*****************************************************************
08/01/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.176
*****************************************************************
RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE
*****************************************************************
Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject
line and first line of body
NUCLEAR POLICY
1 [NYTr] Ex-Spy Files Suit: CIA knew Iraq was nuclear-free
2 UN Atomic Watchdog Urges Calls On Iran Not To UN Its Nuclear Inspect
3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens to Restart Nuke Activities
4 Guardian Unlimited: Israel Warns of Iran Nuclear Plans
5 BBC: Iran nuclear process 'under way'
6 Japan Times: Olive branch to Iran overdue
7 Iran to resume nuclear work in defiance of EU
8 Reuters: EU urges Iran against resuming nuclear work
9 Reuters: IAEA urges Iran not to restart nuclear work
10 IRNA: Iran to remove seals of UCF in Isfahan under IAEA supervision
11 Reuters: Iran to resume nuclear work in defiance of EU
12 Reuters: EU urges Iran against resuming nuclear work
13 Reuters: FACTBOX-Summary of nuclear standoff with Iran
14 Reuters: France surprised, concerned by Iran nuclear move
15 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Delay Reopening of Nuclear Plant
16 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to reopen nuclear plant as dispute escalate
17 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Breaking Seals to Resume Processing
18 [NYTr] Progress in 6-Party Talks on Korean Nukes
19 IPS-English NORTH KOREA-NUKE PROGRAMME: A beginning in
20 Guardian Unlimited: China Proposes New Draft at Nuke Talks
21 Guardian Unlimited: Demands by North Korea snag talks
22 Daily Yomiuri: Tug-of-war over North Korean N-programs
23 Reuters: N. Korea negotiators battle over draft statement
24 Reuters: Russia may offer N.Korea energy to give up nukes
25 Guardian Unlimited: Korean Nuclear Talks Turn Pessimistic
26 US: [NukeNet] Senate Approves Horrific Energy Bill
27 US: Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki
28 Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history
29 Guardian Unlimited: The treaty wreckers
30 US: Daily Yomiuri: NPT regime in crisis after failed N.Y. confab
31 US: Casper Star-Tribune: Mills company to protest NRC fine
32 US: San Francisco Chronicle: The fatal lure of missile defense
33 US: RED HERRING: Energy Bill Reactions Mixed
34 US: Reuters: Fired CIA agent seeks FBI probe of WMD intelligence
35 US: PISJ: Plutonium meeting
36 US: csmonitor.com: How the father of the A-bomb fell from grace |
37 US: csmonitor.com: What Truman was thinking when he decided to drop
38 US: csmonitor.com: The atomic bomb in American culture |
39 US: Honolulu Star-Bulletin: 60th ANNIVERSARY
40 60th Anniversary of US A-Bomb Attacks on Japan - ACTION
41 Indiatimes: Will India ever use the Nuclear bomb?
42 BBC: Nuclear rivals' border trade woes
43 Reuters: Questions linger as Bush pushes India nuclear deal
NUCLEAR REACTORS
44 US: San Luis Obispo Tribune: PG&E to begin study on whether to renew
45 Xinhua: Most Germans want to end nuclear energy: poll
46 US: NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1; Exe
47 US: Reutes: Entergy N.Y. FitzPatrick nuke back at full power
48 US: Reuters: Constellation's N.Y. Ginna nuke back at full power
49 Reuters: Iran tells IAEA to break seals on nuclear plant
50 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria Disproves Greenpeace Claims
NUCLEAR SECURITY
51 US: AP Wire: Probe of nuke-detection efforts sought
NUCLEAR SAFETY
52 9/11 Families on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Anniversaries
53 Guardian Unlimited: Explosion on Russian Sub Leaves One Dead
54 US: Herald-Leader: Clarksville nuclear weapons workers counting on d
55 RIA Novosti UPDATE: No nuclear reactor on Severodvinsk submarine
56 US: NRC: Proposed Generic Communication Inaccessible or Underground
57 BBC: Blast on Russia nuclear submarine
58 US: Columbus Dispatch: State Hopes to Unravel Radiation Readings nea
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
59 US: [epa-impact] In the Matter of Envirocare of Utah, Inc.; Order Mo
60 US: NRC: In the Matter of Envirocare of Utah, Inc.; Order Modifying
61 AU ABC: Communication breakdown muddies Territory nuclear dump debat
62 US: WIBW: Nebraska Pays $146 Million to Settle Waste Compact Suit
63 Las Vegas RJ: Yucca Mountain facing new delay
64 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca licensing application facing another delay
65 GreenLeft: Science minister fails the NT nuclear dump test
66 US: North County Times: Pentagon drags feet on base cleanup
67 US: Forbes.com: Hanford's Sludge Becomes Glass -
68 KVBC: Another Setback For The Yucca Mountain Project
69 News & Star: Cars monitored in N-plant security blitz
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
70 Rocky Mountain News: Demolition of last building at Rocky Flats prog
71 Platts: DOE may offer Savannah River weapons site for new nuclear pl
72 lamonitor.com: Countermeasure systems clarified
73 lamonitor.com: Bombs ended war, while debate continues today
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 [NYTr] Ex-Spy Files Suit: CIA knew Iraq was nuclear-free
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:32:01 -0500 (CDT)
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
AFP via Al Jazeera - Aug 1, 2005
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/70C38C73-BB3D-4947-AAC1-75BA89E8C08A.htm
Suit: CIA knew Iraq was nuclear-free
Iraq had abandoned its nuclear weapons programme years ago
A former employee has claimed that the Central Intelligence Agency was
told by an informant in the spring of 2001 that Iraq had abandoned a
major element of its nuclear weapons programme, The New York Times
reported.
The New York Times reported on Monday that the agency did not share
the information with other agencies or with senior policy-makers.
In a lawsuit filed in the federal court in December, the former CIA
officer, whose name remains secret, said the informant had told him
that Iraq's uranium enrichment programme had ended years earlier and
that the centrifuge components from the scuttled programme were
available for examination and purchase.
The paper said the officer, an employee at the agency for more than 20
years, was fired in 2004.
In his lawsuit, he says his dismissal was punishment for his reports
questioning the agency's assumptions on a series of weapons-related
matters, according to The Times.
He also charged that he had been the target of retaliation for his
refusal to go along with the agency's intelligence conclusions.
Documents censored
While the existence of the lawsuit was previously reported, details of
the case have not been made public, because the documents in his suit
have been heavily censored by the government and the substance of the
claims was classified, the paper said.
Information about his allegations was provided to The Times by several
people with detailed knowledge of the case.
The former officer's lawyer, Roy Krieger, likened his client's
situation to that of Valerie Plame, the clandestine CIA officer whose
role was leaked to the press after her husband publicly challenged
some administration conclusions about Iraq's nuclear ambitions, the
report said.
"In both cases, officials brought unwelcome information on WMD in the
period prior to the Iraq invasion, and retribution followed," Krieger
was quoted in the report as saying.
The former officer has been accused of having sex with a female
contact and diverting to his own use money earmarked for payments to
informants. He denies both charges, according to The Times.
AFP
*
================================================================
.NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems
. Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us .
.339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org
.List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/
.Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr
================================================================
*****************************************************************
2 UN Atomic Watchdog Urges Calls On Iran Not To UN Its Nuclear Inspections
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 14:05:52 -0400
UN ATOMIC WATCHDOG URGES CALLS ON IRAN NOT TO UNDERMINE ITS NUCLEAR
INSPECTIONS
New York, Aug 1 2005 2:00PM
The United Nations agency entrusted with curbing the spread of nuclear
weapons today called on Iran to continue negotiating with the
European Union (EU) and not take any action that could undermine
agency inspections following its decision to resume uranium conversion
as of today.
The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said that in order
to implement effective safeguards it would need to install additional
surveillance equipment at the Uranium Conversion Facility (UCF)
in Esfahan, where the resumption is planned, and would not be
able to do so until some time next week.
"To ensure continuity of knowledge, it is essential that Iran refrain
from removing the Agency's seals and from moving any nuclear
material at UCF until such time as the surveillance equipment is
installed and the Agency has verified the material," the IAEA told
Iran in reply to a <"http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Infcircs/2005/infcirc648.pdf">Note
Verbale announcing the resumption
as of 1 August, 2005.
Three EU countries, Britain, France and Germany, known as E3/EU,
have been negotiating for months with Iran for a diplomatic solution.
Iran denies it is seeking nuclear weapons, insisting its programme
is for energy generation, but several countries, including
the United States, insist the oil-producing country is seeking such
weapons.
"I call on Iran to continue the negotiation process with the E3/EU
and not to take any action that might prejudice the process at
this critical stage when the E3/EU are expected to deliver a package
addressing security and political, economic and nuclear issues,"
IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei said in a <"http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/PressReleases/2005/prn200505.html">statement
today.
"I also call on Iran not to take any unilateral action that could
undermine the Agency inspection process at a time when the Agency
is making steady progress in resolving outstanding issues," he
added.
Iran voluntarily suspended operations last year of all enrichment
related and reprocessing activities, and the IAEA said then that
this confidence building measure, to be verified by the Agency,
was essential to addressing outstanding nuclear issues. Enriched
uranium can be used both for generating energy and making nuclear
weapons.
The IAEA had previously determined that Iran had for almost two decades
concealed its nuclear activities in breach of its obligations
under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
2005-08-01 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Threatens to Restart Nuke Activities
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday August 1, 2005 1:16 PM
AP Photo XHS101
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian technicians will break U.N. seals on
the Isfahan nuclear plant on Monday, allowing uranium processing
to resume, a spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security
Council said.
Officials from the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog agency will supervise
the removal of the United Nations seals, the first step toward
restarting central Iran's Isfahan Nuclear Conversion Facility,
said Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman for Iran's Supreme National
Security Council, according to a report from the official IRNA
news agency.
Reprocessing uranium is a step below uranium enrichment, which
is to remain suspended, said Mohammadi. The United States claims
the Iranian nuclear program is designed to produce weapons, a
claim Iran denies.
Iran's apparent decision to call off its nuclear freeze sparked
an immediate warning from the European Union, which said any
move to restart enrichment would damage EU-Iran trade talks.
``We expect Iran to live up to the commitment of the Paris
agreement'' of nuclear talks with the EU, said European
Commission spokesman Stefaan De Rynck.
The work is to resume at the Isfahan plant, which converts
uranium ore concentrate, known as yellowcake, into uranium gas,
the feedstock for enrichment.
Iranian officials made clear that Iran won't resume the more
important step of actual enrichment - injecting uranium gas into
centrifuges used to enrich uranium - in a separate plant in
Natanz, central Iran.
Uranium enriched to high levels can be used for nuclear bombs;
at low levels it is used as fuel for electricity-producing
nuclear power plants.
The European Union head office warned Iran on Monday that
progress in EU-Iran trade talks were unlikely if Tehran resumes
its nuclear program.
``We expect Iran to live up to the commitment'' made at nuclear
talks in Paris, said European Commission spokesman Stefaan De
Rynck. ``Progress in such an agreement is unlikely unless the
Paris agreement has a successful follow-up.''
Earlier Monday, Iran's parliamentary speaker said Tehran was
giving European negotiators until 5 p.m. (8:30 a.m. EDT) to
submit an incentives package to Iran before it would announce
any such resumption.
But Iran's instructions to the IAEA appeared to be a break from
that arrangement.
Iran's apparent decision to restart a step in uranium
reprocessing could trigger a call by European and American
officials to haul Iran before the U.N. Security Council for
possible sanctions.
European diplomats said Sunday that if Isfahan were restarted,
an emergency International Atomic Energy Agency board meeting
would be called to set a deadline for the Iranians to ``see the
error of their ways'' and stop their enrichment activities.
If such a deadline were not met, a Security Council referral was
a likely next step, the officials said.
Iranian officials have signaled an intensifying impatience with
the slow pace of negotiations with Europe, and an incoming
conservative administration in Tehran has showed signs of
wanting to harden the country's stance.
Germany, which along with Britain and France have been leading
U.S.-backed EU negotiations, said Monday that European
negotiators plan to submit their proposal for Iran's atomic
program ``in a few days.''
German Foreign Ministry spokesman Jens Ploetner said the
deadline for their proposal, aimed at persuading Iran to
permanently freeze parts of its contentious nuclear program,
particularly uranium enrichment, had never been more specific
than ``the end of July, early August.''
``We have no intention of cutting off dialogue with Europe. We
are willing to continue dialogue with them after we resume part
of our nuclear activities,'' parliamentary speaker Gholam Ali
Hadad Adel said earlier Monday. ``Iran will not give in to any
further waste of time.''
On Sunday, an IAEA official said the Europeans would present
their proposal to Iran next week.
The proposal, which still being finished, includes nuclear fuel,
technology, other aid and ``security guarantees'' that Iran
won't be invaded if it permanently halts uranium enrichment and
related activities, European and Iranian officials confirmed.
Iran suspended enrichment of uranium in November under
international pressure.
France, Britain and Germany, acting on behalf of the 25-nation
European Union, had been expected to present the proposals to
Iran by the beginning of August, but they requested a delay
until Aug. 7.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: Israel Warns of Iran Nuclear Plans
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Tuesday August 2, 2005 12:46 AM
By GAVIN RABINOWITZ
Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM (AP) - Israeli officials expressed alarm Monday over
Iran's decision to resume uranium processing, warning that
unless the international community steps up pressure on the
Islamic state, Iran will develop nuclear weapons.
However, Israeli experts said the world, led by the U.S., should
deal with the problem.
Iran says its nuclear enrichment program is for peaceful
purposes, but Israel and the United States believe Tehran is
pursuing nuclear weapons.
``If the Americans, Europeans and Russians will not take Iran to
the (U.N.) Security Council and put real pressure on them, they
will produce nuclear capabilities,'' said Yuval Steinitz,
chairman of the parliamentary Foreign Affairs and Defense
Committee.
Israel has repeatedly warned that Iran, which already posses the
Shahab-3 missile - a weapon capable of carrying a nuclear
warhead and reaching Europe, Israel and U.S. forces in the
Middle East - is a threat to the Jewish state.
``There is a growing understanding in the international
community that the Iranian nuclear program is not benign,'' said
Foreign Ministry spokesman Mark Regev.
Despite the mounting concern over the resumption of uranium
processing and the recent election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a
hard-liner, as Iran's president, officials said that Israel was
relying on the international community, in particular the U.S.,
to stop Iran.
``Israel has already said that its policy today is to leave the
stage to the international players, the United States and
Europe,'' said Efraim Halevy, the former head of Israel's Mossad
spy agency. ``I think Israel is acting wisely.''
Officials questioned Israel's ability to destroy Iran's nuclear
installations. Israeli warplanes bombed the unfinished Iraqi
nuclear reactor at Osirak near Baghdad in 1981. They said Iran's
nuclear installations, unlike the Iraqi reactor, are dispersed
throughout the country - many in populated areas, with
sophisticated defense systems.
``I believe this is beyond our abilities,'' said Uzi Even, a
former lawmaker and a Tel Aviv University expert on nuclear
weapons.
Iran should fear the U.S., not Israel, Steinitz said. ``The
Americans have proven their ability to strike many sites
simultaneously.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
5 BBC: Iran nuclear process 'under way'
Last Updated: Monday, 1 August 2005
[Iran nuclear facility]
Iran insists it wants nuclear power, not weapons
Iran has begun preparations for the resumption of uranium
processing at a nuclear plant, a top official has said.
Iranian experts and UN inspectors are setting up surveillance
equipment before the uranium conversion process is initiated, the
official said.
The threat of resumption sparked strong objections from the UN,
the EU and the US, which repeated its threat to refer Tehran to
the UN Security Council.
A BBC correspondent says Iran seems to have lost patience with
negotiations.
Frances Harrison, in the Iranian capital, says Tehran has long
engaged in brinkmanship over the nuclear issue, but this time
appears to be serious about resuming its nuclear programme.
Delay attempts
It ceased uranium processing at its Isfahan plant in November
2004.
Iran insists it wants only to use its facilities to produce
power, but the US suspects it of running a secret nuclear weapons
programme.
[Iranian nuclear negotiator Ali Agha Mohammad ]
In our view the uranium conversion facilit has been restarted
Iranian spokesman Ali Agha Mohammadi Iran's letter to IAEA
Uranium ore, or "yellow cake", can be converted into gas
and used as fuel for nuclear power plants, or further enriched to
become weapons-grade material.
On Monday, officials in Tehran said they had delivered a letter
to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) explaining plans
to restart uranium conversion that day.
IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei responded, urging Iran to reconsider,
and to continue sensitive negotiations with EU members Britain,
France and Germany.
The IAEA said it needed until next week to install additional
surveillance equipment before the seals could be removed.
A diplomat close to the IAEA told AFP news agency that the body
was "looking for formulas to delay so that cooler heads might
prevail".
The EU is due to propose a package of incentives to Iran on
trade, security and technology if it permanently ceases
enrichment activity.
Our correspondent says Tehran is not prepared to make such
guarantees.
'Miscalculation'
Late on Monday, Iran's Supreme National Security Council
spokesman Ali Agha Mohammadi said the installation of
surveillance equipment was under way, and conversion would
follow.
"This process will take time, but in our view the uranium
conversion facility has been restarted," he said.
After Iran announced its plans, European officials urged it not
to take unilateral action that could endanger hopes for a
negotiated solution to the dispute.
A spokesman for the German government said: "We are still ready
to negotiate with Iran on the basis of our previous agreements.
But now it is up to Iran not to miscalculate."
The US repeated the implicit threat of UN sanctions against the
Iranians.
"If they're not going to abide by their agreement and
obligations, then we would have to look to the Security Council,"
White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.
*****************************************************************
6 Japan Times: Olive branch to Iran overdue
Monday, August 1, 2005
By KIROKU HANAI
A new Iranian government under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad
will be inaugurated Aug. 4. While outgoing President Mohammad
Khatami is a moderate, Ahmadinejad is a hardline conservative
whose relations with the administration of U.S. President George
W. Bush are likely to be tense. As this is undesirable for
stability in the Middle East, it is hoped that Japan and the
European Union will do their best to help avert a conflict
between Washington and Tehran.
In his State of the Union address in January 2002, Bush named
Iran, along with Iraq and North Korea, as an "axis of evil."
This stance remains unchanged in the second term of the Bush
administration. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a Senate
hearing last January, included Iran in what Washington called
the six "outposts of tyranny." In the first term, the
administration denounced states sponsoring terrorism; in the
second term, it began a campaign for the protection of human
rights and democratization, adding Belarus, Zimbabwe and Myanmar
as targets of censure.
It is hard to understand why the U.S. takes such a hostile
approach to Iran. I have kept a close watch on U.S.-Iranian
relations since I was assigned to postrevolution Tehran in 1980
as a correspondent for a Japanese newspaper. The two countries
severed diplomatic relations immediately after radical students
stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in November 1979 and held 52
diplomats hostage. Although Iran released all the hostages 444
days after the crisis began, Washington has continued its freeze
on Iranian assets in the U.S. and its economic sanctions against
the country under the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act.
To justify its hostile policy toward Iran, Washington cites the
lack of democracy in the country. For example, the country's
Guardian Council often rejects reform legislation and
disqualifies candidates in public elections.
In the last presidential election, though,, the council showed
unprecedented flexibility. It disqualified all candidates except
eight, but re-examined two disqualified reformist candidates
under orders from supreme leader Ali Khamenei and allowed them
to run. Two conservatives entered the first-ever presidential
runoff, in which a clergyman and ex-president lost -- results
nobody had expected.
Egypt, among the more advanced countries in the Middle East,
will hold its first multicandidate presidential election in
September. Saudi Arabia, the most loyal U.S. ally, is also the
most laggard in democratization. Only an advisory council
appointed by the king is allowed to conduct political debate.
Public elections have been set for local councils, but half of
the members have already been appointed by the government. And
Saudi women have no voting rights.
Among the Middle East countries, Iran has some democratic
elements in its political system. The Iranian revolution has
promoted, among other things, the education of women. At middle
schools in rural districts, the proportion of females in total
enrollment stood at 40.9 percent in 1998, up from 26.6 percent
in 1981. Of the students who passed unified college entrance
examinations in 2002, females accounted for 61.5 percent, up
from 29 percent in 1991. At government-run medical universities,
women account for more than 50 percent of total enrollment. This
is a great accomplishment in the Middle East, where the
education of women is largely neglected.
Washington often accuses Tehran of trying to export an Islamic
revolution by sponsoring foreign terrorist groups, as if it was
oblivious to the fact that the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency
assisted in the overthrow of the Iranian government of Prime
Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1951. The CIA also aided the
overthrow of the Chilean government of President Salvador
Allende in 1973. Both governments were democratically elected.
Washington's policy of labeling Iran a "rogue state" to isolate
it internationally undermines the Middle East peace process. I
believe the U.S. should reconsider its policy toward Iran and
switch to something like the "sunshine policy" that former South
Korean President Kim Dae Jung promoted toward North Korea.
Madeleine Albright, secretary of state in the Clinton
administration, told the American Iranian Council in 2000 that
it was "myopic" for the U.S. to have supported the Iranian coup
that overthrew the Mossadegh regime and to have aided Iraq's
Saddam Hussein regime during the Iran-Iraq war. If Washington
officially apologized to Tehran for these mistakes and decided
to return frozen Iranian assets, Iran's conservative government
would no doubt agree to reconciliation.
In an opinion poll of Tehran citizens taken in 2002, more than
70 percent of the respondents favored reconciliation with the
U.S. Most Iranians presumably are fed up with the diplomatic
standoff that has continued for 26 years since the Iranian
revolution. The U.S., busy dealing with postwar problems in
Afghanistan and Iraq, and facing military and budget
constraints, likely is averse to more friction with Iran. The
question is whether the U.S. is ready to show generosity as a
major power toward Iran to settle the problem. To help stabilize
a world economy facing uncertainties amid skyrocketing oil
prices, the U.S. should offer an olive branch to Iran.
Meanwhile, the question of Iran's suspected development of
nuclear arms remains on the back burner until the European
Commission proposes (by early August) a reward for Iran's
suspension of uranium-enrichment activities. The advent of a
hardline conservative president makes the Iranian situation
murky. Taking advantage of its friendship with Iran, Japan
should urge the country to agree to the EU proposal.
Kiroku Hanai, a former editorial writer for a vernacular
newspaper, writes on a wide range of issues, including
international relations.
The Japan Times: Aug. 1, 2005
(C) All rights reserved
*****************************************************************
7 Iran to resume nuclear work in defiance of EU
Mon Aug 1, 2005 6:37 PM ET
By Jon Hemming
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said it had begun preparations to resume
nuclear work on Monday that the West suspects could help it build
an atom bomb, defying EU warnings that it might be crushing hopes
of a negotiated solution.
Two years of hard bargaining over a nuclear programme that
Tehran had kept secret for 18 years appeared to be heading
towards a crisis that could see Iran's case sent to the United
Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.
The so-called EU3 of Britain, France and Germany have been
trying to mediate between the United States, which insists Iran
is trying to produce nuclear weapons, and the Islamic Republic,
which says it has a right to develop peaceful atomic technology.
Inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),
the U.N. nuclear watchdog, began "setting up surveillance cameras
and preparing supervision work" at the Isfahan plant, Supreme
National Security Council spokesman Ali Aghamohammadi told state
television.
He added: "In our view the uranium conversion facility has been
restarted."
However, he did not say the Iranians had actually broken the
seals placed at the plant by U.N. inspectors -- which would be a
more decisive defiance of the international community.
The conversion plant near Isfahan turns uranium ore into gas.
The gas is then enriched into fuel that could be used either in
power stations or to make weapons.
Britain, Germany and France have been due to send Tehran a
package of proposals by early this month for nuclear, economic
and political incentives provided Iran renounces nuclear
enrichment-related activities.
RAISING THE PRESSURE
Iran has been making increasingly assertive statements, raising
the pressure as the EU prepares to make its offer, including
saying the EU3 had missed the deadline.
The EU3 were urgently consulting on Monday on whether to deliver
the package, EU diplomats said.
They suspect Tehran is trying to put them on the defensive over
an offer that seems sure to fall short of Iran's demands.
But they showed no sign of softening their stance.
"The ultimatum by the Iranians seems like a pretext to take a
unilateral decision," French Foreign Minister Philippe
Douste-Blazy told the French TV5 channel.
"It seems to us that if Iran fails to go back on its choice,
then we shall have to ask for an extraordinary meeting of the
IAEA's board of governors ...
"... if despite this, Iran were to continue, we shall have to
refer the issue to the Security Council," he said.
In the United States, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said
if Iran restarted activities at the Isfahan plant "we would have
to look to the Security Council".
Iran appeared to be measuring its moves carefully, however,
having earlier said it would break the seals on Monday.
The IAEA subsequently urged it to wait at least until its
inspectors could set up surveillance cameras to keep track of
exactly what work is done, which would take until next week.
Some EU officials speculated Iran might be creating a
mini-crisis that President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could defuse
by calling at his inauguration on Saturday for more time for
negotiation. This could make him appear statesmanlike and
softening his image as an anti-Western Islamic hardliner.
