Alameda and San
Joaquin counties extinguished the 10, 000-acre fire by
mid-morning Wednesday, lab officials said.
Livermore closed Site 300 and sent employees there home early
Tuesday so they wouldn't get in the way of firefighters, lab
officials said. It remained closed Wednesday and is scheduled to
reopen today. The lab's main facility is 15 miles from where the
fire started and was unaffected by the blaze.
Grass fires are a concern at nuclear weapons labs. Contaminants
in the soil can, in theory, be vaporized by a fire, then
expelled into the atmosphere.
The fire concerns a prominent local anti-nuclear activist,
Marylia Kelley of Tri-Valley Cares in Livermore.
"Wildfires are a common problem in that area and have occurred a
number of times," Kelley said. "It would be less worrisome if
this was the first time in history it had ever happened, but
it's actually a major problem."
She's especially concerned by encroaching development: As
suburbs creep into the area, there's a growing danger that a
major fire could unleash Site 300's toxics onto communities
beyond the lab site. She advocates shutting down all weapons
research at Site 300.
In 2000, a 45,000-acre wildfire threatened Los Alamos National
Laboratory in New Mexico. Afterward, lab scientists studied
whether the fire had sent ground contaminants into the air. The
Los Alamos study concluded there was less than a 1-in-10-million
chance that anyone would breathe cancer-causing chemicals or
radioactive materials unleashed by the fire.
E-mail Keay Davidson at kdavidson@sfchronicle.com.
Page B - 5
The San Francisco Chronicle]
*****************************************************************
50 Daily Texan - Opinion: Deconstructing Los Alamos -
Sreenivasan revealed Opinion | 7/21/2005
By JJ Hermes
"It really showed that we need to integrate a more industrial
culture with a more academic culture." University of Texas
System Chancellor Mark Yudof, July 19, 2005.
A truck bouncing through the arid Albuquerque, New Mexico
terrain, loaded down with the final proposal of a team including
the UT System and Lockheed Martin to manage Los Alamos National
Laboratory, has cemented University involvement in a bid for the
lab.
Sixty years ago to the week, the two-year rush to build a
nuclear weapon culminated with the first successful atomic
detonation. The Trinity Test, on July 16, 1945, put Los Alamos
in a permanent spotlight; now that spotlight might be headed
toward Austin.
Campus dialogue on the bid has been scant, with opposition
primarily reserved for members of UT Watch. Justifiably, most
opposition has been moral: Why would the System, and the
University, want to align itself so closely with dangerous
research on the most lethal weapons known to man?
Most University students have shown little interest. A Student
Government survey of over 500 students in January found that 34
percent supported a Los Alamos bid, 17 percent did not and 49
percent had no opinion.
But to understand what the University stands to get itself into,
and why members of the University community should remain
vigilant, one must look deeper than the nagging security
concerns, the 3.2 metric tons of enriched uranium, the 2.7
metric tons of plutonium or the morality of weapons of mass
destruction. One must go back two years to when the contract for
Los Alamos was first put in question.
In April 2003, then-Secretary of Energy Spencer Abraham declared
the University of California System responsible for the
systematic failures in management at the lab, suggesting the
government's no-bid contract with the University of California
System dating back to 1943 would expire soon. Abraham cited
specifically that their performance in business services needed
to be as good as its performance in science.
A Department of Energy report soon mirrored this language,
stating that the culture at Los Alamos "exalted science and
devalued business practices and that changing this attitude
would be the most difficult long-term challenge facing the
laboratory."
Only a week after Abraham's announcement, the UT System had
expressed interest, and the National Nuclear Security
Administration (NNSA) initiated the bidding process by June of
2004. Many groups, public and private, considered management.
But interest in the bid waned, with speculative management
conditions and compensation similar to those under current
management (the UC System is paid about $8.7 million annually to
run the lab). On Aug. 7, 2004, corporate front-runner Lockheed
Martin announced it would pull out of its bid for Los Alamos,
saying it was too costly.
In December 2004, the NNSA announced a Request for Proposal,
which offered to compensate managers of Los Alamos about thrice
the previous amount at near $30 million annually; most groups
remained standoffish.
By mid-January, both Chancellor Yudof and Board of Regents
Chairman James Huffines agreed to cease pursuit of the lab.
System spokesperson Randa Safady then said, "We were always
going to have a partner or partners involved in the process, we
just never found that right match, the right mix of us and
industrial partners." Most campus concerns for Los Alamos were
soon quelled.
But around the nation, the gears kept grinding.
Enter Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who is the chair of the House
Appropriations Energy and Water Development Subcommittee.
Hobson - who received $32,500 in contributions from every
private firm involved in the final bids for Los Alamos during
his 2004 reelection campaign (including a hefty $8,000 from
Lockheed and $5,000 from Bechtel, according to data on
www.opensecrets.org as of May 16) - has been one of the most
outspoken opponents of a bid favoring the UC System.