But Aghamohammadi said the EU wanted to send its proposals later
to make Ahmadinejad look bad.
"By delaying the submission of the proposal, the Europeans
wanted to take a stance against him," the semi-official Mehr news
agency quoted him as saying.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
8 Reuters: EU urges Iran against resuming nuclear work
Mon Aug 1, 2005 4:14 PM ET
(Adds French minister, Iran saying work at plant restarted)
By Paul Taylor
BRUSSELS, Aug 1 (Reuters) - The European Union urged Iran on
Monday against resuming frozen sensitive nuclear work, which the
West believes could help it develop a bomb, but Tehran notified
the U.N. watchdog of its intention to restart a key plant.
Germany said the EU's three major powers -- Britain, Germany and
France -- would hand over promised comprehensive proposals within
days for nuclear, economic and political cooperation provided
Iran ends all uranium enrichment-related activities.
The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed it had received
a letter from Iran saying it would remove seals and resume
activity at its Isfahan uranium ore conversion plant on Monday.
IAEA chief Mohammed ElBaradei urged Tehran not to take any action
that could hurt the negotiations with the EU.
Iran later said the U.N. nuclear inspectors had begun installing
surveillance equipment at Isfahan, and said in its view
activities at the plant had restarted.
Converting raw uranium into gas is a precursor to producing
highly enriched nuclear fuel that could be used either in power
stations or to make weapons.
EU diplomats and politicians said they suspected Tehran was
raising the pressure to try to put the EU on the defensive over
the package, which seems sure to fall short of Iranian desires.
"The ultimatum by the Iranians seems like a pretext to take a
unilateral decision. We don't want this unilateral decision,"
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy said.
"It seems to us that if Iran fails to go back on its choice,
then we shall have to ask for an extraordinary meeting of the
IAEA's board of governors," he told French-language channel TV5.
"... if despite this, Iran were to continue, we shall have to
refer the issue to the (U.N.) Security Council," he said.
The so-called EU3 governments held urgent consultations on how
to respond to the latest Iranian escalation and whether to
deliver the package if Tehran made good on its threat.
A German Foreign Ministry spokesman told a news briefing:
"Foreign Minister (Joschka) Fischer has warned that this is a
miscalculation in Tehran."
Britain, which holds the EU's rotating presidency, said it had
nothing to add to a weekend statement urging Tehran not to take
unilateral steps that would contravene an agreement made with the
EU3 last year.
"FAVOURABLE CLIMATE"
European Commission spokesman Stefaan de Rynck said the EU
executive expected Iran to live up to that commitment made in the
Paris agreement last November to suspend all enrichment-related
activity for the duration of the talks.
Asked if the EU executive would break off talks on a trade deal
with Tehran if work resumed, he said: "Progress on such an
agreement is unlikely unless the favourable climate that has been
created by France, Germany and the UK and their Iranian
counterpart to the Paris agreement has a successful follow-up."
European officials dismissed the official Iranian explanation
that the EU had failed to meet an end-of-July deadline for
delivering the comprehensive package, saying no such firm date
had been agreed.
It made sense to hand the proposals to the incoming government
of President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has his first working
day in office on Saturday, the officials said.
"Since we have told them the package is ready and we will
present it by Sunday, it's not at all clear what their interest
is to put into practice what they seem to be so desperate to do
today," one EU official said.
Some speculated that Iran might be creating a mini-crisis that
Ahmadinejad could defuse by calling at his inauguration for more
time for negotiation, making him appear statesmanlike and
softening his image as an anti-Western Islamic hardliner.
A French Foreign Ministry spokeswoman said the EU proposals
"recognise Iran's rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and
the possibility of developing a nuclear programme that is safe,
economically viable and does not proliferate (nuclear weapons)".
That does not go as far as recognising its entitlement to have a
complete fuel cycle, which Iran asserts is its NPT right.
The EU and the United States suspect Iran's atomic programme is
a front for efforts to create a bomb. Tehran insists it only
wants nuclear power for electricity.
(additional reporting by Philip Blenkinsop in Berlin, Jon Boyle
and Kerstin Gehmlich in Paris and Madeline Chambers in London)
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
9 Reuters: IAEA urges Iran not to restart nuclear work
Mon Aug 1, 2005 11:23 AM ET
(Adds details of IAEA letter to Iran)
VIENNA, Aug 1 (Reuters) - The U.N. nuclear watchdog urged Iran
on Monday not to resume frozen nuclear work, which it said might
harm negotiations with the European Union aimed at settling
Western fears that Iran could be developing a bomb.
The head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) asked
Iran to wait at least until next week before removing U.N. seals
at the Isfahan uranium processing facility.
Iran earlier said it would break IAEA seals on Monday and resume
work.
The EU "Big Three" of Britain, France and Germany have been
trying to mediate between the United States, which insists Iran
is trying to produce nuclear weapons, and the Islamic republic
that says it has a right to develop peaceful atomic technology.
"I call on Iran to continue the negotiation process with the
E3/EU and not to take any action that might prejudice the process
at this critical stage when the E3/EU are expected to deliver a
package addressing security and political, economic and nuclear
issues," IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei said in a statement.
The IAEA confirmed it had received a letter from Iran announcing
plans to resume activity at its Isfahan plant.
The agency urged Iran to at least wait until its inspectors
could set up surveillance equipment designed to keep track of
exactly what work is done at the reopened plant.
It said it expected to be able to install the equipment next
week at the uranium conversion facility (UCF).
"The Agency also informed Iran that, 'to ensure continuity of
knowledge, it is essential that Iran refrain from removing the
Agency's seals and from moving any nuclear material at UCF until
such time as the surveillance equipment is installed and the
Agency has verified the material'," the IAEA said.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
10 IRNA: Iran to remove seals of UCF in Isfahan under IAEA supervision -
Tehran, July 31, IRNA
Iran-Nuclear-Aqamohammadi
Spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council Ali
Aqamohammadi said here Monday that the seals of the Uranium
Conversion Facility (UCF) in Isfahan will be removed on Monday
under full supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) experts.
Aqamohammadi told IRNA that Iran's activities are all under the
IAEA supervision and all the UCF products in Isfahan are kept
under the Agency's supervision.
He said the UF6 products are given to a third country in return
for receiving yellow cake.
Voicing Iran's complete readiness for talks with Europe,
Aqamohammadi said, "We will continue suspension of uranium
enrichment and hope the door for dialogue will continue to
remain open." He said removing the seal of UCF in Isfahan had
nothing to do with the uranium enrichment and is not at all in
violation of the Paris Agreement.
*****************************************************************
11 Reuters: Iran to resume nuclear work in defiance of EU
Mon Aug 1, 2005 7:25 AM ET
By Jon Hemming
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said it would break U.N. seals on a
nuclear plant on Monday and resume work there which the West
suspects could help it build an atom bomb, defying EU warnings
such a step could crush hopes of a negotiated solution.
Two years of hard bargaining over a nuclear programme that
Tehran had kept secret for 18 years appeared to be heading
towards a crisis that could see Iran's case sent to the United
Nations Security Council for possible sanctions.
The EU "Big Three" of Britain, France and Germany have been
trying to mediate between the United States, which insists Iran
is trying to produce nuclear weapons, and the Islamic Republic
which says it has a right to develop peaceful atomic technology.
"Ten minutes ago, Iran sent a letter to the IAEA (the U.N.'s
nuclear watchdog agency). Iran is to remove the seals today," the
spokesman of the Supreme National Security Council Ali
Aghamohammadi told reporters.
"The IAEA's inspectors are in Isfahan ... the whole of the
activities in Isfahan will be resumed," he said.
The conversion plant near the central city of Isfahan takes
processed uranium ore, mined in Iran's central desert, and turns
it into uranium hexafluoride gas. This gas can be pumped into
centrifuges that spin at supersonic speed to enrich uranium.
Enriched uranium is used in nuclear power plants, but if highly
enriched can be used in atomic weaponry.
SANCTIONS?
The European Commission on Monday urged Iran not to go ahead
with its plan.
A spokesman for the European Union executive told a press
briefing: "The Commission very much hopes for a negotiated
solution. We would also hope that no steps would be taken over
the coming days to endanger such a negotiated solution."
"(German) Foreign Minister (Joschka) Fischer has warned that
this is a miscalculation in Tehran," a German Foreign Ministry
spokesman told a news briefing in Berlin.
Britain, Germany and France are due to put to Tehran a package
of proposals for nuclear, economic and political incentives
provided Iran renounces nuclear enrichment-related activities.
Iran had extended its deadline for the so-called EU3 to submit
its proposals until 0730 GMT on Monday. It passed with no
response from the Europeans, who said there had never been
agreement on an August 1 deadline.
But the German Foreign Ministry spokesman said: "This
comprehensive proposal will be conveyed to Iran in a few days."
The EU has said if Iran went ahead and resumed work, then as a
first step it would urgently consult the board of the IAEA.
The U.N.'s nuclear watchdog can recommend referring Iran to the
U.N. Security Council, which could decide whether to impose
sanctions.
Aghamohammadi insisted the EU should negotiate on Iran's right
to enrich uranium.
The EU has always said Iran must permanently suspend all uranium
enrichment activities and instead buy in fuel for a nuclear power
station Iran is building near the southern port of Bushehr with
Russian help.
Iran insists it has the right to develop the full nuclear fuel
cycle and that any EU proposal that denied it this right would be
unacceptable.
"Solana's letter (to Iran) says they are not giving us anything
on the atomic programme, if that is the proposal, it is rejected
already," Aghamohammadi said.
"As soon as we get the green light, we can start all activities
at Isfahan in half an hour," said Mohammad Saeedi, deputy head of
Iran's atomic energy organisation.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
12 Reuters: EU urges Iran against resuming nuclear work
Mon Aug 1, 2005 6:55 AM ET
(adds quotes, background)
BRUSSELS, Aug 1 (Reuters) - The European Commission urged Iran
on Monday against resuming frozen sensitive nuclear work which
the West believes could help it develop a bomb.
A spokesman for the European Union executive told a press
briefing: "The Commission very much hopes for a negotiated
solution. We would also hope that no steps would be taken over
the coming days to endanger such a negotiated solution."
The EU's three major powers -- Britain, Germany and France --
are due to put a comprehensive package of proposals to Tehran by
Saturday for nuclear, economic and political cooperation provided
Iran renounces nuclear enrichment-related activities.
Iran told the U.N. nuclear watchdog on Monday it would remove
seals and resume activity at its Isfahan uranium ore conversion
plant, a spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council
said in Tehran.
Commission spokesman Stefaan de Rynck said the EU expected Iran
to live up to the commitment it made in a Paris agreement with
the so-called EU3 countries last year to suspend all
enrichment-related activity for the duration of the talks.
Asked whether the EU executive would break off talks on a trade
and cooperation agreement with Tehran if sensitive nuclear work
resumed, he said: "Progress on such an agreement is unlikely
unless the favourable climate that has been created by France,
Germany and the UK and their Iranian counterpart to the Paris
agreement has a successful follow-up."
EU diplomats said privately they suspected Iran could be simply
trying to raise pressure and put the Europeans on the defensive
ahead of the presentation of the new proposals, which are
unlikely to be as forthcoming as Tehran wishes.
"Resuming enrichment activity is a multi-stage process. They may
run out of time (before the proposals are presented)," one
diplomat said.
Another suggested Iran might be creating a mini-crisis which
President-elect Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could defuse by calling for
more time for negotiation when he takes office on Wednesday,
appearing as a man of peace and softening his hardline image.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
13 Reuters: FACTBOX-Summary of nuclear standoff with Iran
Mon Aug 1, 2005 5:35 AM ET
TEHRAN, Aug 1 (Reuters) - The following is a summary of
developments in the standoff over Iran's controversial nuclear
programme.
ORIGINS
In August 2002, a group of Iranian exiles, the National Council
of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), accused Iran of hiding a uranium
enrichment facility at Natanz and a heavy water plant at Arak,
two locations in Iran.
The allegations were later confirmed by the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA). The NCRI said the facilities were part of a
covert weapons programme.
THE PLAYERS
* The Islamic Republic of Iran says its nuclear programme is
entirely peaceful, but has failed to declare many potentially
arms-related nuclear facilities and activities to the IAEA, the
U.N. nuclear watchdog, over the course of nearly two decades.
* The IAEA, led by Mohamed ElBaradei, has been investigating
Tehran's nuclear plans since the NCRI allegations were first made
public. It has found no evidence yet to support U.S. and NCRI
claims that Iran wants weapons, but has doubts about whether
Tehran has declared everything to the agency.
* The United States says Iran is using its nuclear energy
programme as a front to develop weapons. It has urged the IAEA
board of governors to refer Iran's case to the U.N. Security
Council for economic sanctions, but the board refuses.
* The EU has been trying to persuade Iran since last year to end
its nuclear fuel programmes in exchange for a package of
political and economic "carrots". In November, Tehran agreed to
freeze the programme temporarily as it pursued talks with France,
Britain and Germany.
However talks are now floundering because the EU trio looks
unlikely to allow Iran to make its own nuclear fuel. In response
Iran looks set to end its fuel cycle suspension.
* Russia opposes tough action against Iran and has nearly $1
billion at stake in its Bushehr nuclear reactor project in Iran.
Despite disputes over an unsigned agreement on the return of
spent nuclear fuel to Russia, Moscow and Tehran have vowed to
continue their cooperation in the nuclear field.
* Israel has hinted that it may use air strikes in an attempt to
destroy Iran's nuclear capability, though some analysts and
diplomats think Israel is bluffing.
WHERE IS IT GOING?
* If Iran ends the enrichment suspension, it will almost
certainly be reported to the U.N. Security Council.
* It is unclear if Russia and China, who in addition to the
United States, France and Britain wield vetoes on the Security
Council, would support tough action against Iran.
* If Iran follows North Korea's lead, expels the IAEA and leaves
the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), it would face
isolation, sanctions and possibly military action.
* Diplomats and analysts say that military action by the United
States and/or Israel is possible, but unlikely at the moment.
However, they point to recent statements ruling out military
action as a sign that it is being talked about.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
14 Reuters: France surprised, concerned by Iran nuclear move
Mon Aug 1, 2005 7:17 AM ET
PARIS, Aug 1 (Reuters) - France said on Monday it was surprised
and worried by Iran's unilateral announcement that it would
resume frozen sensitive nuclear work in breach of an accord with
European Union powers.
"We are surprised and worried by the announcement of a
unilateral resumption by Iran of sensitive activities concerning
the conversion of uranium, which was suspended, will other
activities linked to the production of fissile material," Foreign
Ministry spokeswoman Cecile Pozzo di Borgo told an electronic
news briefing.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
15 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to Delay Reopening of Nuclear Plant
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday August 1, 2005 8:46 PM
AP Photo VAH101
By ALI AKBAR DAREINI
Associated Press Writer
ISFAHAN, Iran (AP) - Iran threatened to reopen its nuclear
processing plant here Monday but later agreed to a two-day delay
after receiving a request from the head of the U.N. atomic
watchdog agency.
Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman for Iran's Supreme National
Security Council, told The Associated Press that International
Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohammed ElBaradei asked Tehran for a
``maximum of two days'' to send its inspectors to Iran's nuclear
facility where they can oversee the dismantling of U.N. seals.
But the IAEA denied setting a two-day deadline, saying more time
is needed to oversee the plant's resumption of uranium
processing, agency spokeswoman Melissa Fleming said.
``We have sent a letter to Iran indicating that it would take at
least a week to get our surveillance equipment and other
required measures in place,'' she said.
Earlier, Mohammadi had said Iranian technicians would break the
seals and restart nuclear processing on Monday.
Mohammadi said the combination of restraint and resolve toward
restarting uranium processing showed the government's intention
not to squander Iran's fundamental right to nuclear power, while
preserving close ties to Europe.
``Our people were worried that the government may have done a
deal with the Europeans and given up the rights of the nation,''
Mohammadi told the AP. ``We will do the rest of the work in
coordination with the Europeans.''
Earlier in the day, ElBaradei warned Iran ``not to take any
action that might prejudice the process at this critical
stage.''
EU negotiators have said they are mere days from delivering a
package of incentives addressing security and political,
economic and nuclear issues.
``I also call on Iran not to take any unilateral action that
could undermine the agency inspection process at a time when the
agency is making steady progress in resolving outstanding
issues,'' ElBaradei said.
The turnaround came about only hours after the Supreme National
Security Council said its technicians would break the U.N. seals
on the Isfahan nuclear plant, the first step toward restarting
the nuclear conversion facility and allowing controversial
uranium processing to resume.
Reprocessing uranium is a step below uranium enrichment, which
is to remain suspended, Mohammadi had said. The United States
claims the Iranian nuclear program is designed to produce
weapons, a claim Iran denies. Iran maintains it suspension of
uranium enrichment last November was voluntary and that it had
the right to resume the activities at any time.
Britain, Germany and France have been negotiating with Tehran to
try to persuade Iran to drop its uranium enrichment program and
related activities in return for incentives. Highly enriched
uranium can be used to make weapons, while uranium enriched to a
lower level can be used as fuel to produce electricity.
In a letter to the IAEA, the Tehran regime said its ``sincere
efforts and maximum flexibility'' were being answered with an EU
proposal that it rejected as ``totally unacceptable.''
``The proposal not only fails to address Iran's rights for
peaceful development of nuclear technology, but even falls far
short of correcting the illegal and unjustified restrictions
placed on Iran's economic and technological development, let
alone providing firm guarantees for economic, technological and
nuclear cooperation and firm commitments on security issues,''
the Iranians said.
IAEA spokesman Peter Rickwood earlier said the agency had told
Iran it needed to install additional surveillance equipment
before any conversion could resume. The agency expected to be
able to do so ``some time next week,'' he added.
Iran's announcements were designed to put European Union
negotiators on notice that Tehran would restart such activities.
It could also lead to Iran being hauled before the U.N. Security
Council to face sanctions, as previously called for by the
United States.
The announcements sparked an immediate warning from the European
Union, which said any move to restart enrichment would damage
EU-Iran trade talks.
``We expect Iran to live up to the commitment of the Paris
agreement'' of nuclear talks with the EU, said European
Commission spokesman Stefaan De Rynck.
Work that would resume at Isfahan involves converting uranium
ore concentrate, known as yellowcake, into uranium gas, the
feedstock for enrichment.
Iranian officials made clear that Iran won't resume the more
important step of actual enrichment - injecting uranium gas into
centrifuges used to enrich uranium - in a separate plant in
Natanz, central Iran.
Uranium enriched to high levels can be used for nuclear bombs;
at low levels it is used as fuel for electricity-producing
nuclear power plants.
Iranian leaders have signaled an intensifying impatience with
the slow pace of negotiations with Europe, and an incoming
conservative administration in Tehran has showed signs of
wanting to harden the country's stance.
Iran was particularly annoyed that Germany, France and Britain
had earlier called for a delay until Aug. 7 in presenting a new
offer meant to sway Tehran away from its enrichment program.
Earlier Monday, Iran's parliamentary speaker Gholam Ali Hadad
Adel said his country did not want to end dialogue with Europe.
``We are willing to continue dialogue with them after we resume
part of our nuclear activities,'' he said. ``Iran will not give
in to any further waste of time.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
16 Guardian Unlimited: Iran to reopen nuclear plant as dispute escalates
Ian Traynor
Tuesday August 2, 2005
The Guardian
Iran threw down the gauntlet to the west yesterday, telling UN
nuclear inspectors it was breaking UN seals at a nuclear plant to
resume part of its uranium enrichment programme in breach of a
pact with the EU. The enrichment programme could be used to arm
nuclear warheads.
In a high-risk move that could shatter two years of negotiations
with the EU, trigger an emergency meeting of the UN nuclear
watchdog in Vienna, and see Tehran referred for penalties to the
UN security council, Iran delivered a letter to the International
Atomic Energy Agency saying the seals at a uranium conversion
plant near the town of Isfahan would be removed to start turning
raw uranium into a gaseous form that can then be processed into
nuclear fuel.
The move comes on the eve of the inauguration of a new president,
the reputed hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose unexpected
election is a cause for concern in both the EU and Washington.
Under an agreement last November with Britain, France and
Germany - negotiating with Iran on behalf of the EU and with US
backing - Tehran pledged to freeze all uranium enrichment
activities pending the outcome of talks.
Later this week the EU troika is to present detailed proposals
offering Iran security and military guarantees against attack as
well as trade benefits and supplies of technology and nuclear
fuel for a civil nuclear programme, provided Iran forfeits its
right to enrich uranium. It was unclear why Tehran opted to
jeopardise the potential breakthrough at the last minute.
Yesterday's calculated escalation of the dispute alarmed western
diplomats and left the Europeans scrambling to decide whether to
break off almost two years of delicate talks with Iran. "It will
be very difficult not to respond to this," a European diplomat
said. Another diplomat following the negotiations said: "It's
part of the normal pattern of Iranian behaviour, stretch things
out and then pull back at the last minute."
The angry letter to the IAEA from the Iranians accused the
Europeans of orchestrating "prolonged and fruitless"
negotiations and said the EU offer to be tabled this week would
be "totally unacceptable".
The UN inspectors played for time, telling Iran that they would
need a week to install monitoring equipment at the Isfahan plant
before Iranian operations could resume. In Tehran last night, it
was reported that the Iranians agreed not to a week's delay, but
to a two-day wait. Iran maintains that the uranium conversion
work at Isfahan does not constitute uranium enrichment, an
argument dismissed by the Europeans on the grounds that the only
purpose of the converted uranium gas is for later enrichment
into fuel for nuclear power stations or into fissile material
for nuclear warheads.
While diplomats and analysts ultimately expect the EU-Iran
negotiations to fail, there was an air of panic yesterday that
the talks could collapse sooner than expected. Ambassadors and
senior officials in Vienna were cancelling and rescheduling
holidays yesterday on the assumption that there would be an
emergency IAEA meeting which could send the dispute to the UN
security council.
The IAEA chief, Mohammed ElBaradei, appealed to Iran not to
imperil the negotiations with the EU "at this critical stage".
For two years the Europeans have resisted US calls to take the
row to the security council but have promised the Americans to
end that resistance if the talks break down. The US and the
Europeans are convinced Iran is embarked on a clandestine
nuclear bomb project. Enriching uranium is the main route to the
bomb.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited ¿ Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
17 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Breaking Seals to Resume Processing
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday August 1, 2005 12:46 PM
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) - Iranian technicians will break U.N. seals on
the Isfahan nuclear plant Monday, allowing uranium processing to
resume, a spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council
said.
Officials from the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency will supervise
the removal of the United Nations seals, the first step toward
restarting central Iran's Isfahan Nuclear Conversion Facility,
said Ali Agha Mohammadi, spokesman for Iran's Supreme National
Security Council, according to a report from the official IRNA
news agency.
Reprocessing uranium is a step below uranium enrichment, which
is to remain suspended, said Mohammadi. The United States claims
the Iranian nuclear program is designed to produce atomic
weapons, a claim that Iran denies.
The work is to resume at the Isfahan plant, which converts
uranium ore concentrate, known as yellowcake, into uranium gas,
the feedstock for enrichment. Uranium enriched to high levels
can be used for nuclear bombs; at low levels it is used as fuel
for nuclear energy plants.
The European Union head office warned Iran on Monday that
progress in EU-Iran trade talks were unlikely if Tehran resumes
its nuclear program.
``We expect Iran to live up to the commitment'' made at nuclear
talks in Paris, said European Commission spokesman Stefaan De
Rynck. ``Progress in such an agreement is unlikely unless the
Paris agreement has a successful follow-up.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
18 [NYTr] Progress in 6-Party Talks on Korean Nukes
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 12:21:10 -0500 (CDT)
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit
Prensa Latina, Havana
http://www.plenglish.com
Progress in 6-Party Talks on Korean Nukes
Beijing, Aug 1 (PL)--Negotiators at the sixth round of the six-party talks
to find a solution to the Korean Peninsula nuclear crisis have made progress
and are close to a joint statement that could come today, Chinese sources
indicated Monday.
Chief delegates from Beijing, Pyongyang, Washington, Seoul, Moscow and Tokyo
left it to their deputies to continue discussions over the drafting of a
joint document on Sunday afternoon.
Talks continue today as delegates work out their differences in an effort to
thrash out the joint document that would pave the way out of the nuclear
stalemate, as North Korea voiced its willingness to rejoin the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty and welcome back United Nations observers.
The United States had expressed earlier its willingness to cooperate with
Pyongyang.
The Republic of Korea (ROK) chief delegate, Song Min-soon, said all parties
had come to a consensus that a strong framework should be set up to
denuclearize the Korean Peninsula.
He said nations have not yet discussed the exact wording of a final text,
but during Sunday's five-hour session heard opinions on China's proposals
for a joint document.
Song said he did not know when talks would end, adding that all
participating parties would continue discussions till an agreement is
reached.
He said the joint document would consult a 1992 inter-Korean pledge to make
the peninsula nuclear-free, according to Xinhua.
Under the 1992 denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the ROK and the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) pledged not to test, produce,
store, deploy or use nuclear weapons.
China's draft joint statement reportedly outlines broad principles regarding
Pyongyang4s dismantling of its nuclear programmes. It also addresses
security guarantees for Pyongyang from participating countries, economic
assistance and normalization of diplomatic relations.
The US delegation described the draft as representing "a good basis for
further negotiations and discussion."
nytr/mh/mf
***
North Korea Willing to Rejoin NPT
Beijing, Aug 1 (PL)--The Democratic People4s Republic of Korea (DPRK) voiced
her willingness to rejoin the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and
accept the return of IAEA inspectors if the nuclear issue can be resolved
satisfactorily, according to the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA).
"If the nuclear issue finds a satisfactory solution, we will return to the
NPT and accept the IAEA inspection," DPRK's Foreign Minister, Paek Nam-sun,
told the recently concluded ministerial meeting of the 12th ASEAN Regional
Forum held in Laos.
Paek said the DPRK's nuclear weapons are not meant to strike the US and
Pyongyang has no intention of keeping them permanently.
"We will have neither reason nor necessity to possess even a single nuclear
weapon if the US agrees to completely remove its nuclear threat to the DPRK
and opens relations of peaceful co-existence with the DPRK," Paek stressed.
He said that peace and security on the Korean Peninsula are key factors for
ensuring peace in Northeast Asia and the DPRK government was making every
effort to settle the present unstable situation and achieve durable peace
and stability on the peninsula.
Negotiators from DPRK, the US, China, South Korea, Japan and Russia are
currently in Beijing working out a joint statement that would pave the way
for a solution to the nuclear stalemate in the Korean Peninsula.
"We proposed practical ways of completely solving the nuclear issue at this
round of the talks, calling for reaching the common understanding that it is
necessary to terminate the hostile relations between the DPRK and the US,
legally and institutionally open ties of peaceful co-existence, eliminate
all nuclear arms from the peninsula, and the US is required to end its
nuclear threat to the DPRK," Paek said.
nytr/mh/mf
*
================================================================
.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
================================================================
*****************************************************************
19 IPS-English NORTH KOREA-NUKE PROGRAMME: A beginning in
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:28:08 -0700
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
AP IP HD ML
NORTH KOREA-NUKE PROGRAMME: A beginning in Beijing, says UAE paper
Att.Editors: The following item is from the Emirates News Agency (WAM)
ABU DHABI, Aug. 1 (WAM) - A United Arab Emirates (UAE) newspaper today
commented on the current six-party negotiations in China regarding North
Korea's nuclear programme.
Commenting editorially on the issue, the Dubai-based 'Khaleej Times'
said: Curtain finally came down on the six-party negotiations to resolve the
issue of North Korea's nuclear programme yesterday.
However, the longest-ever negotiations in Beijing were followed up by
more negotiations to hammer out a joint statement of principles for
denuclearisation.
In fact, these negotiations were still on at the time of writing, which
perhaps goes to underline the delicate nature of these talks and the issue
they are seeking to resolve.
But regardless of what finally appears in the form of joint statement,
there's no reason to interpret the Beijing talks as a failure.
The most positive outcome of the latest diplomatic initiative has been
the willingness of the U.S. and North Korea to directly engage each other.
If Pyongyang is at last prepared to see reason and cooperate with the
international community, some credit should go to these direct encounters
between the two sides.
On the final day of the talks, North Korea signalled it was prepared to
return to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime and subject its
nuclear programme, which makes its neighbours extremely nervous and
Washington angry, to international inspections.
How far North Korea will go to address the international concerns will
become clear in the days and months to come. While Pyongyang's current
cooperation may have been inspired by several factors including the
humanitarian crisis unfolding in the country thanks to food shortage and
drought, it is in the international community's interest to continue the
dialogue with the regime, whatever be the Dear Leader's motives, the paper
concluded. (WAM)
*****************************************************************
20 Guardian Unlimited: China Proposes New Draft at Nuke Talks
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday August 1, 2005 4:16 AM
AP Photo XIN201
By JOE McDONALD
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - China has proposed a new draft of a statement by
negotiators at talks on North Korea's nuclear program, the U.S.
envoy said Monday after weekend discussions were snarled by the
North's demands for what it should receive in exchange for
disarming.
The new draft, submitted late Sunday, ``reflected all sides'
modifications'' to the first Chinese-written draft, said
Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, the U.S. envoy to
the talks. He would not give any details, but said, ``I think
the process is going forward rather well.''
Hill said delegates would meet Monday to discuss the proposal.
The statement of basic principles is meant to lay the basis for
future talks aimed at ending the three-year-old standoff over
demands that the North give up nuclear development. The talks
involve the two Koreas, the United States, Japan, Russia and
China - the host.
According to South Korea's delegate, Deputy Foreign Minister
Song Min-soon, talks Sunday focused on a key sticking point:
what steps the other governments will take in exchange for an
agreement by the North to dismantle its nuclear program.
Hill said earlier that delegates disagreed on the sequence of
how disarmament would proceed.
The North has demanded concessions such as security guarantees
and aid from Washington before it eliminates its weapons
program, while the United States wants to see the arms destroyed
first. The North has also insisted that it be allowed to run a
peaceful nuclear power program, something Washington objects to
out of proliferation concerns.
Hill dismissed suggestions that this round of talks - the fourth
in a series that began in 2003 - might be completed Monday. The
delegates have set no ending date, in contrast to earlier
sessions, which ended after three days.
``Everything's a problem until everything's solved, and nothing
is solved until everything is solved,'' Hill said.
No details of either draft statement have been released, but a
Japanese news report said the first one proposed by China called
for North Korea to abandon its nuclear weapons programs and
other programs that could potentially produce such arms.
The draft also addresses normalization of U.S. and Japanese
relations with the North, Kyodo News agency reported, citing an
anonymous source at the talks.
The Japanese side is dissatisfied with the draft proposed by
China because it fails to mention Japanese citizens the North
has admitted to kidnapping, Kyodo said.
Another issue of contention is the North's demand that it be
allowed peaceful use of nuclear technology to remedy its
electricity shortage, a request dating back to an earlier
nuclear crisis that ended in a 1994 agreement with the United
States. But Washington is reluctant to allow it any nuclear
programs that could be diverted to weapons use.
North Korea's foreign minister has repeated that the communist
nation could rejoin the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and
admit international inspectors if the talks are successful.
The statement Friday by the foreign minister while in Laos was
reported Sunday by the North's official news agency, echoing
remarks in June by North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.
In February, the North claimed it had nuclear weapons and has
since taken steps that would allow it to harvest more plutonium
for possible use in bombs.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
21 Guardian Unlimited: Demands by North Korea snag talks
Associated Press in Beijing
Monday August 1, 2005
The Guardian
North Korea's demands snarled talks at international
disarmament negotiations yesterday.
The communist country is offering to abandon its nuclear weapons
programme in exchange for security guarantees from the US and
other incentives.
Deputy leaders of the six delegations at the talks spent five
hours discussing a Chinese-drafted proposal. But the
negotiations ended their sixth day without an agreement. South
Korea's main nuclear envoy said more consultations were planned
for today.
The North has demanded concessions including security guarantees
and aid from Washington before it eliminates its weapons
programme, while the US wants to see the arms destroyed first.
The North has also insisted that it be allowed to run a peaceful
nuclear power programme, something Washington objects to out of
proliferation concerns.
North Korea's foreign minister has repeated that the country
could rejoin the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and admit
international inspectors if the talks are successful.
Meanwhile, South Korea said yesterday it had agreed with the
North to hold an opening ceremony in late October for railways
and roads reconnected across the heavily fortified border
dividing the peninsula.
Timelines
12.02.2003: North Korea's nuclear programme
North Korea - 1991 to the present
Graphic
Map of North and South Korea
World news guide
20.12.2001: North Korea
South Korea
Useful links
Korea Herald (South)
North Korean Central News
Agency
World Food Programme
History of the Korean war - tcsaz.com
CIA factbook: North Korea
CIA factbook: South Korea
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
22 Daily Yomiuri: Tug-of-war over North Korean N-programs
Hidetoshi Ikebe and Tetsuya Suetsugu Yomiuri Shimbun
Correspondents
The focal point of the six-party talks in Beijing on North
Korea's nuclear development program is whether their joint
document will specify which nuclear programs should be
abandoned, namely the uranium enrichment program and nuclear
development for peaceful purposes.
Japan and the United States are expected to urge the other
countries to include human rights and missile development issues
in the document, which were not included in a draft presented by
China on Saturday.
North Korea announced Wednesday it was ready to abandon its
nuclear programs if the nuclear threat from the United States
was removed and the U.S.-North Korea relationship was
normalized. This would be a step forward, as North Korea had
only mentioned freezing the development of such arms in the
previous round of negotiations.
The draft joint document mentions North Korea's abandonment of
nuclear programs.
"The joint document will be binding. If the word 'abandonment'
is left as it is in the document, it'll be a significant
achievement," a Japanese Foreign Ministry official said.
However, a large disparity remains between the Japan-U.S. bloc
and North Korea.
Japan and the United States are demanding that North Korea
abandon all of its nuclear programs, including its uranium
enrichment program. They also insist that Pyongyang has the
right to develop nuclear for peaceful purposes, such as energy
generation, but will not let the country exercise the right.
On the other hand, North Korea has refused to admit the
existence of a uranium enrichment program and insists on its
right to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
The draft joint document, presented by China, only includes
ambiguous phrasing pressing North Korea toward denuclearization.
Japan and the United States are set to demand clarification of
the document that denuclearization should include abandonment of
uranium enrichment and nuclear development for peaceful
purposes.
North Korea insists that the U.S. military in South Korea
deploys nuclear arms and that the nuclear threat of the United
States must be eliminated before Pyongyang abandons its nuclear
programs. But as Washington has announced that it has already
withdrawn such weapons from South Korea, the issue will remain
open for future negotiations.
Japan, which hope to promote negotiations on the issue of
abductions of Japanese by North Korea, is set to cooperate with
the United States, which is interested in human rights issues,
and press the other countries to include statements in the
document on North Korea's human rights record and ballistic
missile development.
South Korea also is unwilling to discuss human rights issues in
the negotiations. In this respect, the issue may be documented
as a bilateral matter that will be addressed later. (Aug. 1,
2005)
Copyright © The Yomiuri Shimbun.
*****************************************************************
23 Reuters: N. Korea negotiators battle over draft statement
Mon Aug 1, 2005 6:04 PM ET
By Brian Rhoads
BEIJING, Aug 2 (Reuters) - Negotiators from six countries trying
to end the crisis over North Korea's nuclear ambitions resume
their diplomatic battle in Beijing on Tuesday, struggling to put
down on paper the few things they have agreed.
Using a Chinese draft as a basis for discussion, the two Koreas,
the United States, Russia, Japan and the host nation have been
struggling to ink a joint statement after intensive talks in five
languages.
The longest negotiating round to date is heading into week two,
with the parties still apparently unable to broach the critical
issue of North Korea scrapping its nuclear programmes.
Washington says Pyongyang can secure aid and security guarantees
only if it dismantles its weapons programmes, which intelligence
analysts estimate can already produce up to nine nuclear bombs.
North Korea is demanding it receive concessions before even
considering scrapping its nuclear programmes.
Negotiations on an eventual joint statement have become bogged
down, delegates say, on failure to agree to even on a bland
statement.
"We had vigorous discussions, but we can't say there was major
progress. Major discourse remains and therefore the talks will
continue," Japanese chief negotiator Kenichiro Sasae said late on
Monday.
The sought-after joint statement is not even expected to address
the core issue of whether Pyongyang should dismantle its nuclear
facilities as a precondition to aid and security guarantees, as
Washington wants, or whether the assurances should come first.
That appears beyond the scope of the current talks, the fourth
session since the crisis erupted nearly three years ago.
ACRIMONIOUS DISCUSSIONS
After a weekend of sometimes acrimonious discussions by
lower-level envoys on China's draft, the host nation took note of
the arguments and put forward a revised text.
"Chief negotiators from the six nations had frequent shuttle
contacts for in-depth discussions on the wording of the drafted
joint document," China's Xinhua news agency said.
Yet the day ended with no consensus and there was no indication
when the round would end.
Given historic rivalries among the six parties, any joint
statement would mark a breakthrough at talks where past progress
was measured by whether delegates could even agree to reconvene.
China's initial draft called on Pyongyang to abandon its
"nuclear weapons programmes and related programmes" in return for
the other five providing security, economic aid and improved
ties, a diplomatic source told Reuters.
It did not address who should move first or if the parties
should move simultaneously, avoiding the crucial issue of timing.
The United States demands verifiable destruction of North
Korea's weapons programmes before it will provide security
guarantees and aid for the poor, diplomatically isolated country.
Washington accused Pyongyang in 2002 of pursuing a covert
uranium-based weapons programme in addition to its mothballed
plutonium-based activities at Yongbyon.
The North responded by expelling U.N. nuclear inspectors,
withdrawing from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and
breaking the seals at the Yongbyon complex.
The stakes rose in February, when Pyongyang announced it had
nuclear weapons and demanded aid, assurances and diplomatic
recognition from Washington in return for scrapping them.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
24 Reuters: Russia may offer N.Korea energy to give up nukes
Mon Aug 1, 2005 8:19 AM ET
MOSCOW, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Russia may offer North Korea
electricity, gas and even help to build a nuclear power station
if Pyongyang gives up its nuclear weapons programme, Russian news
agencies reported on Monday.
Delegates from North and South Korea, the United States, Japan,
Russia and China are holding talks in Beijing aimed at persuading
Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions.
The Itar-Tass news agency quoted a source in Russia's Atomic
Energy Agency (RosAtom) as saying that Russia could build a
nuclear power plant in North Korea in six or seven years.
He said in the 1970s and 1980s Russian experts conducted
preliminary research and found a suitable site for the power
plant in North Korea.
"However later, these works were stopped and never resumed," the
source said. "RosAtom is not conducting any talks with North
Korea at the moment."
The Interfax news agency quoted the deputy head of the Russian
delegation at the Beijing talks, Valery Yermolov, as saying that
Moscow could offer North Korea electricity, natural gas and help
to reconstruct thermal power stations.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
25 Guardian Unlimited: Korean Nuclear Talks Turn Pessimistic
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday August 1, 2005 8:46 PM
AP Photo XHG102
By BURT HERMAN
Associated Press Writer
BEIJING (AP) - The chief U.S. envoy to talks on North Korea's
nuclear program said Monday he saw few chances for quick
progress as efforts to draft a statement of basic principles
dragged into a second week.
Negotiators were working on a second draft proposed by host
China after they spent the weekend struggling with North Korea's
demands for what it should receive if it disarms.
``I don't see any breakthroughs on the immediate horizon,'' a
visibly weary U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill
told reporters after what he said was 12 hours of meetings.
``It's been a long day without a lot of progress to report.''
Hill said ``rather major differences'' remained between North
Korea and the other five governments. He said some issues that
the Americans had thought were resolved re-emerged as
disagreements on Monday, but he would not give details.
He said he did not know how long the talks would last, but was
having eight shirts laundered.
``We'll stay here as long as we feel we're making progress,''
Hill said. ``If we're not making progress, we're not going to
stay.''
Unlike previous rounds of talks, which lasted three days and
failed to find agreement on a joint statement, delegates this
time set no deadline for talks to end and appeared determined to
work out a declaration of basic principles to guide future
negotiations.
China gathered input from the delegations - which also include
Japan, Russia and South Korea - and proposed a second draft of
an agreement late Sunday, according to Hill.
No details of either draft statement have been released, but
reports during the weekend said it would mention energy aid and
a security guarantee for Pyongyang and eventually normalized
political relations with Washington.
The document is likely to be short. Statements issued at the end
of previous rounds of talks have been less than two pages.
Chief delegates will discuss another revision Tuesday, South
Korea's No. 2 envoy said after he and other deputies spent 3
hours poring over the proposal Monday.
``Some issues have been sorted out but there remain many issues
that we should continue to work on,'' Cho Tae-yong said. ``We
are moving steadily forward.''
Washington has also sought more direct contact with the North at
the current fourth round of arms talks than at previous
sessions, and the sides met twice Monday, a South Korean
official said on condition of due to the sensitivity of the
talks.
The U.S. and North Korea delegations had a working dinner
Saturday, according to Hill.
The United States and North Korea have been unable so far to
agree on who should make the first move on the path to the
North's disarmament, according to delegates.
The latest nuclear standoff was sparked after U.S. officials
said in late 2002 that the North admitted to violating a 1994
deal by embarking on a secret uranium enrichment program.
Given that experience, the Bush administration says it wants to
see North Korea's weapons program eliminated first before giving
concessions. The North does not want to give up its nuclear
bargaining chip without a reward, such as aid and security
guarantees.
The North also wants the right to have peaceful nuclear reactors
for generating power, but Washington is afraid they could be
misused to produce material for bombs.
Japan has also reportedly insisted the issue of its citizens
abducted by the North be mentioned in the statement, an
emotional domestic issue.
``We will do our best to reflect our stance in the draft,'' the
Japanese delegate, Deputy Foreign Minister Sasae Kenichiro, said
Monday, declining to give details.
In February, the North claimed it had nuclear weapons and has
since taken steps that would allow it to harvest more plutonium
for possible use in bombs. Many experts believe the North
already has enough weapons-grade material for about a half-dozen
atomic weapons.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
26 [NukeNet] Senate Approves Horrific Energy Bill
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:30:18 -0700
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Greatest Threat To Life On Earth Which
Congressional Terrorists Just Aided Immensely:
http://www.heatisonline.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Public Citizen
To: smirnowb@IX.NETCOM.COM
Sent: Friday, July 29, 2005 4:33 PM
Subject: [CMEP] Senate approves energy bill
Senate Approves Energy Bill
Bill Now Goes to President Bush for
Approval
July 29, 2005
The U.S. Senate today approved the
energy bill conference report (H.R. 6, "The
Domenici-Barton Energy Policy Act of 2005") by a
vote of 74 to 26, clearing the legislation for
approval by President Bush.
The bill is a smorgasbord of
special-interest giveaways for the fossil fuel and
nuclear industries, which received more than
two-thirds of the tax breaks. The bill is not a
forward-looking energy plan for the 21st century,
but rather a behemoth booster for Big
Energy.Attempts to block the bill ultimately
failed. Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) raised a
point of order charging that the energy bill's
steep price tag violates the Senate's budget
rules, but the Senate voted 71-29 to waive the
rules.
This bill, which will become law when
the president signs it, does the following:
a.. Repeals the Public Utility
Holding Company Act (PUHCA), a vital protection
for electricity consumers. PUHCA prevents the
massive consolidation of unregulated utility
ownership and prohibits non-utilities -- such as
oil companies, investment banks, and foreign
companies -- from owning public utilities.
b.. Promotes a nuclear power
relapse, lavishing the mature industry with
billions of dollars in subsidies and other
incentives that could cost taxpayers more than $13
billion.
c.. Federalizes the siting of
liquefied natural gas importation terminals,
stripping states of the right to oppose such
projects.
d.. Provides $4.5 billion in tax
breaks and more than $7 billion in authorized
subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and eases
environmental regulations for oil and gas drilling
and refining.
The bill will not reduce our
dependence on foreign oil or reduce gasoline
prices.
Absent from the final bill were
measures to open the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge to oil and gas exploration and a product
liability waiver for producers of the fuel
additive MTBE that has contaminated groundwater
across the nation. Republican leaders have
declared that they want to get these measures as
part of other legislation.
--------------------------------------------------
------------------
Would you like to sign up for the
Public Citizen Action Network or other online
announcements?
Would you like your name removed from
future correspondence? Click here.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
27 Remember Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:30:51 -0700
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
`69cb6.jpg
Join
Us>>>
My
Preferences>>>
It was nearly 60 years ago when the United States became the first nation
to make wartime use of nuclear weapons. It is estimated that almost 300,000
people lost their lives in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. On Saturday, August 6
th, Americans will come together to remember the first time, and ensure it
remains the last time.
CLICK
HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION
The Seeds Of Change march on Livermore will bring our voices together in
remembrance and protest. Remembering history and protesting the present
development of nuclear weapons, we will march on one of the nation's
premier nuclear weapons laboratories. When the president says he wants
"more usable" nuclear weapons, we must say "no".
CLICK
HERE FOR MORE INFORMATION
* WHEN: Saturday, August 6, 2005 at 5 PM
* The event will be broadcast live from 5-7 PM on Pacifica Radio, 94.1
KPFA www.kpfa.org
* WHERE: William Payne Park, 5800 Patterson Pass Rd. Livermore, CA
(BART shuttles provided by the Peace and Freedom Party) or share a ride at
* SpaceShare:
http://spaceshare.com/livermore/
Join us for a rally, music, speakers, and children's activities between 5pm
and 7pm. The half-mile march to the Lawrence Livermore National Labs will
be from 7-8pm.
Ai Maeoka of the Hiroshima World Peace Mission, music by Utah Phillips,
Fariba and Dangerous Minds, and a comic break by Dave Lippman will all help
energize and inspire the crowd.
California Peace Action members, chapters, volunteers and staff will meet
at California Peace Action's 50 foot-long inflatable nuclear missile (you
can't miss it!) to meet and walk together to the Lab.
DIRECTIONS
TO THE EVENT
MORE
INFORMATION
TO VOLUNTEER CONTACT:
LAURA
REINHARD
Sincerely,
Laura Reinhard
Northern California Political Director
California Peace Action
MORE INFORMATION
* We have assembled a number of resources from eyewitness testimonials
to instructions on folding a paper crane.
*
CLICK
HERE TO READ MORE
This is a message from California Peace Action
2800 Adeline Street
Berkeley, CA 94703
510.849.2272
To subscribe to this list visit
here.
To unsubscribe from this list visit
this
link
To update your preferences and contact information visit
this
link
69ccc.jpg
Attachment Converted: 69cb6.jpg: 00000001,2e79abb5,00000000,00000000
Attachment Converted: 69ccc.jpg: 00000001,2e79abb6,00000000,00000000
*****************************************************************
28 Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 01:49:47 -0500 (CDT)
version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Hiroshima and Nagasaki: Worst terror attacks in history
By Norm Dixon
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2005/636/636p3.htm
August 6 and August 9 will mark the 60th anniversaries of the US
atomic-bomb attacks on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In
Hiroshima, an estimated 80,000 people were killed in a split second.
Some 13 square kilometres of the city was obliterated. By December, at
least another 70,000 people had died from radiation and injuries.
Three days after Hiroshima's destruction, the US dropped an A-bomb on
Nagasaki, resulting in the deaths of at least 70,000 people before the
year was out.
Since 1945, tens of thousands more residents of the two cities have
continued to suffer and die from radiation-induced cancers, birth
defects and still births.
A tiny group of US rulers met secretly in Washington and callously
ordered this indiscriminate annihilation of civilian populations. They
gave no explicit warnings. They rejected all alternatives, preferring to
inflict the most extreme human carnage possible. They ordered and had
carried out the two worst terror acts in human history.
The 60th anniversaries will inevitably be marked by countless mass media
commentaries and speeches repeating the 60-year-old mantra that there
was no other choice but to use A-bombs in order to avoid a bitter,
prolonged invasion of Japan.
On July 21, the British New Scientist magazine undermined this chorus
when it reported that two historians had uncovered evidence revealing
that ``the US decision to drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki
.. was meant to kick-start the Cold War [against the Soviet Union,
Washington's war-time ally] rather than end the Second World War''.
Peter Kuznick, director of the Nuclear Studies Institute at the American
University in Washington stated that US President Harry Truman's
decision to blast the cities was not just a war crime, it was a crime
against humanity''.
With Mark Selden, a historian from Cornell University in New York,
Kuznick studied the diplomatic archives of the US, Japan and the USSR.
They found that three days before Hiroshima, Truman agreed at a meeting
that Japan was ``looking for peace''. His senior generals and political
advisers told him there was no need to use the A-bomb. But the bombs
were dropped anyway. ``Impressing Russia was more important than ending
the war'', Selden told the New Scientist.
While the capitalist media immediately dubbed the historians' ``theory''
``controversial'', it accords with the testimony of many central US
political and military players at the time, including General Dwight
Eisenhower, who stated bluntly in a 1963 Newsweek interview that ``the
Japanese were ready to surrender and it wasn't necessary to hit them
with that awful thing''.
Truman's chief of staff, Admiral William Leahy, stated in his memoirs
that ``the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of
no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were
already defeated and ready to surrender.''
At the time though, Washington cold-bloodedly decided to sweep away the
lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children to show off
the terrible power of its new super weapon and underline the US rulers'
ruthless preparedness to use it.
These terrible acts were intended to warn the leaders of the Soviet
Union that their cities would suffer the same fate if the USSR attempted
to stand in the way of Washington's plans to create an ``American
Century'' of US global domination. Nuclear scientist Leo Szilard
recounted to his biographers how Truman's secretary of state, James
Byrnes, told him before the Hiroshima attack that ``Russia might be more
manageable if impressed by American military might and that a
demonstration of the bomb may impress Russia''.