In prepared remarks to the Arms Control Association on Feb. 3,
Hobson encouraged more competition for the bid, and said, "I had
hoped the Los Alamos rebid was an opportunity for the Department
of Energy to structure an RFP that encourages a new type of
contracting team that brings both scientific excellence and
management and industrial operation expertise."
Five days later, Hobson sent a letter to Secretary of Energy Sam
Bodman, saying, "I interpret their business decisions to avoid
this contract as very strong evidence that the [Request for
Proposals] is flawed." He also urged an increase in the
management fee and to cut the requirement that "the winning
proposal has to maintain the current pension benefit package."
On Feb. 18, a mere 10 days after Hobson's letter, a new RFP
appeared, offering up to $79 million annual compensation to new
lab management. The updated proposal also included a plan to
phase out the current UC pension plan, potentially saving
millions, and required the new contractor to create a separate
legal entity - most likely a limited liability corporation,
similar to the setup Lockheed Martin currently has at Sandia
National Laboratory.
On March 29, Lockheed Martin again announced a plan to bid for
Los Alamos. The company was not so subtle about its intentions.
Don Carson, a Lockheed Martin spokesman, told The Washington
Post, "[The new RFP] made our business people go back and take a
look and say, 'It looks like the things they added make it a
decent business opportunity.'"
Less than a week later, on April 6, Chairman Huffines asked
Chancellor Yudof to "take another look" at the bid.
Coincidentally, on the same day, the UT System signed a
memorandum of understanding with Sandia, formalizing a
relationship between the institutions.
On April 11, Lockheed Martin announced that C. Paul Robinson,
who was then the director of Sandia, would step down and chair
the bid for Los Alamos. He was lauded by Sen. Pete Domenici,
R-N.M., who said, "I believe Paul Robinson's decision is
significant because of the expertise he will bring to the
Lockheed Martin bid."
Robinson had worked at Los Alamos from 1967 to 1985, eventually
becoming head of the nuclear weapons program, and has been at
Sandia since 1990. If the Lockheed-Texas bid is successful, he
is likely to become the director of Los Alamos.
The System officially re-opened discussions for a bid on April
28, a venture in which Chancellor Yudof called Lockheed Martin a
"majority partner."
The fate of the bids now falls in the hands of Tyler Przybylek,
who is chairman of the board of the NNSA. In May he subtly
praised Lockheed Martin for its management of Sandia, saying
efficiency at the lab has saved $65 million. He has stated that
"what people will see over time is good operations and good
business aren't the enemies of great science; they enable it."
It is increasingly clear that private corporations will have a
heavy hand in operations beginning June 1, 2006, the date on
which whomever wins the bid takes over. This is important to the
Lockheed-Texas bid, as the incumbent UC System seems to lead the
opposing bid with Bechtel.
But what does it matter if a private corporation is interested
in running the show at Los Alamos?
While there is concern that some scientists may have issues with
a private firm at the helm (former Los Alamos physicist Brad
Holian recently told The San Francisco Chronicle, "The Bush
administration was hell-bent on privatizing Los Alamos, and that
will be done"), a more foreboding issue remains: Corporations
stand to profit from the resurgence of nuclear weapons testing
and creation.
Universities would certainly stand to profit from involvement in
the lab (Yudof said last summer that "if they happen to discover
something, patent it, create a new business, a new product line
- this is the economic future of Texas"). But renewed weapons
development is in the best interest of a company looking to
please its No. 1 constituents - stock holders.
A July 7 report in The Economist discussed this scenario and the
majority of experiments that are ongoing at the three national
laboratories that work with nuclear weapons - Los Alamos, Sandia
and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. The programs regard
"stockpile stewardship," which seeks to insure the functionality
of America's aging fleet of nukes.
Since nuclear testing was halted in 1992, researchers are
looking into other means of determining how a deteriorating
warhead will detonate.
Some projects include computer simulations and X-ray imaging of
non-fissile material, but a site planned for Lawrence Livermore
called the National Ignition Facility would use a series of
lasers to "access regimes of extreme pressure and temperature"
to perform so-called stockpile stewardship testing without
nuclear detonation.
The NIF was slated to be completed in 2003 at a price tag of
$1.4 billion, but the lab is still an estimated four years from
completion (and already another $1.4 billion over budget).
On July 1 of this year, Robinson's friend Sen. Domenici proposed
an amendment in an energy and water appropriations bill to
completely halt construction at the NIF, according to the report
by The Economist. The Senate approved the measure.
Furthermore, The Economist notes, "Three recent internal reviews
of the facility by the Department of Defense and the Department
of Energy go so far as to suggest that without [the NIF] America
would move closer to resuming nuclear testing."