Drunk from the success of its nuclear bloodletting in Japan, Washington
planned and threatened the use of nuclear weapons on at least 20
occasions in the 1950s and 1960s, only being restrained when the USSR
developed enough nuclear-armed rockets to usher in the era of ``mutually
assured destruction'', and the US rulers' fear that their use again of
nuclear weapons would led to a massive anti-US political revolt by
ordinary people around the world.
Washington's policy of nuclear terror remains intact. The US refuses to
rule out the first use of nuclear weapons in a conflict. Its latest
Nuclear Posture Review envisages the use of nuclear weapons against
non-nuclear ``rogue states'' and it is developing a new generation of
``battlefield'' nuclear weapons.
Fear of the political backlash that would be caused in the US and around
the globe by the use of nuclear weapons remains the main restraint upon
the atomaniacs in Washington. On this 60th anniversary year of history's
worst acts of terror, the most effective thing that people around the
world can do to keep that fear alive in the minds of the US rulers is to
recommit ourselves to defeating Washington's current ``local''wars of
terror in Afghanistan and Iraq.
From Green Left Weekly, August 3, 2005.
*****************************************************************
29 Guardian Unlimited: The treaty wreckers
Comment |
In just a few months, Bush and Blair have destroyed
global restraint on the development of nuclear weapons
George Monbiot
Tuesday August 2, 2005
The Guardian
Saturday is the 60th anniversary of the bombing of Hiroshima. The
nuclear powers are commemorating it in their own special way: by
seeking to ensure that the experiment is repeated.
As Robin Cook showed in his column last week, the British
government appears to have decided to replace our Trident nuclear
weapons, without consulting parliament or informing the public.
It could be worse than he thinks. He pointed out that the atomic
weapons establishment at Aldermaston has been re-equipped to
build a new generation of bombs. But when this news was first
leaked in 2002 a spokesman for the plant insisted the equipment
was being installed not to replace Trident but to build either
mini-nukes or warheads that could be used on cruise missiles.
If this is true it means the government is replacing Trident and
developing a new category of boil-in-the-bag weapons. As if to
ensure we got the point, Geoff Hoon, then the defence secretary,
announced before the leak that Britain would be prepared to use
small nukes in a pre-emptive strike against a non-nuclear state.
This put us in the hallowed company of North Korea.
The Times, helpful as ever, explains why Trident should be
replaced. "A decision to leave the club of nuclear powers," it
says, "would diminish Britain's international standing and
influence." This is true, and it accounts for why almost
everyone wants the bomb. Two weeks ago, on concluding their new
nuclear treaty, George Bush and the Indian prime minister
Manmohan Singh announced that "international institutions must
fully reflect changes in the global scenario that have taken
place since 1945. The president reiterated his view that
international institutions are going to have to adapt to reflect
India's central and growing role." This translates as follows:
"Now that India has the bomb it should join the UN security
council."
It is because nuclear weapons confer power and status on the
states that possess them that the non-proliferation treaty, of
which the UK was a founding signatory, determines two things:
that the non-nuclear powers should not acquire nuclear weapons,
and that the nuclear powers should "pursue negotiations in good
faith on ... general and complete disarmament". Blair has
unilaterally decided to rip it up.
But in helping to wreck the treaty we are only keeping up with
our friends across the water. In May the US government launched
a systematic assault on the agreement. The summit in New York
was supposed to strengthen it, but the US, led by John Bolton -
the undersecretary for arms control (someone had a good laugh
over that one) - refused even to allow the other nations to draw
up an agenda for discussion. The talks collapsed, and the treaty
may now be all but dead. Needless to say, Bolton has been
promoted: to the post of US ambassador to the UN. Yesterday Bush
pushed his nomination through by means of a "recess
appointment": an undemocratic power that allows him to override
Congress when its members are on holiday.
Bush wanted to destroy the treaty because it couldn't be
reconciled with his new plans. Last month the Senate approved an
initial $4m for research into a "robust nuclear earth
penetrator" (RNEP). This is a bomb with a yield about 10 times
that of the Hiroshima device, designed to blow up underground
bunkers that might contain weapons of mass destruction. (You've
spotted the contradiction.) Congress rejected funding for it in
November, but Bush twisted enough arms this year to get it
restarted. You see what a wonderful world he inhabits when you
discover that the RNEP idea was conceived in 1991 as a means of
dealing with Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons.
Saddam is pacing his cell, but the Bushites, like the Japanese
soldiers lost in Malaysia, march on. To pursue his war against
the phantom of the phantom of Saddam's weapons of mass
destruction, Bush has destroyed the treaty that prevents the use
of real ones.
It gets worse. Last year Congress allocated funding for
something called the "reliable replacement warhead". The
government's story is that the existing warheads might be
deteriorating. When they show signs of ageing they can be
dismantled and rebuilt to a "safer and more reliable" design.
It's a pretty feeble excuse for building a new generation of
nukes, but it worked. The development of the new bombs probably
means the US will also breach the comprehensive test ban treaty
- so we can kiss goodbye to another means of preventing
proliferation.
But the biggest disaster was Bush's meeting with Manmohan Singh
a fortnight ago. India is one of three states that possess
nuclear weapons and refuse to sign the non-proliferation treaty
(NPT). The treaty says India should be denied access to civil
nuclear materials. But on July 18 Bush announced that "as a
responsible state with advanced nuclear technology, India should
acquire the same benefits and advantages as other such states".
He would "work to achieve full civil nuclear energy cooperation
with India" and "seek agreement from Congress to adjust US laws
and policies". Four months before the meeting the US lifted its
south Asian arms embargo, selling Pakistan a fleet of F-16
aircraft, capable of a carrying a wide range of missiles, and
India an anti-missile system. As a business plan, it's hard to
fault.
Here then is how it works. If you acquire the bomb and threaten
to use it you will qualify for American exceptionalism by proxy.
Could there be a greater incentive for proliferation?
The implications have not been lost on other states. "India is
looking after its own national interests," a spokesman for the
Iranian government complained on Wednesday. "We cannot criticise
them for this. But what the Americans are doing is a double
standard. On the one hand they are depriving an NPT member from
having peaceful technology, but at the same time they are
cooperating with India, which is not a member of the NPT." North
Korea (and this is the only good news around at the moment) is
currently in its second week of talks with the US. While the
Bush administration is doing the right thing by engaging with
Pyongyang, the lesson is pretty clear. You could sketch it out
as a Venn diagram. If you have oil and aren't developing a bomb
(Iraq) you get invaded. If you have oil and are developing a
bomb (Iran) you get threatened with invasion, but it probably
won't happen. If you don't have oil, but have the bomb, the US
representative will fly to your country and open negotiations.
The world of George Bush's imagination comes into being by
government decree. As a result of his tail-chasing paranoia,
assisted by Tony Blair's cowardice and Manmohan Singh's
opportunism, the global restraint on the development of nuclear
weapons has, in effect, been destroyed in a few months. The
world could now be more vulnerable to the consequences of
proliferation than it has been for 35 years. Thanks to Bush and
Blair, we might not go out with a whimper after all.
· www.monbiot.com
Guardian Unlimited ¿ Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
30 Daily Yomiuri: NPT regime in crisis after failed N.Y. confab
By Ramesh Thakur / Special to The Daily Yomiuri
The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is the centerpiece of the
global nonproliferation regime that codified the international
political norm of nonnuclear-weapons status. Sixty years after
the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomic bombings, the NPT regime faces
a fourfold crisis.
Some countries are engaged in undeclared nuclear activities in
violation of their nonproliferation obligations. Others have
failed to honor their disarmament obligations. A third
group--India, Israel and Pakistan--are nuclear-weapon states
outside the NPT. Finally, nonstate actors like terrorist groups
are seeking to acquire nuclear weapons.
Arms control agreements are multilaterally negotiated outcomes
among governments entailing difficult technical and political
judgments on reciprocity, mutuality and relative balance. They
are achievable if countries engage in a genuine give-and-take
where the final outcome satisfies the minimum requirements of
all without necessarily achieving the maximum goal of any. But
they prove a mirage when the basic minimum interests of key
parties are too far apart to be bridged.
The United Nations seems to be moribund as a forum for
negotiating arms control and disarmament treaties. The seventh
NPT Review Conference, held at the United Nations in New York,
ended in complete collapse in May. It failed to address the
vital challenges or offer practical ideas for preventing the
use, acquisition and spread of nuclear weapons.
The first half of the conference was dogged by procedural
wrangling and the second was rancorous. The exercise ended in
acrimony and recriminations over where the primary blame lay for
the lost opportunity to bolster the NPT.
Washington, which has historically led international efforts to
reinforce the NPT, faulted the international community, yet
again, for failure to confront the reality of the threat of
proliferation by countries like Iran and North Korea.
It will likely retreat even more strongly into extra-U.N.
multilateral efforts like the Proliferation Security Initiative,
in which more than 60 countries are cooperating on monitoring
and, if necessary, interdicting the illicit trade in nuclear
materials.
Arms control advocates countered that the U.S. delegation had
come intent on focusing on the proliferation side of the
equation and was totally intransigent with regard to existing
disarmament measures.
Most countries concluded that the nuclear powers had no
intention of fulfilling their NPT-based disarmament obligations
and agreed commitments from the 1995 and 2000 conferences. This
had a triple negative effect: it eroded support for U.S.
proposals for strengthening the nonproliferation elements of the
treaty, weakened support for strong action against possible
Iranian and North Korean transgressions, and may soften
adherence to NPT obligations over the long run.
The NPT was signed in 1968 and came into force in 1970.
Unusually among such international agreements, it required a
conference to be held after 25 years to discuss whether to renew
the treaty indefinitely or for further fixed periods. The 1995
conference decided to renew the NPT indefinitely, and in doing
so enshrined a strong international legal bulwark against
nuclear nonproliferation. The president of that conference was
the Sri Lankan diplomat Jayantha Dhanapala.
Newton Bowles, a distinguished Canadian diplomat who was
involved with the United Nations in many capacities from its
start, notes in his memoir "The Diplomacy of Hope" that
Dhanapala "left a legacy of intellectual rigor and moral
commitment" as undersecretary general for disarmament
(1998-2003). Dhanapala has now written his own account of the
1995 event, "Multilateral Diplomacy and the NPT: An Insider's
Account."
While the 1975 and 1985 review conferences produced final
documents, the 1980 and 1990 conferences failed to do so. Of the
178 parties to the NPT at the time, 175 attended the 1995 review
and extension conference. The timing was good: there was still a
residue of optimism from the ending of the Cold War and goodwill
toward Moscow and Washington, who were finally cutting back
their nuclear stockpiles.
By contrast this year's review came after two successful
conferences, and so the cycle of alternating success and failure
pointed to problems. More importantly, the U.S. mood was
completely different, both because of 9/11 and a growing hubris
of exceptionalism. The terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001,
hardened the edge of U.S. foreign policy and freed Washington
from a sense of having to make any concessions to
multilateralism.
Dhanapala wrote that 1995 proved "that large multilateral
conferences could be concluded on time, with a positive result,
and without acrimony and divisive voting." If so, 2005 proves
that such conferences cannot be self-guaranteeing. Skillful and
decisive conference management is surely a prerequisite, since
any large gathering can founder under an incompetent chairman.
In addition, there has to be an objective base of overlapping
and compatible interests. Simply providing tables and chairs in
congenial surroundings cannot compensate for deep divisions over
the substance of the work agenda. This was the real problem in
2005: the worldviews of some of the nuclear powers proved
fundamentally antagonistic to those of others.
The NPT provided for a vote on extension if necessary. In the
end in 1995 the decision was made by consensus, and Dhanapala
credits this for the spirit of harmony that prevailed. But one
could also conclude that the possibility of a vote if necessary
concentrates the mind of holdouts.
Absent that, the procedural requirement for consensus means
that spoilers can wreck any collective decision-making forum,
confident that they will not face the humiliation of a vote
proving just how isolated their position is. This has an echo
today in U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan's call for an early
decision on some U.N. Security Council reform, preferably by
consensus, but by vote if necessary. The Group of Four,
including Japan, support this.
Dhanapala was prescient in warning, in his closing speech on
May 12, 1995, that the indefinite extension of the treaty should
not be construed as "a permanence of unbalanced obligations."
The conference's "unmistakable message" was that
"nonproliferation and disarmament can be pursued only jointly,
not at each other's expense."
The trouble is, due to a changed worldview, Washington has
moved away from that package, and who's to say it is wrong?
It believes that the threats have changed in nature and
gravity, the world is a harsher place than originally believed
at the end of the Cold War, and international pressures to
fulfill earlier commitments can be more easily deflected and
should be more firmly rebuffed.
Yet, ironically, the failure of the 2005 conference means that
the agreed commitments from 1995 and 2000 remain in force. The
revenge perhaps of history that refuses to end?
Thakur is senior vice rector of the U.N. University in Tokyo.
These are his personal views. (Aug. 1, 2005)
Copyright © The Yomiuri Shimbun.
*****************************************************************
31 Casper Star-Tribune: Mills company to protest NRC fine
Casper, Wyoming - Monday, August 01, 2005
By TOM MORTON
Star-Tribune staff writer Monday, August 01, 2005
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has proposed a $6,000
civil fine against High Mountain Inspection Service of Mills for
a training violation in November, according to a news release
from the agency.
The NRC found that the company violated agency training
requirements for the possession and use of nuclear materials,
according to a July 25 news release from Bruce Mallet,
administrator of the agency's regional office in Arlington,
Texas.
The company was conducting radiography services at a refinery in
Cheyenne, and it used an individual who had not been fully
trained to perform the role of a radiographer's assistant,
according to the news release.
The company, which was fined in 2004, also failed to provide the
individual with required radiation monitoring equipment,
according to the news release.
But company owner Bill Fraser will protest that fine, saying
that the minor violation did not compromise anyone's safety.
"What they did to me was absolutely wrong," Fraser said.
High Mountain, which has been doing business for 27 years,
employs about 40 radiographers who perform X-rays of welds in
equipment such as pipes and valves, Fraser said.
In November, some employees were working at the Frontier
Refinery in Cheyenne, he said.
Frontier officials asked High Mountain employees to inspect some
equipment in an open field, Fraser said.
So the employees placed cones around the site, a radiographer
performed the procedure, and the trained radiographer's
assistant stood outside the radiation perimeter, he said.
NRC officials were on the site that day, and interviewed the
radiographer who explained the inspection and added that the
assistant was not wearing a radiation monitoring badge, Fraser
said.
The assistant received no radiation, the refinery was not
affected, and there was no danger to the public, he said.
"The NRC did not see us visually doing anything wrong," Fraser
said. "The NRC said we did it wrong; we think we did it right."
The agency met five times since the incident and finally
determined that a violation occurred, he said.
Fraser has a high opinion of the NRC, saying that many of its
rules are necessary for safety.
NRC officials will visit his office at 2000 Revenue Blvd., to
learn what companies like his are doing to keep up with the
demands of the energy boom and to check out possible scofflaws,
he said.
"High Mountain Inspection is one of the safest companies,"
Fraser said. "I've worked for other people who've tried to hide
stuff from the NRC."
He'll fire any employee who breaks the agency's rules, he said.
In this case, High Mountain Inspection deserved a scolding, but
not a fine, he said.
However, the NRC considered the incident serious, according to
its news release.
"To assure radiation safety at temporary job sites, the NRC
places a great deal of importance on having a second, trained
individual who can provide immediate assistance should a
radiographer become incapacitated during radiography
operations," said Bruce Mallet said in the news release.
NRC staff discussed the apparent violation, its significance,
the root cause and the company's corrective actions with company
officials on May 31.
The company told the agency that it has taken steps to prevent
such an incident from happening again.
In April 2004, the NRC fined High Mountain $12,000 for two
violations of NRC security and safety requirements, according to
the NRC's Web site at nrc.gov./reading-rm/doc-collections/news.
Fraser responded that incident occurred when NRC officials saw a
company truck with a loose door, and levied the fine even though
the nuclear material was safe.
The NRC also levied a $6,000 fine after an October 2001
inspection determined two radiographers received minor radiation
doses during a year that exceeded the agency's limits.
Because of these penalties, the NRC will be watching High
Mountain Inspection Services, agency spokesman Victor Dricks
said.
"Three civil penalties in a four-year period is an unusual
number for a licensee," Dricks said. "We intend to give this
company additional inspection attention."
Reporter Tom Morton can be reached at (307) 266-0592, or at
Tom.Morton@casperstartribune.net.
Copyright © 2005 by the Casper Star-Tribune published by Lee
Publications, Inc., a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises,
Incorporated
*****************************************************************
32 San Francisco Chronicle: The fatal lure of missile defense
OPEN FORUM
Marc Pilisuk
Monday, August 1, 2005
The Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance is holding its "breakfast
of champions" Tuesday in San Francisco at the St. Francis Hotel.
The gathering occurs amid plans by the Bush administration to
increase funding for the missile defense program. This
organization of military and corporate advocates for expanding
the funds for development of a missile shield is working hard to
stem the tide of opposition.
Their opponents make three main points: First, missile defense
does not work and is unlikely ever to work. Second, it has been
a boondoggle over many decades of waste, illegal overcharges and
faulty reports of progress. (The Department of Defense sued two
of the major contractors, Boeing and TRW, for falsifying and
withholding data that show the difficulty of distinguishing
decoys from actual warheads.) Third, and most important, if
pursued, it is likely to spur a race among many nations in which
nuclear weapons buzzing overhead in space will threaten life on
this planet.
The ambitious missile defense program -- which has cost $92.5
billion since it began with the "Star Wars" concept of
space-based lasers in 1983 -- underwent a major redesign in the
early 1990s after the Cold War ended. Many hoped that this
change eliminated the need to protect us from a nuclear attack
from the USSR and would result in a peace dividend to improve
our deficient health, education and transportation systems.
But proponents of the missile-defense program have struggled to
find new justifications. Air Force Lt. Gen. Henry A. Obering
III, director of the Missile Defense Agency who will keynote the
breakfast, views a variety of potential threats from both short-
and long-range ballistic missiles believed to exist in the
arsenals of several major powers as well as potential
"unforeseen" threats from other smaller states considered
hostile to U.S. policies.
The Missile Defense Agency's budget request includes a lengthy
list of toys, some continuing existing projects, some to replace
components that have proved to be costly failures. Budget blocs
cover several years. Overall, the total for fiscal years 2004-09
is $3.231 billion greater than the last period. But if the
agency were to fully fund its projected programs at last year's
levels, its overall estimate would be close to $12 billion
higher.
Following a recent Pentagon procurement scandal, Gordon England,
the acting deputy defense secretary (formerly with defense
contractor General Dynamics) ordered the review of the frequent
cost overruns and delays. Review Panel Chairman Ronald T.
Kadish, a retired Air Force three-star general who once headed
the Missile Defense Agency, noted in an interview with the
Washington Post that the Pentagon can afford only 60 of the more
than 80 new major programs under development at a cost of $1.5
trillion. The cost of those programs, he noted, has increased
$300 billion. What Kadish reports is "a conspiracy of hope,"
fueled, in part, by the "must-win" attitude of defense
contractors. The acquisition system also suffers, Kadish said,
from "program demagogy," which overvalues how much has already
been spent on a program.
On July 25, Democratic Sens. Jack Reed of Rhode Island and Carl
Levin of Michigan announced that they will introduce an
amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill to strip funding
from the missile-defense program. The senators cite numerous
studies -- by the General Accounting Office in 1987, the blue
ribbon Welch report in 1998 and, finally, the recent study by
the Institute of Policy Studies -- documenting a pattern waste,
profiteering, test failures and unfulfilled promises.
The attempt to be the dominant power in such weaponry supports
the bully as role model. Missile-defense proponents view
themselves as true patriots, ever vigilant in search of enemies
whom they would destroy if only we give them enough money, human
resources and secrecy to go on with their work. But they are
misguided, unable to conceive of a world in which nonviolent
means will solve problems, and a dangerous threat to the range
of human needs, including safety.
At present, the United States has no major military rival,
although its military programs and policies are stimulating
major developments in Russia, China and a growing number of
smaller nuclear powers. The purported threat from "rogue" states
or from terrorists has occurred with ordinary explosives. The
perpetrators are not nations with missile programs.
To prevent such threats from escalating, we could do far better
with economic, cultural and political engagement. This would
incur much lower cost and greater likelihood of success. The
planned missile defense, by contrast, is likely to stimulate
military build-up in other countries. The elite military
development group in any country takes delight in finding such
development in other countries. A permanent warfare state
assures a place for their work and their contracts.
But missile defense will violate the hard won efforts that have
culminated in the ABM treaty and in the Nuclear
Non-proliferation Treaty. Its exorbitant costs are being felt in
programs needed for education, health and housing for our
citizens. It will set back the hopes of most Americans for the
transition to a peaceful world needed more than ever before.
Marc Pilisuk, Ph.D., (mpilisuk@saybrook.edu) is a professor
emeritus of human and community development at the University of
California at Davis and a professor at the Saybrook Graduate
School and Research Center in San Francisco. He is also co-chair
of the working group on global violence and security for the
Psychologists for Social Responsibility.
Page B - 5
The San Francisco Chronicle]
*****************************************************************
33 RED HERRING: Energy Bill Reactions Mixed
Monday, August 01, 2005
Cleantech groups say the just-approved U.S. energy bill is a
step in the right direction. A small step.
August 1, 2005
The clean-energy industry on Monday had mixed reactions to the
national energy bill passed by the U.S. House and the Senate
last week.
The bill includes $14.5 billion in energy tax incentives,
including $2.6 billion for oil and gas industries; $3.1 billion
for renewable energies like wind, solar, and hydropower; and
$1.3 billion for conservation measures, including up to $3,400
for hybrid cars and up to $500 for energy-efficient home
appliances, windows, and insulation.
It invests $2.9 billion in cleaner-burning coal and $2 billion
in nuclear power plants, and authorizes $10 million to promote
commuting by bike, and $200 million to research and develop
bio-based fuels.
Among more than 1,700 pages of provisions, the bill also extends
daylight-savings time by one month, sets reliability standards
for utilities designed to prevent blackouts, sets efficiency
standards for home appliances, and requires 7.5 billion gallons
of ethanol and biodiesel—nearly double the current amount—to
be added to gasoline annually by 2012.
‘The bill should be dubbed The Great Mistake.’
-Roy McAlister, CleanPeace
The bill now goes to President George W. Bush, who is expected
to sign it.
In response to the bill, the WilderHill Clean Energy Index, an
index of clean-energy stocks, rose to $171.69 in recent trading.
That marks a rise of $2.44 from Friday and a whopping $23.84
increase since the Senate began debating the measure on June 14.
Several clean-energy organizations said the bill does more for
clean energy than the original House bill passed in April, which
included $8 billion in incentives for fossil fuel-based and
renewable energies.
The Solar Energy Industries Association lauded the bill as
“the strongest national policy for solar power in two
decades.†The bill provides a tax credit for 30 percent of the
cost of solar-energy systems, up to a maximum of $2,000.
“These tax credits will bring solar power costs over the
tipping point in many areas of the country,†said SEIA
President Rhone Resch. “Now solar comes with a more affordable
price tag, and more consumers will take a step toward energy
independence by choosing solar power. That means cleaner air,
more jobs, and greater energy security for all.â€
The American Coalition for Ethanol and the Biotechnology
Industry Organization praised the provision to boost ethanol and
biodiesel, domestically produced fuels made mostly from crops
like corn and soy in the United States.
Jim Greenwood, CEO of the biotech association, said using
biotech to convert crops to energy could eventually grow
bioethanol production to 25 percent of the transportation fuel
needed in the U.S., “a big step toward enhancing national
security.â€
But the newly passed bill falls short of the $18 billion
approved by the Senate in June, and that has disappointed others
in the industry.
Some of the missing elements include mandates to reduce oil
demand, to set miles-per-gallon standards for vehicles, and to
require 10 percent of electricity to be generated from renewable
sources by 2020.
Critical View
Roy McAlister, co-president of CleanPeace, a nonprofit in favor
of replacing fossil fuels with hydrogen, said the bill’s oil,
gas, coal, and nuclear subsidies don’t reduce the country’s
dependence on Middle Eastern oil, improve the environment,
reduce global warming, or encourage the use of American’s
abundant renewable energy.
“Congress’ energy bill amounts to little more than a Big Oil
boondoggle and a multibillion-dollar giveaway to giant energy
corporations,†he said. “It continues short-changing
abundant solar resources and it fails to equalize subsidies and
policy advantages between depletable energy and undepletable
energy. The bill should be dubbed The Great Mistake.â€
The American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy said the
bill does make progress, but misses the big targets, reducing
oil use estimated in 2020 by less than 0.05 percent, and cutting
total U.S. electricity use by less than 3 percent in 2020. In
comparison, the earlier Senate bill would have quadrupled the
total energy savings and saved 15 times as much oil, the council
said.
“This bill leaves American consumers and the economy with no
real relief,†said Bill Prindle, deputy director of the
council. “Unless Congress tackles these issues in a tougher
way, the nation will continue to suffer economic damage from
high energy prices, geopolitical instability from oil
dependence, and environmental deterioration.â€
*****************************************************************
34 Reuters: Fired CIA agent seeks FBI probe of WMD intelligence
Mon Aug 1, 2005 6:06 PM ET
WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - A fired CIA agent, who a newspaper
says told superiors in 2001 that Iraq had abandoned part of its
nuclear program, is asking the FBI to investigate allegations
that the spy agency dismissed him for refusing to falsify
intelligence.
A July 11 letter to FBI Director Robert Mueller from the former
agent's attorney suggests CIA officials may be guilty of criminal
violations involving intelligence he produced on weapons of mass
destruction in 2000 that contradicted an official agency
position.
The former agent's attorney, Roy Krieger, said his client
initially asked the CIA's inspector general to investigate
charges that CIA officials had pressured him to alter the
intelligence and retaliated when he refused. But the inspector
general rebuffed his request.
"If the CIA is telling him to falsify information, that's
potentially a crime. This merits an investigation, and if the
CIA's not going to do it, the only other place is the FBI,"
Krieger said.
An FBI spokesman declined to comment.
The letter to Mueller, a copy of which was obtained by Reuters
on Monday, reiterates charges in a lawsuit which the former agent
filed last December in Washington federal court.
Identified only by the alias "Doe," the former agent who worked
as a Near Eastern specialist on counter-proliferation issues
accuses the CIA of improper action on two separate pieces of
intelligence.
One was the WMD intelligence the former agent says he was asked
to change in 2000. The other was intelligence uncovered in 2001
that the New York Times described on Monday as dealing with
Iraq's nuclear program.
The newspaper, citing people it said had knowledge of the case,
said the second piece of intelligence came from a credible source
and said that Baghdad had dropped a major segment of its nuclear
program years before 2001.
But CIA officials refused to distribute the finding to other
intelligence agencies, the Times said.
ADMINISTRATION THINKING
The case could shed new light on Bush administration thinking
ahead of the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, which the White
House largely justified by charging that Saddam Hussein possessed
weapons of mass destruction and was actively pursuing nuclear
arms.
No such weapons have been found in Iraq, and U.S. arms
investigators have concluded that Baghdad abandoned its
nuclear-development program soon after the 1991 Gulf War.
The former CIA agent was not available for comment. Krieger
declined to discuss details of the case.
A CIA spokeswoman also declined to comment.
Krieger's letter to the FBI states that CIA officials accused
the former agent of sexual and financial misconduct in an attempt
to discredit him and retaliate for his refusal to falsify
intelligence.
The former agent was fired for unspecified reasons in September
2004, the letter says.
The former CIA agent learned in 2001 that Iraq's
uranium-enrichment program had ended years before and that
centrifuge components were available for examination and even
purchase, the New York Times reported.
The intelligence surfaced around the time when a presidential
commission on WMD intelligence says the CIA came to believe Iraq
was reconstituting its nuclear program because Baghdad had sought
high-strength aluminum tubes that the agency believed could be
used to enrich uranium.
The Department of Energy and the International Atomic Energy
Agency later concluded that the tubes were suited not for nuclear
applications but for conventional rocketry.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
35 PISJ: Plutonium meeting
Pocatello Idaho State Journal: Your Views:
Montana temblor is subtle reminder
Letters to the Editor
I was puzzled and dismayed when I read the Journal write-up of
the DOE hearing at Fort Hall concerning the production of
plutonium 238.
Four hours of testimony were given stating concerns and asking
questions about worker and community safety, nuclear waste
cleanup versus new production, earthquake and volcanism zones,
deep space exploration with a hidden agenda of space-based
weapons, current stockpiles and location of plutonium 238.
Why then did the reporter choose to talk about fairy dust? What
about cleaning up the vast amounts of nuclear waste that have
been generated for decades from the nuclear weapons industry and
"clean" nuclear power?
Tribal members spoke eloquently about their concerns for the
aquifer below INL and all living things on the INL lands.
There are many questions that need to be answered before the
U.S. starts producing a substance that remains toxic for 900
years.
Now is the time to let your government know you do not want Idaho
to be the nation's plutonium factory.
Write Timothy A. Frazier, EIS Document Manager, NE-50/Germantown
Building, U.S. Dept. of Energy, 1000 Independence Ave., S.W.,
Washington D.C. 20585-1290; call 800-919-3706; fax 800-919-3765
or e-mail Consolidation . Kaye Turner,
Pocatello
This document was originally published online on Monday, August
01, 2005
Copyright © 2005 Pocatello Idaho State Journal
P O Box 431 Pocatello, ID 83204-0431
*****************************************************************
36 csmonitor.com: How the father of the A-bomb fell from grace |
08/01/05
Books
from the August 02, 2005 edition
How the father of the A-bomb fell from grace
A provocative tale of a time when politicians, scientists, and
technology went awry
By Lori Valigra
It's both fitting and disturbing that a book chronicling the
ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer should be released in a year
marking the 60th anniversary of the atomic bombing of Hiroshima
and Nagasaki, and at a time when the threat of nuclear weapons
remains high.
In "The Ruin of J. Robert Oppenheimer and the Birth of the
Modern Arms Race," historian Priscilla McMillan gives us a rare,
behind-the-scenes look at the downfall of the leader of the
Manhattan Project and the effects of communism and the cold
war.
And the Birth of the Modern Arms Race
By Priscilla J. McMillan
Viking
384 pp., $25.95
Using personal interviews and declassified US and Russian
documents, McMillan focuses her compelling narrative on the
period from 1945 to 1954. It was a time during which the comfort
that had returned to Americans' lives after World War II would
be set on its head.
McMillan starts her tale on April 12, 1954, when Americans awoke
to an unthinkable story in The New York Times: J. Robert
Oppenheimer, the American hero and nuclear scientist who had
helped bring World War II to a smoldering end, was accused of
being a security risk and had had his security clearance
suspended. But the seeds of what would eventually bring down
"Oppie" and help to spawn the cold war had already been planted
in the minds of what was by then a nervous American public.
In 1946 Americans were stunned to learn that Soviet agents had
penetrated key parts of the US government. Another shock came in
1949, when the Soviets tested their first atomic bomb, two years
before the CIA expected it. In 1950 Alger Hiss, president of the
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, was convicted of
perjury and a former Manhattan Project scientist named Klaus
Fuchs confessed that he had passed atomic secrets to Russia.
Shortly thereafter, Joseph McCarthy sparked the hunt for
communists.
With America's monopoly on the atomic bomb gone and paranoia
over communists and spies running rampant, President Harry
Truman ordered the nation's scientists to create a new and far
deadlier weapon: the hydrogen bomb.
Oppenheimer, sobered by the destruction wrought by the atomic
bomb, opposed the hydrogen bomb. At the same time, a former
colleague turned bitter rival, Edward Teller, set out to
discredit Oppenheimer.
It wasn't that hard to do. Oppenheimer's opposition to deadly
weapons and suspicions that he was a Communist Party member had
already earned him powerful enemies who worked to diminish his
power with scientists and politicians alike.
Through McMillan, the reader is a fly on the wall, watching
power shift from the scientists who created the atomic bomb to
politicians who hoped to use nuclear weapons for their own gain.
Detailed chapter notes at the end of the book are worth reading,
and the ample photographs give us a penetrating glimpse of the
players involved.
McMillan, an associate of Harvard University's Davis Center for
Russian and Eurasian Studies, is a superb storyteller. Her 1977
book, "Marina and Lee," a portrait of the Oswalds' life
together, is one of the more intriguing books about the Kennedy
assassination.
Similarly, the Oppenheimer book, which was 20 years in the
making, seems destined to become a must-read for students of his
tumultuous era. The book gives readers a front-row seat from
which to watch Truman and Eisenhower struggle to deal with the
unimaginable power of the hydrogen bomb, the new enemy in Joseph
Stalin, suspected enemies operating in America, and McCarthyism.
No details are spared in exploring whether the hydrogen bomb's
development could have been averted and history possibly
changed, nor in examining the jealousy and deception that
ultimately destroyed Oppenheimer.
This makes for a reading feast for historians, but it may at
times be a bit much for casual readers, who may not want, for
instance, details about what it was like to develop the hydrogen
bomb at a moment when computers and calculators were just
emerging as tools for scientists.
Despite his tragic end, Oppenheimer remained the most farsighted
of all the scientists who created the bomb, understood what they
had done, and then tried to control the outcome. McMillan
concludes, "If anyone could have moderated man's rush to
extermination, or at least articulated the danger with such
eloquence that we would all have been forced to consider, it was
Robert Oppenheimer."
" Lori Valigra is a freelance writer based in Cambridge, Mass.
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
37 csmonitor.com: What Truman was thinking when he decided to drop the bomb
from the August 02, 2005 edition
What Truman was thinking when he decided to drop the bomb
Hiroshima may not have brought Japan to surrender
By Jonathan Rosenberg
Sixty years ago, on Aug. 6, 1945, the United States detonated an
atomic bomb over Hiroshima, a city of more than 300,000 people.
Just after the blast, the temperature at ground zero exceeded
5,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and those on the ground were roasted
alive, vaporized, or grievously injured. Thousands of bodies
could be seen floating in the river.
Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surrender of Japan
By Tsuyoshi Hasegawa
The Belknap Press of Harvard University
382 pp., $29.95
The weapon destroyed 90 percent of Hiroshima's buildings, and
later, a radioactive rain, black and deadly, fell upon the city.
Some 130,000 people perished that day, including 110,000
civilians.
Three days later, the United States dropped a second atomic bomb
on Japan, killing 35,000 to 40,000 people in Nagasaki.
President Harry Truman said the US used the bombs "against those
who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor."
In the president's estimation, the Japanese got what they
deserved. Without the bomb, argued US policymakers, defeating
Japan would have required invading the island nation and
spilling a vast quantity of American blood.
For years, many have reflected on the motives that drove US
policymakers to use atomic weapons against Japan. Though few
decisions have been more carefully scrutinized, questions
persist.
Wasn't Japan about to surrender? Was the second bomb necessary?
Did the United States engage in "atomic diplomacy" to send a
warning to Stalin in the emerging struggle against the Soviet
Union?
The most recent effort to assess US actions during that fateful
summer is Tsuyoshi Hasegawa's "Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman,
and the Surrender of Japan," a landmark book that brilliantly
examines a crucial moment in 20th-century history.
Beyond evaluating the American dimension of the story, Hasegawa,
a historian at the University of California, Santa Barbara,
considers two related themes: the "tangled relationship" between
the Soviet Union and Japan in the war's waning days, and the
struggle inside the Japanese government between those who wished
to end the war and those who were determined to continue
fighting.
These three stories, deftly interwoven by the author, are
essential for understanding how and why the war ended as it did,
and Hasegawa, who has energetically mined American, Japanese,
and Soviet sources, has produced a luminous exploration of a
complex question.
Among the book's more provocative conclusions is the contention
that the atomic bombs by themselves were not decisive in
compelling Japan to surrender.
The Japanese capitulated, Hasegawa argues, only when their
negotiations with the Soviet Union broke down and Stalin decided
to declare war on Japan. (For several years, Moscow had
maintained its neutrality toward Tokyo, but in the summer of
1945, Soviet territorial ambitions in Asia led Stalin to choose
war.)
Hasegawa is no less provocative in assessing America's decision
to employ atomic weapons. Truman was "eager" to drop the bomb,
he writes, and was unwilling to explore alternatives for three
reasons.
First, Truman wanted to avoid a land invasion of Japan, which
would have killed thousands of Americans.
Second, he was determined to impose unconditional surrender on
the Japanese because anything short of that would have made him
appear weak. He also worried that a failure to achieve
unconditional surrender might fortify those in Japan who wanted
to continue fighting.
Finally, Truman hoped to end the Pacific War before the Soviet
Union entered the fray against the Japanese, a development that
might permit Stalin to obtain territory in Asia or demand a role
in America's postwar occupation of Japan. Consequently, Truman
was in a hurry to use the bomb.
As Hasegawa writes, "a race was on between the atomic bomb and
Soviet entry into the war." For Truman, the bomb was the
solution "to all the dilemmas he faced."
Upon learning of the successful attack on Hiroshima, Truman was
jubilant. Everything was going to unfold as planned - or so he
hoped. An invasion of Japan would be unnecessary, unconditional
surrender would be achieved, and Soviet ambitions could be
reined in.
In the final pages of this important, enlightening, and
unsettling book, the author reflects upon the actions of
American, Soviet, and Japanese leaders in the summer of 1945.
They were neither heroes nor villains, he observes, "just men."
In a story marked by unspeakable carnage, brutal territorial
acquisitiveness, and shameless mendacity, that is the only one
of Hasegawa's claims that does not ring true. There was plenty
of villainy to go around.
" Jonathan Rosenberg teaches American history at Hunter College
of the City University of New York. His book, 'How Far the
Promised Land?' on the US civil rights movement, will be
published this fall.
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
38 csmonitor.com: The atomic bomb in American culture |
posted August 02, 2005
By Jim Regan | csmonitor.com
HALIFAX, NOVA SCOTIA Did you know that the Kremlin was
responsible for getting the castaways off of Gilligan's Island,
or that the 50's hit song, "Sh'boom (Life could be a dream)" had
its genesis in the Bikini Atoll atom bomb tests?
No? Then perhaps you were also unaware that Bob Dylan and Joan
Baez were communist subversives under the "able leadership of
Pete Seeger," or that Mia Farrow was a poster child for the
famous (or infamous) "Duck And Cover" civil defense campaign.
Well, if you need to brush up on your Atomic and Cold War
culture, CONELRAD: All Things Atomic can assist you with
everything from stocking your fallout shelter to infiltrating
the neighborhood communist cell - and make some helpful
entertainment suggestions along the way.
Named for the CONtrol of ELectronic RADiation radio system (aka,
The Emergency Broadcast System), CONELRAD is a growing pop
cultural archive with contents that span from the late 1930s to
such recent developments as the 1999 film comedy, "Blast from
the Past," and last December's induction of "Duck And Cover"
into the Library of Congress National Film Registry. (While the
Cold War may be over, it appears that Cold War ephemera might
prove to have an impressively long half-life.)
And with so much material to cover, CONELRAD wastes no time in
presenting a few choice offerings from the Atomic age. Icons and
a JavaScripted ticker at the top of the home page start things
off with such selections as the story of two 1959 contest
'winners' who spent their honeymoon in a 6 by 14 foot fallout
shelter, the Disney classic, "Our Friend the Atom," and the
unsolved mystery of Arthur Godfrey's "Ultimate PSA." (This
rumored but as-yet-undiscovered public service announcement was
apparently prepared for television broadcast in the case of a
Soviet attack, but ongoing attempts to obtain a copy of the film
have been unsuccessful.)
The center of the page is dedicated to the recently inducted
"Duck And Cover" film ("The Citizen Kane of Civil Defense"),
with links to an impressively thorough history of the movie's
creation. (Interested surfers can also download or view the ,
courtesy of the Prelinger Archives.) Below this prime real
estate are a mixed bag of links to everything from movie reviews
to personal reminiscences.
Some of the features include:
The CONELRAD 100 - a collection of films with Atomic, Red Scare
or Cold War themes (along with a listing of Civil Defense short
subjects, and a page devoted to the classic documentary, "Atomic
Cafe").
Mutated Television - a survey of The Bomb's effect on TV, from
post-apocalyptic episodes on the Twilight Zone to Russian spies
on Gilligan's Island. (Though, personally, I think that Barbara
Eden's Jeannie as a metaphor for the atom might be stretching
things just a bit.)
Ground Zero: The Greenbrier Five Star Fallout Shelter - a
virtual tour of "the Graceland of Atomic Tourism." This
decommissioned government shelter (originally intended for the
members of Congress and later made available for tours and
private theme parties) is located under the Greenbrier Hotel, a
few hours from Washington.
Periodic Table of Atomic Music - 100 catchy Cold War ditties
with catchy Cold War titles, including the "Atomic Polka,"
"Radioactive Mama," "Tic Tic Tic," by Doris Day, and "Mr.
Stalin, You're Eating Too High Off The Hog," by Arthur 'Guitar
Boogie' Smith & his Crackerjacks.
While there are no audio samples to accompany the Periodic
Table's text notes, there is sound onsite - such as RealAudio
clips from the 1961 LPs, "Inside a Communist Cell," (with a
"re-enactment of an actual cell meeting") and "The Complacent
Americans" (which CONELRAD compares to a Cold War variant on
"It's a Wonderful Life"). Other audio sources include "The
Marxist Minstrels: The Communist Subversion of Folk Music"
(featuring, "Bob Dylan: He, she or it?"), and a link to
CONELRAD's Atomic Platters program on Live365 web radio.
The site itself has been online since 1999 (which is presumably
the reason for the left-justified, 640 pixel-wide layout of most
of the pages), and it would appear that the continual additions
have contributed to the site's navigation being, well, a mess.
With indexes and bottom of the screen navigation links that
change from page to page and the lack of an overall site index,
it won't be difficult to lose your way back to something you had
just seen or even miss some content entirely. (If you do find
something of interest and it's a few levels removed from the
home page, you'd be well advised to bookmark it for safety's
sake.) But the lack of structure can introduce an element of
surprise, and you won't be missing any vital plot twists if you
skip a page or two. In any event, perseverance should be
expected from anyone determined to vanquish the Red Menace.
CONELRAD elicits a variety of emotions on its pages. The concept
behind the US Post Office "Safety Notification Card" is a
sobering one, while "The Marxist Minstrels" qualifies as pure
(albeit unintentional) farce. But for good or ill, from "Dr.
Strangelove" and "Godzilla" to NORAD's annual tracking of
Santa's Yuletide activities, the period remains a part of our
culture - and for those who may have forgotten that connection,
Conelrad serves as a reminder of our shared atomic 'heritage.'
CONELRAD: All Things Atomic can be found at .
www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2005 The Christian Science
Monitor. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
39 Honolulu Star-Bulletin: 60th ANNIVERSARY
Monday, August 01, 2005
The Hiroshima survivors
Jackie M. Young, a senior studying journalism at the University
of Hawaii-Manoa, interviewed atomic bomb survivors Izumi Hirano
and Dorothy Motoyama for a class in specialized reporting. The
interviews are presented here in commemoration of the 60th
anniversary of the Aug. 6, 1945, bombing of Hiroshima.
JAMM AQUINO / JAQUINO@STARBULLETIN.COM
Izumi Hirano was 16, a high school student in Hiroshima, when
the atomic bomb struck his city.
Izumi Hirano
The atomic bomb flattened everything.
There was no chance at all.
Izumi Hirano was less than two miles from ground zero when the
atomic bomb struck Hiroshima. The entire right side of his face
was embedded and bloodied with broken glass.
Hirano was born in Hilo on the Big Island but moved to Japan
with his family when he was 4.
Hiroshima survivors
Saturday marks the 60th anniversary of the fateful day that the
United States dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan. Three
days later another bomb was dropped on the city of Nagasaki,
forcing Japan's surrender and the end of World War II.
During the Spring 2005 semester, 18 advanced students in
professor Beverly Ann Deepe Keever's Journalism 445: Specialized
Reporting class at the University of Hawaii at Manoa did
in-depth research into nuclear events and their effects,
including interviews with five atomic bomb survivors living in
Hawaii.
Keever's own interest in the issue is detailed in her recent
book, "News Zero," about the New York Times' lack of coverage of
nuclear incidents.
Of the approximately 1,000 atomic bomb survivors in the United
States, about 93 are registered with the Hawaii chapter of the
American Society of Hiroshima/Nagasaki A-Bomb Survivors.
"I remember a girl wanted help to get on the truck, so I pulled
her up by her hands, but she had such bad burns, all her skin
fell off. I could only help her up on the truck using her
underarms."
Izumi Hirano
President, Hawaii chapter, American Society of
Hiroshima/Nagasaki A-Bomb Survivors
"After Japan bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941, I remember all the
schoolchildren helping in the factories to make airplane pistons
or other supplies for the military because the men were away,
fighting. I had to help out at the fire station during air
raids, day or night."
Hirano was 16 when Hiroshima was bombed. His high school was
only 1.3 miles south from the center of the blast, and his
parents' house was two miles north from the center.
"It was 7 a.m. There was an air-raid warning, so the students
had to wait in the dormitory before we could make it to class at
8. Then I heard a big rain or storm -- I don't know how to
describe it. Then I saw fire. It wasn't a regular fire -- it was
whirling around."
Building beams were falling all around him.
"I tried to get out of the room, but I fell down in front of the
teacher's desk. I was worried about the beams falling on me and
about dying under one of them. 'Could my parents find my body?'
I thought to myself.
"I finally escaped down a stairway and thought, 'I survived.'
But then I felt some warm liquid running down the right side of
my face. I felt no pain, but I knew I had been hurt."
The right side of his face had been struck by broken window
glass, some embedded so deep in his skin that bits of glass
continued to emerge from his face two years after the blast.
Once outside, Hirano saw the city burning. People -- many of
them burned and naked -- were fleeing for the countryside.
"The boys had caps on, but not the girls, so the girls' hair was
burned and falling out. Everyone held their hands out in front
of them, like they were sleepwalking. It looked like they had
bits of silk hanging down from their arms, but it was actually
their skin coming off.
"Some people would sit down in the street to rest, then they all
of a sudden just died. They were all so quiet."
About a third of Hirano's classmates were outside, helping care
for the injured.
"I saw someone's eyeball fall out. He was just told to put a
bandage on his eye and to go back and help the others. You
cannot ask for help then, because everyone is in the same
situation."
The Japanese army wanted Hirano to get in their truck to get
medical help because his face was so bloodied, even though he
felt no pain.
"I remember a girl wanted help to get on the truck, so I pulled
her up by her hands, but she had such bad burns, all her skin
fell off. I could only help her up on the truck using her
underarms."
HIRANO TRIED to find his family in the days after the bombing.
As he traversed the city looking for them, he saw nothing but
burned bodies.
"If they were still alive, they looked hollow, like a Halloween
pumpkin, and with enlarged heads."
Finally, Hirano met up with someone who had heard of his family.
He was reunited with his mother and younger brother, but his
father had been killed at home when debris sliced through his
lung.
Because Hirano had been injured, his brother, mother, aunt and
uncle helped in his father's cremation.
"Do you know the smell of cremation?" Hirano asked. "You cannot
stand it at the beginning, it's so strong, but then you get used
to it."
Hirano said there was such widespread devastation of Hiroshima,
not all the bodies could be cremated, so mass graves were dug.
"The atomic bomb flattened everything," Hirano said. "There was
no chance at all."
AFTER the bombing, Hirano heard from others who told him that a
single plane at a very high altitude dropped the Hiroshima bomb.
"People saw three parachutes: one for the atomic bomb, the
second for the trigger and the third for the water to speed the
reaction. People watching the blast became blind due to the
flash because there was no warning about how big the explosion
would be. The United States itself didn't even know how
effective the bomb would be."
Hirano said victims lined the river banks, waiting for help, and
many jumped in the river because they had been burned so badly.
On both sides of the riverbank near his school, Hirano saw
nothing but dead people.
Maggots would stay on the victims' wounds to eat pus, he said.
Without enough medication available, oil was used to keep the
wounds moist. There was even a bandage shortage, so bandages had
to be washed and reused.
HIRANO RETURNED to Hawaii alone in 1949, when an uncle paid his
way over.
"I went back to high school and worked on a chicken farm,"
Hirano said with a smile. "I'm a 1952 McKinley High School grad."
Although Hirano suffered no ill effects from radiation exposure,
and his children have no symptoms of radiation sickness, the
Salt Lake resident is championing the cause of those who
survived and who were affected by the atomic bombs.
"The atomic bomb survivors had no insurance to cover their
injuries or illnesses," Hirano said. "They asked the American
government for help, but no bills were passed through Congress;
then they asked the Japanese government for help. Finally, the
Japanese government sent doctors to help them."
The American Society of Hiroshima/Nagasaki A-Bomb Survivors was
started in 1977, and Hirano is vice president of the national
association and president of the Hawaii chapter.
"Every other year, doctors from Hiroshima come to examine the
survivors, to see if they have any problems. This year will be
the 15th exam by the doctors."
Hirano has a warning for those who have forgotten about the
devastation nations can cause as a result of continuing to build
their lethal arsenals: "The nuclear bomb they're talking about
nowadays is bigger than the one at Hiroshima. If (anyone drops)
it on Pearl Harbor, there won't be a chance."
JAMM AQUINO / JAQUINO@STARBULLETIN.COM
Dorothy Motoyama
There were people asking for help,
but no one could do anything.
Dorothy Motoyama was only 7 years old when the atomic bomb was
dropped on Hiroshima. She didn't talk to anyone about her
traumatic experience -- not even her parents -- until about 35
years later.
"It's almost like you completely erase that, never felt the
pain, never even thought about talking about it until somebody
brings it up, and that was very unconscious," Motoyama said.
"I'm shocked that I can talk about this. I'm getting very
emotional."
Of the resident population of 250,000 in Hiroshima at the time,
it is estimated that 45,000 perished on the first day after the
detonation; another 19,000 died within four months, according to
a briefing paper released in May 2004 from the Uranium
Information Centre.