If Lockheed Martin became the "majority partner" at Los Alamos,
assuring them final word over the University and our coalition
of the willing (our quasi-consortium network of 33 universities
to assist in research at Los Alamos), there is nothing stopping
the lab from heeding the wish of Congress should they authorize
new weapons activity.
In a time when North Korea's Kim Jong Il plays with uranium one
day and orders all his male citizens to have hair cuts matching
his the next, that prospect could be disastrous.
On July 16, 2004, Chancellor Yudof gave a speech at a Board of
Regents meeting in support of a bid for Los Alamos. In it, he
said, "At base, the purpose of national laboratories is to give
the government - and through the government, the people -
unbiased information about science. And universities, through
their own research and affiliation with national laboratories,
play a vital role in developing that information."
His words still ring true today. But when our University and
country has the chance of getting taken for a ride, and that
most holy of information stands to be hijacked for profit, it's
time to rethink where the University of Texas System stands in
the "profound service we would be providing the nation."
Hermes is a physics senior and managing editor of the Texas
Travesty.
*****************************************************************
51 lamonitor.com: Panel warms to lab director
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor
SANTA FE - Los Alamos National Laboratory Director Robert
Kuckuck told a state legislative committee he was trying to
change external perceptions of the laboratory after a decade of
extreme stress.
At the same time, he said he wanted to instill an atmosphere of
"civility, trust, communication and respect," inside the
laboratory.
"The lab is in a state of overload," he said, adding his biggest
goal was to streamline the workload.
"I can't imagine the lab more overworked than it is now," he
said.
He described a recent tendency to try to fix too many things at
the same time.
"We want to prioritize, triage it, sort out what needs to be
done now," he said, in contrast to things that will change again
under the new management, which is supposed to take over June 1,
2006.
Kuckuck made an appearance on Wednesday before the LANL
Oversight Committee, an interim group composed of legislators
from both houses, that meets monthly during the summer and fall
in preparation for the legislative session.
Kuckuck said his biggest focus was on the people at the
laboratory, restoring morale and improving employees' quality of
life.
He said he was studying a package now with a plan for how to
manage an alternative work schedule effectively.
It would not be a return to the nine-day, 80-hour work schedule,
but would include the "same, if not broader benefits."
The reform was under discussion now, he said. "I'm optimistic
we'll have that soon."
Kuckuck also divulged his intention to revisit the longstanding
issue of providing child care at the laboratory.
"I was deputy director at Livermore when we put in child care,"
he said. "I have a personal empathy for it."
Discussions about providing childcare services at the laboratory
go back at least 27 years.
An article in the Monitor dated Aug. 11, 1978, reported that a
women's committee from the laboratory proposed, "to investigate
[the] possibility of [lab]-sponsored or co-sponsored day care
facilities."
The most recent attempt to set up a lab-sponsored child care
facility gradually disappeared from view after the financial and
management problems of 2002 and the administrative change from
former director John Browne to Pete Nanos.
Committee chair, Sen. Phil Griego, D-Los Alamos, Mora, Sandoval,
San Miguel, Santa Fe and Taos, expressed concern about having to
start over again with a new director and wondered about the
future relationship between the committee and the lab.
Kuckuck assured the committee that understandings and
commitments they had with him and previous directors would be
honored if the University of California and its partners were
awarded the next contract.
In response to a question, Kuckuck said he did not expect the
laboratory's budget to continue to grow in light of projected
constraints at the National Nuclear Security Administration,
which manages the nuclear weapons complex as part of the
Department of Energy.
He also said the laboratory is taking budgetary steps to prepare
for and cushion future impacts from a substantially increased
contractor's fee, additional pension costs and state gross
receipts taxes, which are likely to reduce the lab's operating
budget.
Rep. Jeannette Wallace, R-Los Alamos, Sandoval and Santa Fe,
referred to difficulties in pinning down responsibilities for
lab-related decisions in Los Alamos County, with DOE, NNSA and
LANL all overlapping.
"We hope the communications will be better than it has been,"
she said.
Rep. Thomas Anderson, R-Bernalillo, pressed Kuckuck several
times to tell him what the state could do to help the laboratory.
"I have not seen a lack of community support for the
laboratory." Kuckuck said. "My job is to focus on what we're not
doing right for you."
Rep. Debbie Rodella, D- Rio Arriba, Sandoval and Taos, is a LANL
employee, who frequently sparred with former lab director Nanos
over pay equity issues. She led the legislators in a round of
appreciation at the end of Kuckuck's testimony.
"I never had that respect from the previous director," she said.
After lunch, legislators heard from Ed Wilmot, director of the
Los Alamos Site Office, and Anthony Lovato, NNSA's chief
contracting officer at LANL.
"People are still concerned about retiree benefits and health
care," Wallace said afterward. "Nobody is going to be completely
reassured no matter what they say to us."
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who
have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for
non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more
information go to:
*****************************************************************