The casualty numbers do not include unrecorded deaths of
military personnel and foreign workers, as well as deaths or
illnesses some 30 years later due to radiation-induced cancers
or leukemia. There were also many birth defects in infants or
instances of stillbirths several months after the bombing.
Total estimates range from 130,000 to 150,000 dead from the
Hiroshima blast, and from 60,000 to 70,000 dead three days later
in the Nagasaki blast.
Because of her youth at the time of the bombing, Motoyama has
select memories of the Hiroshima bombing.
"I remember that it hit around 8:15 in the morning, 'cause
school started at 8:30 and I was one of the last to go to the
outdoor washing place to wash my hands and feet. As I was
washing my hands, I recall something hitting my back -- it was
probably the heat from the blast. It was like white rays.
"I turned around and looked, and beyond the mountain there was a
white cloud, a pink cloud, coming toward us, going back, coming
toward us ... like a tsunami wave, and then the whole earth
shook. It was unbelievable. All the children were screaming,
trying to get to some shelter.
"And I didn't even get to finish washing my feet."
Motoyama lived about five miles from the bomb site, far enough
to protect her from the brunt of the impact, but she remembers
helping to feed the victims, and the "whiteness" of the
Hiroshima train station.
"The train station was totally burned down. It was smelly and
there were lots of stains, and the train was all corroded. There
were lines of people waiting for food; we gave them all the
musubi we had, and they bowed their heads in appreciation but
there were no thank-yous and no calls for food. They were all so
shocked.
"It was super-quiet, and there was nothing except pure white
outside the exit door -- no sound at all."
In the days following the blast, she remembers victims being
placed in her school classrooms in the small town of Hara, in
Hatsukaichi province. Most of the people exposed to the
radiation from the bomb became sick and died within a week.
"I remember their moaning and groaning. We collected sake (rice
wine) to pour over their injuries. Sheets were used to cover
their burns. Loose straw matting was put on the floor for the
victims to lie on. I remember the tinkling sound of the fluid
draining from their burns through the raised matting onto the
wooden floor."
Motoyama also recalls the bodies of dead victims being burned on
racks, and holes being dug to bury them. And lots of flies.
"There were so many flies, we were given a penny a fly for each
one we killed."
The day after the bombing, Motoyama's father traveled to
Hiroshima City to check on his brother. She said that he saw
people who had died while running away from the explosion, still
in an upright position. She also said that he saw masses of
people jumping into the river because the site was so hot.
"Even my father's shoes were getting stuck to the ground, it was
so hot."
As Motoyama's father was searching for his brother, he found his
brother's wife. Then a totally black, charred man ran up to
them, and it turned out to be his brother. The wife tried to
talk to her husband, but all he could say was, "Do you think I'm
going to die?" then he suddenly collapsed and died.
"You have to understand, when people came back to Hiroshima,
there was nothing left -- they had to start over again from
scratch," Motoyama said. "My father said there were people
asking for help, but no one could do anything. He saw people
whose hair stood straight out due to the electricity in the air
from the blast, then their hair fell out."
Asked if she or any of her family suffered from any
radiation-related illnesses, Motoyama, an independent nursing
educator, said she did not think so, "but most of my family died
of cancer."
Motoyama herself has had a complete mastectomy but does not know
of any radiation-related illnesses in her children.
MOTOYAMA WAS born in Hawaii but left at age 3 to go to Japan
with her parents, who needed to take care of her father's
parents. She did not return to Hawaii until reaching the seventh
grade, and spoke no English when she arrived.
Motoyama recently returned to Japan to see the Hiroshima
memorials.
"I can stay there for hours. When my older son was in high
school, I forced him and my daughter to go see the museum. They
didn't want to go but I forced them to go. They were shocked
after half a day, but they wanted to go back for another half a
day.
"Then when my son came back, he told his teacher he wanted to
share with the class what he saw about the atomic bomb.
"I thought to myself, 'I served my purpose.'"
© Honolulu Star-Bulletin -- http://starbulletin.com
*****************************************************************
40 60th Anniversary of US A-Bomb Attacks on Japan - ACTION
Date: Mon, 01 Aug 2005 16:30:49 -0700
X-Spam-filter-host: darwin.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
!!!UPDATED ACTION ALERT!!!
============================================
SATURDAY AUGUST 6: SEEDS OF CHANGE: NO NUKES! NO WARS!
RALLY AND MARCH TO THE LIVERMORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS LAB.
============================================
On the 60th anniversary of the U.S. atomic bombing of Hiroshima...
ACT to abolish nuclear weapons and war
PROTEST new, earth-penetrating nuclear weapons at Livermore Lab
CELEBRATE your vision of a peaceful, just and nuclear-free world
Livermore Lab is one of the world's primary sites for the creation and
development of nuclear weapons.
WHEN: Saturday, August 6, 2005 at 5 PM (the event will be broadcast live
from 5-7 PM on Pacifica Radio, 94.1 KPFA www.kpfa.org)
WHERE: William Payne Park, 5800 Patterson Pass Rd. Livermore, CA (BART
shuttles provided by the Peace and Freedom Party) or share a ride at
*S**paceShare:
*http://spaceshare.com/livermore/
Make your trip to Seeds of Change earth-friendly! For carpool info call
925-443-7148.
Join us for a "potluck" dinner rally, music, candlelight march,
children's peace playground and more! Featuring Utah Phillips, Dave
Lippman, Ai Maeoka of the Hiroshima World Peace Mission and more.
To volunteer and for more info: Tri-Valley CAREs (925) 443-7148
www.trivalleycares.org (510) 839-5877
Western States Legal Foundation (510) 839-5877
www.wslfweb.org
Livermore Conversion Project (510) 663-8065.
============================================
*SEND SUNFLOWERS TO LIVERMORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS LAB*
The sunflower is the international symbol for the abolition of nuclear
weapons. We invite you to create paper sunflowers to be planted at the
gates of Livermore Lab. Sunflowers can be large or small, painted, be
creative. Make sure to include your name and hometown on the sunflower.
For full instructions and mailing directions:
www.wagingpeace.org/sunflower
============================================
TUESDAY, AUGUST 9, NAGASAKI NEVER AGAIN!!!
NONVIOLENT DIRECT ACTION AT THE LIVERMORE NUCLEAR WEAPONS LAB
WHEN: Tuesday, August 9 at 8AM
WHERE: Meet at William Payne Park, 5800 Patterson Pass Rd. Livermore
Take I-580 exit Vasco Rd. go South. Take a right on Patterson Pass Rd.
*SPECIAL GUEST, Mr. Satori Konishi, a "hibakusha"- an atomic bomb survivor
from Japan, will address the
gathering. Drumming at the gates will be provided by Clan Dyken.
!!NEW!! Mr. Konishi will also speak at a candlelight vigil in San
Francisco, 8 pm in front of San Francisco City Hall, VanNess Avenue. San
Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsome has signed onto the Mayors' Emergency
Campaign to Ban Nuclear Weapons, headed by the Mayors of Hiroshima and
Nagaski. For more information call Sandra Schwartz, AFSC at 415)565-0201
Ext 24 or www.afsc.org
NONVIOLENCE GUIDELINES: Nonviolence has always been a core value of the
anti-nuclear movement. Details about the nonviolence guidelines and a
complete list of sponsors and endorsers are available at:
www.trivalleycares.org
and
www.wslfweb.org .
============================================
Bay Area Calendar of Events leading up to Aug 6 and 9 in Livermore and San
Francisco
August 3, Doctors Against the Bomb, San Francisco
August 4, Educating Youth about Nuclear Politics, San Francisco
August 5, Remembering Hiroshima, Uncovering Lockheed Martin, Santa Cruz
August 5, Takashi's Dream Performance, San Francisco
August 6, Seeds of Change Rally and March to the Livermore Nuclear
Weapons Lab
August 7, 60^th Anniversary Hiroshima & Nagasaki Day, Santa Rosa
August 8, Remembering Hiroshima a South Asian Perspective, Sunnyvale
August 9, Nonviolent Direct Action at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab
August 9, Candlelight Vigil in San Francisco
For dates, times, locations and details:
www.trivalleycares.org/calendar/
============================================
BACKGROUND
The Bay Area's Livermore Lab is one of the three national laboratories
that serve as the brain of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex, which today
is modernizing and developing nuclear weapons to support U.S. wars of
empire.
August 6 and 9, 2005 mark the 60th anniversaries of the atomic bombings
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the United States. Join with thousands of
people at four central US nuclear weapons sites to call for an end to
the development and production of nuclear warheads.
In the Bay Area, the Livermore Lab continues to contaminate the water,
air and soil. Over 1 million curies of airborne radiation have leaked
from the site. That is roughly equal to the amount of radiation
deposited in the bombing of Hiroshima. The Dept. of Energy declared the
fifty-mile radius surrounding the facility as the affected population.
This includes over 7 million people from San Francisco, to Stockton, to
San Jose. The storage and use of nuclear materials at Livermore Lab
continues to increase despite safety and security issues. The limit for
plutonium at Livermore Lab has just been doubled to 3,080 pounds --
enough for 300 nuclear bombs! Plutonium was recently found on site to be
absurdly stored in paint cans and food cans.
In Iraq, they never found nuclear or other weapons of mass destruction,
yet the daily reality of death and destruction continues, sparked by the
Bush administration's invasion and fueled by the ongoing U.S. military
occupation. A majority of people in this nation now oppose the war, but
the White House and most members of Congress are resisting the only
solution to the crisis: bring the troops home immediately. We will send
our message loud and clear to decision-makers and the public at large:
End the war in Iraq, End the threat of nuclear annihilation!
We found the missing weapons of mass destruction. On August 6, we will
take our voices to the active nuclear weapons sites across the country.
We demand an end to US nuclear weapons development, production and
testing. We demand an end to wars of empire and an end to nuclear
excuses for war.
NO NUKES! NO WARS!
============================================
Donations should be made out and mailed to: Livermore Conversion
Project, PO Box 31835, Oakland, CA 94604. Checks of more than $50 are
tax-deductible if made out to Agape.
To Volunteer Contact: Tara Dorabji, Tri-Valley CAREs,
tara@trivalleycares.org, (925) 443-7148,
*www.trivalleycares.org*
Initial Cosponsors and Endorsers: A Jewish Voice For Peace; Abolition
2000; Alameda County Peace and Freedom Party; American Friends Service
Committee; Bay Area Nuclear Waste Coalition; Berkeley Friends Meeting;
Buddhist Peace Fellowship; California Peace Action; Circle of Concern;
Circle of Life; CodePink Bay Area; Communist Party USA, Northern
California District; El Cerrito Democratic Club; Environmentalists
Against War; Fiat Pax Berkeley; Friends of Davis Religious Community for
Sanctuary; Food Not Bombs, East Bay; Global Exchange; Grandmothers for
Peace, Hayward Chapter; Gray Panthers of San Francisco; Gray Panthers of
the Berkeley Area; Green Party of Alameda County; Green Party of
California; Greenaction for Health and Environmental Justice; Hayward
Demos Democratic Club; Justice Council of the First Unitarian Church of
Oakland; KPFA radio, 94.1; Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy;
Livermore Conversion Project; Meiklejohn Civil Liberties Institute;
Modesto Peace/Life Center; Monterey Peace and Justice Center; Nevada
Desert Experience; Nicaragua Center for Community Action (NICCA); Night
on the Streets Catholic Worker; Northern California Committee of
Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism; Northern California 9-11
Truth Alliance; Nuclear Age Peace Foundation; Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
of Waldron Island; Pax Christi Fremont; Peace Action New Mexico; Peace
Coalition of Monterey County; Peace Fresno; Peace & Justice Network of
San Joaquin County; Peninsula Peace and Justice Center; People's
NonViolent Response Coalition; Physicians for Social Responsibility, Bay
Area Chapter; St. Joseph the Worker, Fr. Bill O'Donnell Social Justice
Committee; Santa Cruz Friends Meeting, Peace Committee; Simnuke Project;
South Bay Mobilization Against the War; Tri-Valley CAREs; Tuolumne
County Citizens for Peace; Unitarian Universalist Fellowship of Santa
Cruz County, Social Concerns Committee; United Church of Christ,
Northern California-Nevada Conference, Board of Justice and Witness
Ministries; United for Peace & Justice, Bay Area; Veterans for Peace, SF
Bay Area Chapter 069; Vandenberg Peace Legal Defense Fund; Veterans
Speakers Alliance/Veterans for Peace Chapter 101; Watsonville Brown
Berets; Wellstone Democratic Renewal Club; Western States Legal
Foundation; Women for Peace; Women's International League for Peace and
Freedom, Berkeley-East Bay; Women's International League for Peace and
Freedom, Monterey Branch; and World Stewardship Institute.
*****************************************************************
41 Indiatimes: Will India ever use the Nuclear bomb?
RIPUNJOY KUMAR SARMA
INDIATIMES NEWS NETWORK[ TUESDAY, AUGUST 02, 2005 01:23:21 AM]
In a joint statement with visiting Indian prime minister
Manmohan Singh, the US president George Bush expressed
willingness to work with its friends and allies to "adjust the
international regimes to enable full civic nuclear energy
cooperation and trade with India" that would include
"expeditious consideration of fuel supplies for safeguarded
reactors at Tarapure". In return India has agreed to "separate
its civilian and military nuclear facilities and programmes in a
phased manner" and place its "civilian nuclear facilities under
International Atomic Energy (IAEA) safeguards".
What are the implications of this deal? Will the nuclear energy
scenario in the country in particular and the power scenario in
general change radically after this deal? Let's try to get
answer of these issues.
Why does the world need nuclear energy?
The past century has seen remarkable global economic development
and corresponding energy consumption. In spite of coal's
continued dominance, cheap and flexible oil and clean gas are
increasingly in use. World oil production rose from 20 mn
barrels a day (mbd) to 60 mbd by 1976 and stands today at 80
mbd.
With skyrocketing oil prices during the 1970s oil shock,
economists woke up to the non-renewable nature of fossil fuels,
price volatility on account of cartelisation, potential
disruption of supplies on account of war or terrorism and the
looming environmental disaster. Sadly, however, as oil prices
fell and much of the world enjoyed robust economic growth over
the past two decades, economists, politicians and the media
succumbed to an irrational exuberance.
Our dependence on oil is now greater than ever before, while the
risks continue undiminished. The main risks are:
(i)Limited availability: Oil as a source of energy is a
non-renewable and fast-depleting source. Global consumption,
currently at 30 bn barrels a year, is rising by 5 per cent per
annum. The current proven reserves of 1,400 bn barrels will be
exhausted within 25 years. Such consumption can be sustained
only by new, significant reserves. Even then, there is a limit
to availability.
(ii)Volatile price: Over-reliance on a few countries makes oil
importers vulnerable to disruption of supplies and dramatic
price hikes. Already, India imports 70 per cent of its oil needs
and increasing oil price is starting to effect the economy
badly.
Environmental concern: Extensive burning of oil and coal has
contributed to global warming. While we may not be able to
replace fossil fuels completely, substitutes must be found. India
accounts for 3 per cent of world oil consumption, with demand
growing at 10 per cent per annum. China, whose oil demand is
rising by over 15 per cent, accounts for 8 per cent. Soon, both
nations will have to find ways of reducing emissions without
hurting economic growth
While gas is a clean fuel, it is non-renewable and precious
chemicals are burnt without value addition. Long-term price of
coal is declining. But high ash and sulphur content and
greenhouse gas emissions make coal environmentally unsound. And
we have to move it across the country or on high seas, congesting
our transport network and wasting precious energy and money. We
need alternative sources.
(iii)Limitation of other forms of energy: Beyond well-established
hydro-electricity, which in most places cannot readily be
expanded, the main renewable sources being tapped are wind and
solar, but tidal flows may become important too. The main problem
with wind and solar energy is that they are diffuse and not
constant, and their electricity output cannot be stored on any
large scale. So they need to be used when available and other
supply brought in when they are not delivering.
This unpredictable and intermittent character becomes a problem
when the electricity demand is largely for constant, reliable
supply - certainly it is not readily matched to daylight hours or
when the wind happens to blow. We need to be able to supply
electricity to our hospitals, factories, and transport networks.
Without a continuous, reliable electricity supply, essential
services will grind to a halt.
What do we do in a such a scenario? The key to the problem lies
in nuclear energy.
Why does India need nuclear energy?
India's annual crude oil consumption is about 110 mmt against
which the domestic production aggregates to about 33 mn tonnes.
Around 70 per cent of the country's crude oil demand is met
through imports. This fundamental imbalance in demand and supply
defines our nation's energy crisis. For achieving 6-7 per cent of
GDP growth per annum, India's energy consumption, at a
conservative estimate, will increase by 5 per cent per annum.
According to an estimate, energy demand forecast for India for
2010-11 indicates a 60 per cent increase in annual oil
consumption at 190 mn tonnes and trebling of natural gas demand
at 216 mn cubic metres per day.
Despite significant growth, the per capita consumption of
electricity in India is 592 kilo watt hour (kwh), which is well
below the world average of 2,373 kwh As per the official data,
the present world average per capita consumption would not be
achieved by India till 2031-32 under the 7 per cent growth
scenario. Therefore, to catch up with the rest of the world,
India has to aim at building up the power infrastructure
including generation well over 8 per cent.
Coming to coal, during the 10th Plan, the demand for coal
increased by 6.34 per cent annum and during the 11th Plan, it is
expected to increase between 6.5per cent -7 per cent. In
comparison, indigenous coal production has not kept pace with the
growth in demand and it grew at the rate of 2.79 per cent per
annum in 9th Plan and 4.37 per cent per annum in 10th Plan.
In the 11th Plan too, things are not expected to improve
substantially and it is projected that indigenous coal production
will increase by 4.92 per cent per annum.
To decrease the gap between energy demand and supply India will
have to depend on nuclear energy.
3.What is the status of nuclear energy in India?
The attempt to generate nuclear energy was made with US-designed
Tarapure power plant in 1960s. Later a Canadian designed Rana
Partap Sagar power project construction was undertaken. The
former operates but had a host of fuel supply problems. The
latter ran into difficulty with the withdrawal of Canadian aid in
1970s. It only operates partially. In past 20 years, India has
undertaken to build 12 nuclear units. Some of these are operating
others are close to operation.
Tarapure uses enriched uranium which ran into supply bottlenecks
whenever the US decided to withhold supplies of enriched uranium
even if the actual supply comes from France or Russia. Other
remaining nuclear units do not use the enriched uranium. An
upgraded Russian design has been used at Kudankulam. India has
its own developmental fast breeder reactor at Kalpakam under
construction. In all, India generates 2.8 mw of power with
nuclear energy today. By 2008, this generation will increase to
6.7 mw with the completion of other nuclear units under
construction. It will relieve part of the shortage but not
alleviate the chronic power shortage.
At the moment, because of the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG)
restrictions India has been denied nuclear fuel and reactors. The
current NSG rules require that India place all of its nuclear
activities under IAEA safeguards before any NSG member can engage
in nuclear trade with India. This needs to be changed for a
variety of reasons. India's growing energy needs have resulted in
an ever-increasing reliance on imported fuel supplies.
This means that India must develop alternative sources of energy
that are economical and environmentally sound. Nuclear power
fulfils both requirements.
However, the limited reserves of indigenous sources of natural
uranium coupled with the limited availability of financial
resources constrains the extent to which the indigenous nuclear
power programme can contribute to India's energy needs in future.
Access to foreign capital, fuel and reactors will, however,
enable India to vastly increase nuclear energy production thereby
relieving the pressure on continued imports of hydrocarbon fuels.
Also the Tarapure Atomic Power Station needs a fresh batch of
enriched uranium fuel when the current stock finishes in 2006.
Therefore, India needs to import fuel for Tarapure as well.
Until now the option to access either capital or fuel in the
international market had been denied to India because of the NSG
restrictions initiated primarily by the US in the early 1990s.
Till recently, the US and the NSG had strongly resisted any trade
with India in nuclear fuel and reactors. Indeed when Russia
supplied nuclear fuel to Tarapur in 2001, other NSG members
forced Russia to give an undertaking that it would not supply any
more fuel.
4. Will nuclear power be cheaper?
(i)Capital costs: Nuclear power plants at 2-3 mw capacity is
expensive to build. At about $5 bn a plant, it has the highest
capital cost. Added local infrastructure at a green field site
will add another $500 mn to the cost. Power transmission cost
from an isolated location away from the urban area will add a bit
more to the operating as well as capital cost. Additional R & D
and developmental infrastructure elsewhere in the country to
supply spares and services to the operation will add to the
indirect costs. In addition, the fuel charge costs, whether it is
imported or locally made will always be a key issue. It is
unlikely that US will undertake any significant technology
transfer to India; hence India will have to import critical
components for ope ration. Again, after 40 years of operation,
the plant will have to be de-commissioned. A rough estimate of
10-15 per cent of initial cost is to be kept on the books to pay
for the de-commissioning.
The spent fuel has to be either processed and or stored for
thousands of years in a safe location. The US may not wish India
to reprocess the spent fuel, hence may like to take it back. For
this they will charge a price plus there will be the added
inconvenience of getting political approvals.
Compared to that a natural gas plant is about half the capital
cost, of a similar capacity. It can be located near an urban
area. Some of the infrastructure needed to operate the gas-fired
plant is already in place in the country. This would lower the
overall capital cost investment.
LNG-based power plant has the same capital expenditure as the
gas-based plant except that a hugely expensive LNG ship based
transport system has to be purchased to feed the plant. Four
large LNG-based plants will require a fleet of 10-15 ships always
on the move to transport the LNG to the plant site from its
source in West Asia. Each of the LNG transporters cost about $250
mn. This adds to the capital cost of the plants. Factoring
shipping costs and re-gasification cost of LNG at plant site or
at the port prior to its usage will add to the operating expenses
of the plants.
In ball park figures four LNG plants together with LNG
transporters will cost about the same as four nuclear power
plants. On the other hand four gas-based power plants built from
gas delivered from Iran via Pakistan will cost about half. If one
factors in the trans-shipment fees to Pakistan of about $500 mn a
year, whatever is good in the front-end capital expenses is lost
in its 40 years of operation.
Coal fired power plants are the cheapest to build. But, current
environmental concerns and need to remove acid gases from the
stack has added huge additional costs to the plant construction.
In addition coal is not available in large quantities in India.
(ii)Operating expenses: Coal fired power plants by far are the
cheapest to operate, if these are located in the proximity of the
mines. Factoring in the environmental clean up and bad health
affects, which indirectly add to costs via health costs, coal
fired plants costs are roughly at par with other energy sources
in its 40 years of operation. Global warming concerns have
directly been linked to the coal fired power plants. Future
international agreements are likely to limit the coal fired power
generation. Natural gas plants supplied with piped locally found
gas (i.e. low transmission costs) have cost advantage over coal
and nuclear power plants. Canada has cheap gas hence produces
electricity at a comparable cost to nuclear power plant using
natural gas . The same is true for the US gas fired plants. The
LNG plants have to cope with huge transportation costs, which if
factored in adds more to the operating expenses.
Nuclear power plants produce electricity inexpensively as the
costs of raw material i.e, uranium, if uninterrupted supply is
available, is negligible. In case of India, four large
standardised plants with common spares and services will keep the
operating costs low. But uncertain supply from abroad will keep
India on the edge.
Global experiences show that the viability of nuclear power is
unclear, partly because of widespread government guarantees and
subsidies. Nuclear plants cost twice as much as coal-based
plants, but have very low operating costs. If a nuclear plant is
built in five years with no time overruns, and operates at least
80 per cent capacity, then it provides cheaper power than
conventional thermal plants. But construction delays or poor
capacity utilisation (for design or safety reasons) can make
nuclear plants hopelessly uneconomic.
Even in the US, nuclear plants have been dogged by delays and
operational problems. France has become the most successful
nuclear generator in the world. Its strategy has been to build a
large number of plants based on standardised designs. This has
lowered capital costs, and reduced delays and operational
glitches. By contrast, the Indian programme has been marked by
several models.
The choice for nuclear energy is then not as much for economical
reason as for the strategic reasons. There are very few choices
before India. Nuclear energy has to provide a significant
component of India's power need. Should the current negotiations
succeed then the US offer on commercial nuclear reactors is a
preferred choice as compared to piping gas from Iran against the
wishes of the US and through a hostile territory of Pakistan. The
advantages are numerous to count.
5. Why are people afraid of nuclear plants?
In 1986 the world's worst nuclear accident occurred at one of the
four reactors at Chernobyl in the Ukraine. In the ensuing fire a
great deal of radioactive material was spewed out, and
contaminated the surrounding area. Some 31 people - all workers
or firefighters, were killed at the time, mostly due to excessive
doses of radiation. About 10 young people have died since from
subsequent thyroid cancers.
From the outset, safety of nuclear reactors has been a very high
priority in their design and engineering. About one third of the
cost of a typical reactor is due to safety systems and
structures. The Chernobyl accident was a reminder of the
importance of this, whereas another accident at the Three Mile
Island plant in the US in 1979 showed that conventional safety
systems do work. No one was harmed by radiation. The fact remains
that people still associate any nuclear related activity to the
fatal impact of nuclear bombs and nuclear radiation.
While nuclear power is a "clean" fuel that emits virtually no
greenhouse gases and is cheap once plants are built, it has also
created a mountain of radioactive waste and facilitated the
spread of weapons-grade nuclear material. The risk of terrorism
further complicates the picture.
The ultimate disposal of vitrified wastes, or of spent fuel
assemblies without reprocessing, requires their isolation from
the environment for long periods. The most favoured method is
burial in dry, stable geological formations some 500 m deep.
Several countries are investigating sites that would be
technically and publicly acceptable. The US is pushing ahead with
a repository site in Nevada for all the nation's spent fuel.
After being buried for about 1,000 years most of the
radioactivity will have decayed. The amount of radioactivity then
remaining would be similar to that of the naturally-occurring
uranium ore from which the fuel originated, though it would be
more concentrated.
Layers of protection: To ensure that no significant environmental
releases occur over periods of tens of thousands of years after
disposal, a 'multiple barrier' disposal concept is used to
immobilise the radioactive elements in high-level (and some
intermediate-level) wastes and to isolate them from the
biosphere. The principal barriers are:
*Immobilise waste in an insoluble matrix, eg borosilicate glass,
Synroc (or leave them as uranium oxide fuel pellets - a ceramic)
*Seal inside a corrosion-resistant container, eg stainless steel
*In wet rock: surround containers with bentonite clay to inhibit
groundwater movement
*Locate deep underground in a stable rock structure
*Site the repository in a remote location.
*For any of the radioactivity to reach human populations or the
environment, all of these barriers would need to be breached
before the radioactivity decayed.
8. Will the Indo-US deal materialise?
The success of the deal depends on its approval by the US
Congress. It will involve speedy amendment of America's Atomic
Energy Act. Bush regime's willingness to carry forward the task
ahead is shown by the fact that it has got Mohamed El Berdei, the
head of the International Atomic Energy Agency to endorse the
deal. But there is a strong non-proliferation lobby which will
always try to prevent India getting any nuclear fuel even if it
is for civilian purpose since India hasn't signed the NPT. What
is interesting however is the present sentiment of keeping US
national security above any other global issue. American people
will most likely support any deal with India despite its
possessing nuclear weapons, since India day by day is heading
towards becoming a 'natural ally' of the US. And probably that
was the reason why President Bush while declaring the deal sited
India's case as an "exception" - "a responsible state with
advanced nuclear technology".
Copyright © 2005 Times Internet Limited. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
42 BBC: Nuclear rivals' border trade woes
Last Updated: Monday, 1 August 2005
By Asit Jolly BBC News, Chandigarh
[Indian porter passes garlic consignment to a Pakistani porter]
New border traffic reflects improving diplomatic relations
The week-old trade in vegetables and livestock from India to
Pakistan is running into problems.
Border officials have met to discuss concerns that livestock may
litter the previously pristine ceremonial border post at Wagah
with dung.
Exporters have also complained about the lack of quarantine
facilities on the Pakistani side.
Pakistan lifted the ban on certain Indian imports to meet rising
demand and to check prices.
Subdued start
Despite the fact that it had taken the two nuclear-capable
neighbours more than five decades to open road trade, neither
side made any particular fanfare when the first truckloads of
fresh Indian garlic were carted into Pakistan last week.
The exports became possible after a decision by the federal
government of Pakistan in May permitting private traders to
import fresh garlic, onions, tomatoes, potatoes and livestock for
meat.
[Border ceremony at Wagah]
Wagah is the only road crossing between India and Pakistan
But, just a week after shipments began Indian exporters have
already encountered several hurdles filling orders for buffalo,
sheep and goats.
Most of these arise from the fact that Wagah has until now
essentially been a ceremonial border, where each evening armed
soldiers from the two sides enact a particularly hostile parade
while lowering their respective flags to the sounding of bugles.
Wagah is just not equipped to handle large trade consignments
both in terms of space as well as manpower.
Traders in the city of Amritsar say the export of live animals
will require space for a proper cattle enclosure and facilities
to monitor the health of the livestock.
According to one exporter, who has received orders for 20,000
buffalo, goats and sheep, there are as yet no proper quarantine
facilities on the Pakistani side of the border.
Rajdeep Uppal said that the delays, although frustrating, were
understandable since this was the very first time that livestock
exports had been allowed.
Dung patrol
According to the exporter, border guards on both sides have also
raised concerns about maintaining cleanliness.
[A cow] Cross border trade does not include cows, considered holy
by Hindus
They fear that the presence of hundreds of live animals will
litter the spic and span border post with dung and render it
unusable for the evening retreat.
Officials in Amritsar discussed the problem at an emergency
meeting at the local deputy commissioner's office on Monday.
The possibility of constructing a separate passage for trade is
now being considered.
But even as officials on both sides try and tackle the initial
hurdles, traders in Amritsar are very keen to make an early
start.
Mr Uppal said he plans to send "a small test consignment" early
next week to see how things go.
*****************************************************************
43 Reuters: Questions linger as Bush pushes India nuclear deal
Mon Aug 1, 2005 12:47 PM ET
By Carol Giacomo Diplomatic Correspondent
WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - A recent U.S.-India nuclear
agreement was so hastily concluded the Bush administration is
only now beginning to figure out how to implement it in the face
of tough questions from the U.S. Congress and nonproliferation
experts.
The agreement, announced July 18 after Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh met President George W. Bush at the White House,
upends decades-old nonproliferation rules and will require
changes in U.S. law and international policy.
U.S. officials are optimistic the Republican-controlled Congress
will approve steps to fulfill Bush's promise to sell civilian
nuclear technology to India.
Such sales are now prohibited under U.S. law because India
refused to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, or NPT, and
is producing nuclear weapons banned by the pact and other
agreements.
With the new deal, the United States in effect accepts India as
a nuclear-weapon state.
U.S. and Indian officials had aimed to conclude an agreement
before Bush makes an expected trip to India in early 2006. But
the atmosphere seemed ripe while Singh was in Washington, so U.S.
and Indian negotiators worked around-the-clock to seal a deal.
Early grumblings among lawmakers and experts who believe the
accord weakens nuclear-weapons controls suggest Bush could face a
battle to amend or waive U.S. law. Congressional sources say a
growing Indian-American community will be a factor in supporting
the accord.
So far, "the administration has no clear plan" to implement the
agreement, said a Republican participant in a recent briefing for
congressional staff. The participant said officials had "no good
answers" on how the deal would affect international security.
UNANSWERED QUESTIONS
U.S. officials involved in the deal acknowledged there were many
unanswered questions about implementing it. These include how
long it would take for India to separate its civilian and
military nuclear programs, so the civilian side could be put
under international monitoring.
Undersecretary of State R. Nicholas Burns plans to visit India
in September and it is hoped those talks will yield answers, a
senior official told Reuters.
Administration and congressional aides spoke on condition of
anonymity due to the sensitivity of the deal.
Some experts worry Bush will press Congress to act before India
fulfills promises to adhere to international standards to stem
the spread of nuclear weapons and missiles.
The senior official said the administration would not propose
legislation for at least a month or two and would await Indian
action to meet new nonproliferation commitments.
"It will take months for the Indians to begin (to meet) some of
their commitments and to complete others," the official said.
"The Indians know we're going to wait and see all this occur."
He said once the process was underway, the administration would
ask Congress and member nations of the Nuclear Suppliers Group,
which seeks to control nuclear-technology exports, to modify laws
and policy.
EMBRACE
After India tested nuclear weapons in 1998, Washington led
international condemnation. But Bush has accelerated an embrace
of the world's largest democracy.
His aides say India shares U.S. values, does not transfer
nuclear technology to troublesome entities and desperately needs
to expand its energy sources.
Many officials also see India as a counterweight to China, and
view the deal as an opportunity to revive a shaky U.S. nuclear
industry.
Robert Einhorn, formerly the State Department's top
nonproliferation official, said the strategic case for
strengthening U.S.-India relations has broad support.
But the nuclear agreement is a setback for nonproliferation and
will make it harder to advocate stricter rules for Iran and North
Korea, Einhorn told an American Enterprise Institute program.
"The administration lowered the bar too far," he said.
He said India, unlike the five nuclear-weapons states recognized
under the NPT -- the United States, Britain, France, China and
Russia -- is still producing weapons-grade plutonium and should
be encouraged to stop, he said.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
44 San Luis Obispo Tribune: PG&E to begin study on whether to renew Diablo license
Posted on Mon, Aug. 01, 2005
$19 million study will not be complete until 2011
David Sneed
The Tribune
Pacific Gas and Electric Co. announced Monday that it plans to
spend $19 million to study whether it will apply to renew the
operating licenses for Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant.
The feasibility study would begin in 2007 and last four years,
said Sharon Gavin, PG&E spokeswoman. The decision whether to
apply for relicensing would be made after the study is complete
in 2011.
"We would not make a decision before then," she said.
*****************************************************************
45 Xinhua: Most Germans want to end nuclear energy: poll
www.xinhuanet.com
www.chinaview.cn 2005-08-02 04:44:21
BERLIN, Aug. 1 (Xinhuanet) -- Most Germans want to put an
end to nuclear energy in the country, a survey published on
Monday indicated.
The poll, done by pollster Emnid for the environment group
of Greenpeace, found that 70 percent of Germans are in favor of
phasing out of nuclear energy in Germany.
Atomic power has become an issue in Germany's mid-September
national elections. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder's government
has moved to begin phasing out nuclear power. But conservative
opposition chancellor candidate Angela Merkel has proposed to
extend the lifespan of the nation's nuclear installations.
The poll showed that 26 percent of those surveyed wanted to
see a much faster withdrawal from atomic power than currently
done by the government. Enditem
Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
46 NRC: Entergy Operations, Inc., Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1; Exemption
FR Doc 05-15125
[Federal Register: August 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 146)]
[Notices] [Page 44122-44123] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01au05-62]
1.0 Background Entergy Operations, Inc. (licensee) is the holder
of Renewed Facility Operating License No. DPR-51 which authorizes
operation of the Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit 1 (ANO-1) nuclear
power plant. The license provides, among other things, that the
facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, Commission) now or hereafter
in effect.
The facility consists of a pressurized water reactor located in
Pope County, Arkansas.
2.0 Request/Action Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(10 CFR) 50.46, ``Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling
systems for light- water nuclear power reactors,'' requires,
among other items, that ``[e]ach boiling or pressurized
light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with uranium oxide
pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding must be
provided with an emergency core cooling system (ECCS) that must
be designed so that its calculated cooling performance following
postulated loss-of-coolant accidents [(LOCAs)] conforms to the
criteria set forth in paragraph (b) of this section.'' Appendix K
to 10 CFR Part 50, ``ECCS Evaluation Models,'' requires, among
other items, that the rate of energy release, hydrogen
generation, and cladding oxidation from the metal/water reaction
shall be calculated using the Baker-Just equation. The
regulations at 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K make
no provisions for use of fuel rods clad in a material other than
zircaloy or ZIRLO. Since the chemical composition of the M5 alloy
differs from the specifications for zircaloy or ZIRLO, a
plant-specific exemption is required to allow the use of the M5
alloy as a cladding material at ANO-1. Therefore, by letter dated
September 30, 2004, the licensee requested the use of the M5
advanced alloy for fuel rod cladding at ANO-1.
3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon
application by any interested person or upon its own initiative,
grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 when (1)
the exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue
risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the
common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances
are present.
Authorized by Law This exemption results in changes to the
operation of the plant by allowing the use of the M5 alloy as
fuel cladding material in lieu of zircaloy or ZIRLO. As stated
above, 10 CFR 50.12 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the
requirements of 10 CFR part 50. In addition, the granting of the
licensee's exemption request will not result in a violation of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, or the Commission's
regulations. Therefore, the exemption is authorized by law.
No Undue Risk to Public Health and Safety The underlying purposes
of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, are to ensure
that facilities have adequate acceptance criteria for the ECCS,
and to ensure that cladding oxidation and hydrogen generation are
appropriately limited during a LOCA and conservatively accounted
for in the ECCS evaluation model, respectively. Topical Report
(TR) BAW-10227P, ``Evaluation of Advanced Cladding and Structural
Material (M5) in PWR [pressurized-water reactor] Reactor
[[Page 44123]] Fuel,'' which was approved by the NRC on February
4, 2000, demonstrated that the effectiveness of the ECCS will not
be affected by a change from zircaloy fuel rod cladding to M5
fuel rod cladding. In addition, TR BAW-10227P demonstrated that
the Baker-Just equation (used in the ECCS evaluation model to
determine the rate of energy release, cladding oxidation, and
hydrogen generation) is conservative in all post-LOCA scenarios
with respect to M5 advanced alloy as a fuel rod cladding
material. Based on the above, no new accident precursors are
created by using M5 fuel cladding, thus, the probability of
postulated accidents is not increased. Also, based on the above,
the consequences of postulated accidents are not increased. In
addition, the licensee will use NRC-approved methods for the
reload design process for ANO-1 reloads with M5 cladding.
Therefore, there is no undue risk to public health and safety due
to using M5 cladding.
Consistent With Common Defense and Security The exemption
requested results in changes to the operation of the plant by
allowing the use of the M5 alloy as fuel cladding material in
lieu of zircaloy or ZIRLO. This change to the fuel material used
in the plant has no relation to security issues. Therefore, the
common defense and security is not impacted by this exemption
request.
Special Circumstances Special circumstances, in accordance with
10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the
regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the
underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the
underlying purpose of the rule.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 is to ensure that
facilities have adequate acceptance criteria for the ECCS. On
February 4, 2000, the NRC staff approved TR BAW-10227P in which
Framatome demonstrated that the effectiveness of the ECCS will
not be affected by a change from zircaloy fuel rod cladding to M5
fuel rod cladding. The analysis described in the TR also
demonstrated that the ECCS acceptance criteria applied to
reactors fueled with zircaloy fuel rod cladding are also
applicable to reactors fueled with M5 fuel rod cladding.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 50, appendix K, paragraph
I.A.5, is to ensure that cladding oxidation and hydrogen
generation are appropriately limited during a LOCA and
conservatively accounted for in the ECCS evaluation model.
Appendix K requires that the Baker-Just equation be used in the
ECCS evaluation model to determine the rate of energy release,
cladding oxidation, and hydrogen generation. In TR BAW- 10227P,
Framatome demonstrated that the Baker-Just model is conservative
in all post-LOCA scenarios with respect to the use of the M5
advanced alloy as a fuel rod cladding material, and that the
amount of hydrogen generated in an M5-clad core during a LOCA
will remain within the ANO-1 design basis.
The M5 alloy is a proprietary zirconium-based alloy comprised of
primarily zirconium (~99 percent) and niobium (~1 percent). The
elimination of tin has resulted in superior corrosion resistance
and reduced irradiation-induced growth relative to both standard
zircaloy (1.7 percent tin) and low-tin zircaloy (1.2 percent
tin). The addition of niobium increases ductility, which is
desirable to avoid brittle failures.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's advanced cladding
material, M5, for PWR fuel mechanical designs as described in TR
BAW- 10227P. In the safety evaluation for TR BAW-10227P dated
February 4, 2000, the NRC staff concluded that, to the extent
specified in the staff's evaluation, the M5 properties and
mechanical design methodology are acceptable for referencing in
fuel reload licensing applications. Therefore, since the
underlying purposes of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix
K, paragraph I.A.5 are achieved through the use of the M5
advanced alloy as a fuel rod cladding material, the special
circumstances required by 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii) for the granting
of an exemption from 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K
exist. Summary The staff has reviewed the licensee's request to
use the M5 advanced alloy for fuel rod cladding in lieu of
zircaloy or ZIRLO. Based on the staff's evaluation, as set forth
above, the staff concludes that the exemption is authorized by
law, will not present an undue risk to public health and safety,
and is consistent with the common defense and security. In
addition, the staff concludes that the underlying purposes of 10
CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K are achieved through the
use of the M5 advanced alloy. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR
50.12(a), the staff concludes that the use of the M5 advanced
alloy for fuel rod cladding is acceptable and the exemption from
10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K is justified. 4.0
Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that,
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a), the exemption is authorized by law,
will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety,
and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also,
special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission
hereby grants Entergy Operations, Inc.
an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR
part 50, appendix K to allow the use of M5 cladding at ANO-1.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the
granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on
the quality of the human environment (70 FR 37126).
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of July 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ledyard B. Marsh, Director, Division of Licensing Project
Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-15125 Filed 7-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
47 Reutes: Entergy N.Y. FitzPatrick nuke back at full power
Mon Aug 1, 2005 7:41 AM ET
NEW YORK, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Entergy Corp.'s (ETR.N: Quote,
Profile, Research) 825-megawatt FitzPatrick nuclear power station
in New York returned to full power by early Monday, the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report.
The New Orleans-based energy company reduced the unit to about
half power by July 29 to work on a feed water pump.
The FitzPatrick station is located in Scriba, in Oswego County,
about 90 miles east of Rochester, New York.
One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American
average.
Entergy's unregulated Entergy Nuc FitzPatrick LLC subsidiary
operates the station.
Entergy's subsidiaries own and operate about 30,000 MW of
generating capacity, market energy commodities, and transmit and
distribute power to 2.6 million customers in Arkansas, Louisiana,
Mississippi and Texas.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
48 Reuters: Constellation's N.Y. Ginna nuke back at full power
Mon Aug 1, 2005 7:41 AM ET
NEW YORK, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Constellation Energy Group Inc.'s
(CEG.N: Quote, Profile, Research) 497-megawatt Ginna nuclear
power station in New York returned to full power by early Monday,
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission said in a report.
On Friday, the unit returned to service and ramped up to 49
percent of capacity.
On July 20, the Baltimore-based company reduced the unit to
below 5 percent to fix some chemistry problems that occurred
during maintenance.
The Ginna station is located in Ontario in Wayne County about 20
miles east of Rochester, New York.
One MW powers about 800 homes, according to the North American
average.
Baltimore-based Constellation's unregulated Constellation
Generation subsidiary owns and operates Ginna.
Constellation's subsidiaries own and operate more than 12,000 MW
of generating capacity, market energy commodities in North
America, and transmit and distribute electricity and natural gas
to customers in Maryland.
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
49 Reuters: Iran tells IAEA to break seals on nuclear plant
Mon Aug 1, 2005 6:51 AM ET
TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran said on Monday it had told the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) it will break the U.N.
watchdog's seals on equipment at a uranium conversion plant near
the city of Isfahan and resume all work there.
"Ten minutes ago Iran sent a letter to the IAEA, Iran is to
remove the seals today," the spokesman of the Supreme National
Security Council, Ali Aghamohammadi, told reporters.
"The IAEA's inspectors are in Isfahan ... the whole of the
activities in Isfahan will be resumed."
© Reuters 2005.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
50 Sofia Morning News: Bulgaria Disproves Greenpeace Claims
Sofia News Agency
Politics: 1 August 2005, Monday.
Bulgaria's Energy Ministry issued an official statement
disproving all claims of the environmentalist organization
Grenpeace.
The Energy Ministry said that Bulgaria's Energy Strategy aims at
the active presence of the nuclear energy in the country's
energy balance but under the strict implementation of all
security measures.
"The effects of its development will come only after there is
safe exploitation and guaranteed security of the environment,"
the press release said.
The ministry also wrote that the claims of Jan Haverkamp,
activist of the international environmental organization are
groundless. Haverkamp, said that the investments that are
allotted for the energy effectiveness are an alternative of the
nuclear or the conventional powers in the country.
Earlier in the day it an expert from the international
environmental organization announced that Greenpeace declares
war on Bulgarian energetics. The environmentalists will demand a
halt on future investment in nuclear projects, as well as a halt
on the construction of the Belene power plant.[ width=]
Click here to receive realtime news about this topic in the
future.
NOVINITE.COM
*****************************************************************
51 AP Wire: Probe of nuke-detection efforts sought
Posted on Mon, Aug. 01, 2005
LARA JAKES JORDAN
Associated Press
WASHINGTON - Six lawmakers who oversee homeland security issues
called Monday for an investigation into whether federal agencies
share research on technology for preventing nuclear materials
from being smuggled into the United States.
At issue is research by at least five national laboratories that
develop systems for detecting hidden nuclear materials illegally
brought into the country.
The labs are funded by four federal departments - Homeland
Security, Defense, State and Energy - that deploy nuclear
detection systems in the United States or abroad. But lawmakers
worried that poor information-sharing among the agencies could
lead to duplication in the labs.
"It is unclear what advantages we achieve by having so many
laboratories involved in these disparate research efforts," said
the lawmakers in a letter dated Tuesday to Government
Accountability Office Comptroller David M. Walker.
The GAO is Congress' investigative arm.
The lawmakers also questioned whether a new Domestic Nuclear
Detection Office, as proposed in the Homeland Security
Department's budget for next year, would be hindered by such
duplication. But Homeland Security spokeswoman Kathleen
Montgomery said the office was being created, in part, to
prevent those problems.
The new office "will strengthen the department's oversight of
the deployment and use of radiation detection equipment, provide
greater focus to our work with national laboratories and improve
our national response to a potential nuclear threat," Montgomery
said.
Results from the GAO investigation are expected within four
months. The six lawmakers who ordered the probe include Sens.
Susan Collins, R-Maine, chairman of the Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs Committee, and Carl Levin of Michigan, the
top Democrat on the Armed Services Committee. Also seeking the
investigation are Republican Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and
Rep. John Linder of Georgia; as well as Democratic Reps. John
Dingell of Michigan and James Langevin of Rhode Island. All sit
on congressional committees that oversee nuclear issues.
ON THE NET
Homeland security department: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
*****************************************************************
52 9/11 Families on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Anniversaries
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 23:27:28 -0500 (CDT)
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
Institute for Public Accuracy
915 National Press Building, Washington, D.C. 20045
(202) 347-0020 * http://www.accuracy.org * ipa@accuracy.org
___________________________________________________
Tuesday, August 2, 2005
9/11 Families on Hiroshima and Nagasaki Anniversaries
August 6 and 9 will be the 60th anniversaries of the atomic bombings of
Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The following members of September 11th Families
for Peaceful Tomorrows have been visiting Japan.
ANDREA LEBLANC,
http://www.peacefultomorrows.org/downloads/FINALStonewalkStatement.pdf
LeBlanc lost her husband, Robert LeBlanc, Professor Emeritus of
Geography at the University of New Hampshire, on United Airlines Flt. 175.
Today she said: "The Hibakusha and other Japanese people were the first to
extend the hand of compassion to those of us who chose not to seek
vengeance for the lives of our loved ones after September 11th. A very
special bond of understanding has developed among us."
LeBlanc is coordinator of "Stonewalk," where 9/11 family members --
along with atomic bomb survivors [Hibakusha] -- have been pulling a granite
memorial "to the unknown civilians killed in war" from Nagasaki to
Hiroshima. She will be addressing the World Conference Against Atomic and
Hydrogen Bombs in Hiroshima, where she will read an apology that begins as
follows: "We Americans today apologize for the atrocities of Aug. 6 and 9,
1945, committed against the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. ... We
grieve for all victims of war and violence inflicted by nations upon
nations, individuals upon individuals, and societies upon societies."
BOB AND HELEN MCILVAINE
Their oldest son, Bobby McIlvaine, had just been hired by Merrill
Lynch as Assistant Vice President of Media Relations when he was killed at
the World Trade Center at age 26. Today, Bob McIlvaine said: "The loss of
our son Bobby on 9/11 has been indescribably painful. Joining in
'Stonewalk' has given me the only true moments of peace I've experienced
since he was killed. My wife Helen and I are honored to walk with the
Hibakusha and all those dedicated to finding and creating a more just
world." The McIlvaines reside in Oreland, in the Philadelphia suburbs.
DERRILL BODLEY, BodleyD@scc.losrios.edu,
http://www.stonewalk.org/japan/stepstopeace.htm
A professor of music and educational technology at Sacramento City
College, Bodley lost his 20-year-old daughter, Deora, on Flt. 93, which
crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on Sept. 11, 2001. He has just
returned to the U.S. from Japan after participating in Stonewalk. [He will
be in D.C. on Aug. 2.] Bodley said today: "My wish, along with all other
Peaceful Tomorrows participants, is that ... the stone will find a home in
Japan that will place it near to the Hiroshima Peace Park, where it can be
seen as a 21st century testament to the truth of all the 20th century
expressions of peace that are found there in Hiroshima. The world deserves
to know and remember this, not the horrors of the wars that are perpetrated
today through lies and deceit and because of lust for power and greed."
A song Bodley wrote and dedicated to his daughter Deora Bodley will
be sung in the closing ceremony of Peaceful Tomorrows' Stonewalk Japan
2005. "Deora -- Steps to Peace (Each to Give)" will be sung in a Japanese
version which was translated and recorded by one of Bodley's students in
America who is from Japan, Ms. Aiko Hamaguchi.
For more information, contact at the Institute for Public Accuracy:
Sam Husseini, (202) 347-0020; or David Zupan, (541) 484-9167
_________________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
public@lists.accuracy.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
public-unsubscribe@lists.accuracy.org
For all list information and functions, including changing
your subscription mode and options, visit the Web page:
http://lists.accuracy.org/lists/info/public
*****************************************************************
53 Guardian Unlimited: Explosion on Russian Sub Leaves One Dead
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday August 1, 2005 6:31 PM
By MIKE ECKEL
Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW (AP) - An explosion on a decommissioned nuclear submarine
being cut up for scrap metal at a northern Russian shipyard
killed at least one person and seriously injured another, an
emergency official said Monday.
The blast at the Zvyozdochka plant on the White Sea took place
at 8:32 a.m. aboard a submarine that had already been stripped
of its nuclear fuel and reactors, said Igor Grigoriyev, a
spokesman for the Emergency Situations Ministry in the
Arkhangelsk region.
Grigoriyev said a welding torch apparently ignited fuel vapors
that had built up in one compartment of the submarine. One
worker was killed and a second hospitalized and in intensive
care, he said.
The fire was extinguished about 30 minutes after it broke out,
he said.
Russian news reports said the submarine was a Victor-class
vessel that normally has two reactors on board.
Oleg Frolov, chief engineer for the shipyard, said in comments
broadcast on NTV that there was no danger of radiation
contamination from the incident.
Defense Ministry spokesman Vyacheslav Sedov said ``there was no
nuclear reactor on the submarine.'' Sedov told NTV that the
submarine had been decommissioned in 2000 and was being cut up
for scrap and the ship's hull was largely all that remained.
Arkhangelsk is located about 600 miles north of Moscow.
Since the Soviet collapse, Russia's military has been plagued by
funding problems. Nuclear submarines and other atomic-powered
vessels have sat for years, rusting in their berths and raising
fears of nuclear contamination or theft of nuclear materials.
In recent years, the United States, Norway and other Western
countries have helped fund Russian efforts to dismantle the
submarines and secure the nuclear materials.
In August 2002, Russian officials unveiled a new U.S.-funded
facility at Severodvinsk enabling the Zvyozdochka plant to
unload spent nuclear fuel from the reactors of four Delta and
two Typhoon submarines each year.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005
*****************************************************************
54 Herald-Leader: Clarksville nuclear weapons workers counting on declassified info
Posted on Mon, Aug. 01, 2005
Associated Press
CLARKSVILLE, Tenn. - Former workers at a now-closed nuclear
weapons storage facility at Fort Campbell are hoping
declassified information will help them win claims from the
government for radiation-related illnesses.
Nearly 240 claims have been filed since 2000 with the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act for
survivors or their families who worked at the Clarksville Base
during the Cold War. The claimants seek to collect a $150,000
lump sum payment.
None has been approved so far because the U.S. Department of
Labor says there hasn't been enough evidence to prove the
workers were harmed by radiation.
Now the families are hoping that whatever information has been
declassified by the U.S. government will be made available.
About 30 families attended a weekend meeting in Clarksville to
discuss the issue.
"I think the government can do a little bit better job besides
sending out a letter every three years saying you're eligible,
and then we're denied, denied, denied," Margie Roy said.
Roy said her father, Roy Young, worked at the facility, which
was dubbed the "Birdcage," and died of facial skin cancer.
Birmingham, Ala., attorney Sam Samsil, who has filed a claim on
behalf of his mother, Grace Samsil, said about 7,000 people
worked at the Clarksville Base between 1947 and 1965.
Two Birdcage workers, Leo Lachowicz, 78, and Jim Hurst, 73,
contend that the claims are exaggerated because everything at
the facility was contained.
"I was in the hot stuff (radiation) the whole time. Most of
these people didn't even come in contact with the hot stuff,"
said Lachowicz, who said he had had prostate cancer but doesn't
blame it on where he worked.
Because Lachowicz was a nuclear technician with the Navy, he is
not eligible for the compensation.
Debbie Bratton, who has done extensive research on the facility
and is writing a book about it, said many former workers are
afraid to talk because they took an oath of secrecy.
She urged those who believe they or their loved ones were
sickened to keep their claim open.
It's an act of perseverance," Bratton said. "Nothing will happen
if you give up."
Information from: The Leaf-Chronicle,
Kentucky.com
*****************************************************************
55 RIA Novosti UPDATE: No nuclear reactor on Severodvinsk submarine
01/ 08/ 2005
MOSCOW/ST. PETERSBURG, August 1 (RIA Novosti) - A fire broke out
this morning inside a nuclear submarine that was being
dismantled at a plant in Severodvinsk (a White Sea port).
"The fire occurred at around 8:30, when the submarine was being
cut up," an Emergencies Ministry spokesman said. "As a result of
the fire one person died, and another was injured."
"There was no nuclear reactor on the submarine," he said.
A large fire broke out in a section of the submarine while a
flame-cutting torch was being used, the Zvezdochka plant's chief
engineer Oleg Frolov said.
The fire seems to have been caused by diesel fuel igniting, he
said.
The incident occurred during the dismantling process in the
third section of the "Shchuka" submarine, classified by NATO as
"Victor III."
"This year we plan to dismantle eight nuclear submarines at the
factory.... Two have already been dismantled," Frolov said.
Such incidents are extremely rare during dismantling work, he
said.
"In this case, one flame-cutting torch operator was working,
while another was checking for fire safety," he said.
The submarine is not owned by the Russian Navy, First Class
Captain Igor Dygalo said.
In July 2000, the submarine was decommissioned. Last year it
was handed over to the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, who
then passed it to the Zvezdochka factory for dismantling, Dygalo
said.
Investigations into the fire are underway.
© 2005 "RIA Novosti"
*****************************************************************
56 NRC: Proposed Generic Communication Inaccessible or Underground Cable
FR Doc 05-15124
[Federal Register: August 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 146)]
[Notices] [Page 44127-44130] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01au05-64]
Failures That Disable Accident Mitigation Systems AGENCY: Nuclear
Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of opportunity for public comment.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is
proposing to issue a generic letter (GL) to: Alert the licensees
on the potential susceptibility of certain cables to affect the
operability of multiple accident-mitigation systems; Request that
addressees provide information regarding the monitoring of the
inaccessible or underground electrical cables in light of the
information provided in this letter. Adequate monitoring will
ensure that cables will not fail abruptly and cause plant
transients or disable accident mitigation systems when they are
needed; Require addressees, to submit a written response to this
generic letter pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f). This Federal Register
notice is available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML050880448.
DATES: Comment period expires September 30, 2005. Comments
submitted after this date will be considered if it is practical
to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except
for comments received on or before this date.
ADDRESSES: Submit written comments to the Chief, Rules and
Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of
Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop
T6-D59, Washington, DC 20555-0001, and cite the publication date
and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments
may also be delivered to NRC Headquarters, 11545 Rockville Pike
(Room T-6D59), Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15
p.m. on Federal workdays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Thomas Koshy at 301-415-1176 or by e- mail txk@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC Generic Letter 2005-XX,
Inaccessible or Underground Cable Failures that Disable Accident
Mitigation Systems.
Addressees All holders of operating licenses for nuclear power
reactors, except those who have permanently ceased operations and
have certified that fuel has been permanently removed from the
reactor vessel.
Purpose The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing
this generic letter to: (1) Alert the licensees on the potential
susceptibility of certain cables to affect the operability of
multiple accident-mitigation systems.
(2) Request that addressees provide information regarding the
monitoring of the inaccessible or underground electrical cables
in light of the information provided in this letter. Adequate
monitoring will ensure that cables will not fail abruptly and
cause plant transients or disable accident mitigation systems
when they are needed.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f), addressees are required to submit a
written response to this generic letter.
Background Cable failures have a variety of causes: Manufacturing
defects, damage caused by shipping and installation, and exposure
to electrical transients or abnormal environmental conditions
during operation. Most of these defects worsen gradually over
time as insulation degradation leads to cable failure.
Electrical cables in nuclear power plants are usually located in
dry environments. However, some cables are exposed to moisture
from condensation and wetting in inaccessible locations such as
buried conduits, cable trenches, cable troughs, duct banks,
underground vaults and direct buried installations. Cables in
these environments can fail due to various failure mechanisms
such as water treeing (physical degradation), electrical treeing
or other mechanisms of insulation degradation over varying
voltage levels that decrease the dielectric strength of the
conductor insulation.
Information Notice (IN) 2002-12 described medium-voltage cable
failures at Oyster Creek and Davis-Besse and several other plants
which experienced long-term flooding problems in manholes and
duct banks in which safety related cables were submerged. In
response to the concern identified in IN 2002-12, several plants
began manhole restoration projects to replace faulty dewatering
equipment and cable supports and made other modifications.
Several other plants have reported water removal problems but
have not yet
[[Page 44128]] reported any program for the early detection of
potential failures.
The rugged design of the electrical cables may prevent early
failures even when they have been immersed in water for extended
periods. When the staff observed that some of the cables
qualified for 40 years through the equipment qualification
program were also failing at several nuclear stations, a detailed
review was conducted.
Even though there are only about a dozen cables susceptible for
moisture- induced damage in a nuclear station, the staff
identified 23 Licensee Event Reports (LERs) and morning reports
since 1988 on failures of buried medium-voltage cables from
insulation failure. These reported events are believed to be only
a very small fraction of the failures since not all cable
failures are reportable. In most of the reported cases, the
failed cables were in service for 10 years or more and none of
these cables were identified as designed or qualified for
long-term wetting or submergence.
Applicable Regulatory Requirements NRC regulations in title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 50, Appendix A,
General Design Criterion (GDC) 4 states that, ``Structures,
systems, and components important to safety shall be designed to
accommodate the effects of and to be compatible with the
environmental conditions associated with normal operation[.]'' 10
CFR, part 50, Appendix A, GDC 17 states that, ``Provisions shall
be included to minimize the probability of losing electric power
from any of the remaining [power] supplies, * * * loss of power
from the transmission network, or the loss of power from the
onsite electric power supplies.'' 10 CFR, part 50, Appendix A,
GDC 18 states that, ``Electric power systems important to safety
shall be designed to permit appropriate periodic inspection and
testing of important * * * features, such as wiring, insulation,
* * * the operability of the systems as a whole and, * * * the
transfer of power among the nuclear power unit, the offsite power
system, and the onsite power system.'' 10 CFR 50.65(a)(1) states
that, ``Each holder of a license to operate a nuclear power plant
* * * shall monitor the performance or condition of structures,
systems, or components, * * * in a manner sufficient to provide
reasonable assurance that such structures, systems, and
components, * * * are capable of fulfilling their intended
functions.'' 10 CFR, part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI, requires,
``A test program shall be established to assure that all testing
required to demonstrate that * * * components will perform
satisfactorily in service is identified and performed[.]'' These
design criteria require that cables which are routed underground
be capable of performing their function when subjected to
anticipated environmental conditions such as moisture or
flooding. Further, the design should minimize the probability of
power interruption when transferring power between sources. The
cable failures that could disable risk-significant equipment are
expected to have monitoring programs to demonstrate that the
cables can perform their safety function when called on. However,
the recent industry cable failure data indicates a trend in
unanticipated failures of underground/inaccessible cables that
are important to safety.
Discussion Although nuclear plant systems are designed against
single failures, undetected degradation of cables due to
pre-existing manufacturing defects or wetted environments of
buried or inaccessible cables could result in multiple equipment
failures. The following are examples of risk-significant cable
failures: The failure of power cables that connect the offsite
power to the safety bus could result in an inability to recover
offsite power far beyond the coping time considered for station
blackout conditions. The incipient failures of these cables can
go undetected because these cables generally remain de-energized
when the plant is generating power.
The failure of the power cables from an emergency diesel
generator (EDG) to the respective safety bus (where the EDGs are
located in separate buildings) would prevent recovery of standby
power from the respective EDG and result in the unavailability of
a full train of accident mitigation systems during a
loss-of-offsite-power event (LOOP).
The failure of the power cables to an emergency service water
(ESW) or component cooling water pump can disable one train of
emergency core cooling systems for long-term service unless the
headers can be cross-connected and the redundant pump(s) can be
lined up to supply sufficient cooling for both trains. If the
EDGs are cooled from ESW or service water, the cable failure
could disable the EDG and lose one train of standby power.
At the Davis-Besse nuclear station, an underground cable
insulation failure resulted in the trip of the 13.8kV circulating
water pump breaker and loss of power to two other 4kV
substations. The cable showed signs of insulation degradation
caused by moisture intrusion (Inspection Report No:
05000346/2004017, ADAMS Accession No: ML050310426, issued on
January 30, 2005). Generally, cable failure results in fault
currents several orders of magnitude over the normal current.
Until isolated by a breaker, the fault current or transient
voltages travel on the immediate power systems, trip breakers
that operate near their trip setpoint and fail other degraded
insulation systems.
As cables that are not qualified for wet environments are exposed
to wet environments, they will continue to degrade with an
increasing possibility that more than one cable will fail on
demand from a cable fault or a switching transient. While a
single failure may be manageable, multiple failures of this kind
would pose undue challenges for the plant operators.
Certain plants have reported failures in other safety systems
such as auxiliary feedwater and containment spray systems with AC
and DC power and control cables routed underground or along other
inaccessible paths. Those degraded cables that are normally
energized may fail to reveal their degraded condition, and the
potential failure of the de- energized safety systems might only
be revealed during a demand for the mitigation capability.
Certain licensees have attempted to periodically drain the
accumulated water from the cable surroundings to avoid cable
failures. In areas where the water table is relatively close to
the cable, the water refills the cavity soon after the draining.
In other cases, the water accumulates seasonally during snow fall
or rain, filling the conduit or raceways, and cables may dry out
whenever the humidity drops. In both cases, periodic draining may
decrease the rate of insulation degradation but it does not
prevent cable failures.
Potential cable failures can be detected through state-of-the-art
techniques for measuring and trending the condition of cable
insulation. The cables that are susceptible to moisture-induced
failures may vary from plant to plant, and they are generally
routed in underground conduits, concrete duct banks, cable
trenches, cable troughs, underground vaults or direct buried
installations.
Selective use of testing techniques, such as the partial
discharge test, time domain reflectometry, dissipation factor
testing, very low frequency AC testing, and broadband impedance
spectroscopy, have helped licensees assess the condition of cable
insulation with reasonable confidence,
[[Page 44129]] such that cables can be replaced in a planned way
during refueling outages. The Oconee Nuclear Station relied on
the partial discharge test to monitor the condition of the
emergency power supply cable insulation and replaced the cable
during a scheduled outage (Inspection Report 50-269/99-12,
50-270/99-12, ADAMS Accession No: ML0036767490 issued on
September 21, 1999).
A diagnostic cable test program provides reasonable confidence
that the cable will perform its intended function. The frequency
of the test should be commensurate with the observed cable test
results. To avoid unplanned outages and unanticipated failures,
certain licensees have adopted a baseline frequency of 5 years
for new cables or more frequent testing when insulation
degradation is observed.
Requested Information Within 90 days of the date of this generic
letter, addressees are requested to provide the following
information to the NRC: (1) Provide a history of inaccessible or
underground cable failures, that are within the scope of 10 CFR
50.65 (the Maintenance Rule), for all voltage levels indicating
the type, voltage class, years of service and the root causes for
the failure.
(2) Provide a description and frequency of all inspection,
testing and monitoring programs, including surveillance programs,
to detect degradation of inaccessible or underground cables used
to support EDGs, offsite power, emergency service water, service
water, component cooling water and other systems that are within
the scope of 10 CFR 50.65 (the Maintenance Rule). (3) If a
program as described in (2) is not in place, explain why you
believe such a program is not necessary.
The required written response should be addressed to the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Document Control Desk, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852, under oath or
affirmation under the provisions of Section 182a of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f). In addition,
a copy of the response should be sent to the appropriate regional
administrator.
Required Response In accordance with 10 CFR 50.54(f), addressees
are required to submit written responses to this generic letter.
There are two options: (a) Addressees may choose to submit
written responses providing the information requested above
within the requested time period.
(b) Addressees who cannot meet the requested completion date or
who choose an alternate course of action are required to notify
the NRC of these circumstances in writing as soon as possible but
no later than 60 days from the date of this generic letter. The
response must address any alternative course of action proposed,
and the basis for the acceptability of the proposed alternative
course of action.
Reasons for Requested Information This generic letter requests
addressees to submit information. The requested information will
enable the NRC staff to determine whether applicable requirements
(10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, General Design Criteria 4, 17 and
18; 10 CFR 50.65, and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix B, Criterion XI)
are being met in regard to the operational readiness of the power
system and accident mitigation systems and whether additional
action is necessary on those topics. The staff considers 40 hours
of information collection burden to be reasonable in light of the
benefit gained to identify and correct unanticipated failures of
accident mitigation systems.
Backfit Discussion Under the provisions of section 182a of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR 50.54(f), this
generic letter transmits an information request for the purpose
of verifying compliance with applicable existing requirements.
Specifically, the requested information will enable the NRC staff
to determine whether applicable requirements (plant Technical
Specification in conjunction with 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A,
General Design Criteria 4, 17 and 18; 10 CFR 50.65, and 10 CFR
part 50, Appendix B Criterion XI) are being met in regard to the
operation readiness of the power system. No backfit is either
intended or approved in the context of issuance of this generic
letter. Therefore, the staff has not performed a backfit
analysis.
Federal Register Notification A notice of opportunity for public
comment on this generic letter was published in the Federal
Register on (xx Frxxxxx) on {date{time} . Comments were received
from {indicate no of commentors by type{time} . The staff
considered all comments that were received. The staff's
evaluation of the comments is publicly available through the
NRC's ADAMS under Accession No. ML052020036. Paperwork Reduction
Act Statement This generic letter contains information collection
requirements that are subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.). These information collections were
approved by the Office of Management and Budget, approval No:
3150-0011, which expires on February 28, 2007.
The burden to the public for these mandatory information
collections is estimated to average 40 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing
data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the information collection. The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission is seeking public comment on the
potential impact of the information collection contained in the
generic letter and on the following issues: 1. Is the proposed
information collection necessary for the proper performance of
the functions of the NRC, including whether the information will
have practical utility? 2. Is the estimate of burden accurate? 3.
Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden of the
information collection be minimized, including the use of
automated collection techniques? Send comments regarding this
burden estimate or any other aspect of these information
collections, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to
the Records and FOIA/Privacy Services Branch (T-5 F52), U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by
Internet electronic mail to infocollects@nrc.gov; and to the Desk
Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
NEOB-10202, (3150-0011), Office of Management and Budget,
Washington, DC 20503.
Public Protection Notification The NRC may not conduct or
sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a request
for information or an information collection requirement unless
the requesting document displays a currently valid OMB control
number.
Contacts Please direct any questions about this matter to the
technical contact listed below or the appropriate Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) project manager. Bruce A. Boger,
Director, Division of Inspection Program Management, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[[Page 44130]] Technical Contact: Thomas Koshy, NRR,
301-415-1176. E-mail: txk@nrc.gov. End of Draft Generic Letter
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's
Public Document Room at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available
records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. If you do not have
access to ADAMS or if you have problems in accessing the
documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room (PDR)
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to
pdr@nrc.gov. Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of July
2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrick L. Hiland, Chief, Reactor Operations Branch, Division of
Inspection Program Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. 05-15124 Filed 7-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
57 BBC: Blast on Russia nuclear submarine
Last Updated: Monday, 1 August 2005
One person has been killed and another injured in an explosion on
a Russian nuclear submarine in dock for decommissioning.
The blast occurred at the Zvyozdochka shipyard, in Severodvinsk,
where the vessel had been sent to be dismantled.
Reports say the nuclear reactor had already been removed.
The Viktor class submarine arrived at the yard in June and the
work was due to be carried out using funds from Canada, Interfax
reported.
The Associated Press said the fire caused by the blast was
extinguished after nearly four hours.
Oleg Frolov, chief engineer for the shipyard, told Russian NTV
that there was no danger of radioactive contamination from the
incident.
Igor Grigoriyev, a spokesman for the Emergency Situations
Ministry in the region, said a welding torch apparently ignited
fuel vapours that had built up in one compartment of the
submarine, according to AP.
*****************************************************************
58 Columbus Dispatch: State Hopes to Unravel Radiation Readings near Piketon -
Sat, July 30, 2005
Two different tests of stream show far different toxin levels.
By Mike Lafferty
The Columbus Dispatch
State officials are trying to figure out whose numbers tell the
true story of a stream near the former uranium enrichment plant
at Piketon.
Environmental groups say their tests show that the Big Run is
highly radioactive. The federal government says the water is
safe.
So, the state will perform its own radiation tests of the stream
near the former Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.
Environmental groups say foam from two spots in Big Run, about
65 miles south of Columbus in Pike County, tested about 100
times above background radiation levels.
The U.S. Department of Energy and United States Enrichment
Corp., which runs the plant, say the water is safe.
"The bottom line is there is not a reason to be concerned," said
USEC spokeswoman Elizabeth Stuckle.
The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency isn't sure who to
believe and has questions for both sides.
The state will perform radiation tests as part of a
water-chemistry analysis of area streams. Testing likely will
occur in August and September as part of an ongoing effort to
measure stream health, according to Maria Galanti, the EPA's
project coordinator overseeing the environmental cleanup at the
3,000-acre site.
Big Run is a tributary of the Scioto River. In 1992, it was one
of several area streams that contained fish with elevated
radiation levels. Stream sediments showed radiation levels five
times above the natural level, as well as increased levels of
arsenic, cadmium, chromium and mercury.
Excessive radiation exposure can affect many body organs and
cause tumors and genetic mutations. Arsenic has been linked to,
among other conditions, nausea and vomiting and circulatory
system damage. In high doses it can be fatal.
Mercury affects the central nervous system, while cadmium has
been linked to a variety of ailments, including kidney
disorders. Ingesting large amounts of chromium can caause
stomach ulcers, convulsions, and kidney and liver damage.
The Portsmouth-Piketon Residents for Environmental Safety and
Security and the RadioActivist Campaign, based in Hanford,
Wash., reported the high radiation levels earlier this month.
But, to make sense of the data, Galanti says she needs details,
such as why the foam was tested instead of water.
"They didn't even bother to tell us the locations," she said.
Galanti accompanied USEC technicians when they went to the
stream and has questions about their tests as well.
"They supposedly put out a report how the samples were
collected, what happened when they went to the lab and how the
data was analysed," she said.
Norm Buske, a physicist and director of the RadioActivist
Campaign, said the high readings are correct.
The tests were made in November 2003 as part of a project to
prepare a citizen's do-it-yourself guide to measuring radiation.
The technique was developed and the tests and foam samples were
taken by a Russian nuclear physicist, Sergey Pashenko, who
visited Piketon for several days.
Pashenko's technique, which uses a Geiger counter to test foam
residue, is not designed to provide specific numbers, but rather
a general level of radioactivity.
"It's really just a screening technique," Buske said, adding
that it helps indicate whether additional, more-detailed tests
are needed.
The government's more-detailed data, he said, confirms the data.
Graham Mitchell, of the Ohio EPA, said the federal Energy
Department's figures are high but that it's impossible to know
what they really indicate without more information.
"We're really in the apples and oranges thing here," he said.
The debate over Big Run also comes at a time when the
Portsmouth-Piketon group is trying to halt construction of a gas
centrifuge plant that would replace the older equipment used to
enrich uranium fuel for nuclear power plants.
Ewan Todd, a member of the group, says the stream-radiation
readings show that the Department of Energy and the enrichment
facility can't be trusted to operate the new plant without
recontaminating the environment.
Buske also says the federal government was conducting a ruse
when it originally issued the radioactivity numbers using
milliliters instead of the much larger liter unit, which is the
standard practice. Using milliliters gave a seemingly smaller,
more innocuous figure, he said.
"It's cunning," he said.
Said Stuckle, "That is absolutely not true."
mlafferty@dispatch.com
*****************************************************************
59 [epa-impact] In the Matter of Envirocare of Utah, Inc.; Order Modifying
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 11:28:46 -0400 (EDT)
autolearn=ham version=3.0.4
X-Spam-filter-host: pascal.ctyme.com - http://www.junkemailfilter.com
http://epa.gov/EPA-IMPACT/2005/August/Day-01/
=======================================================================
[Federal Register: August 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 146)]
[Notices]
[Page 44123-44127]
>From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01au05-63]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 40-8989]
In the Matter of Envirocare of Utah, Inc.; Order Modifying
Exemption From 10 CFR Part 70
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of order to modify Envirocare of Utah, Inc.'s
exemption from requirements of 10 CFR part 70.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Park, Environmental and
Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management and
Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001. Telephone: (301) 415-5835, fax number: (301) 415-5397, e-mail:
JRP@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an Order
pursuant to section 274f of the Atomic Energy Act to Envirocare of
Utah, Inc. (Envirocare) to modify Envirocare's exemption from certain
NRC licensing requirements for special nuclear material.
[[Page 44124]]
II. Further Information
I
Envirocare of Utah, Inc, (Envirocare) operates a low-level waste
(LLW) disposal facility in Clive, Utah. This facility is licensed by
the State of Utah, an Agreement State. Envirocare also is licensed by
Utah to dispose of mixed waste, hazardous waste, and 11e.(2) byproduct
material (as defined under section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of
1954, as amended).
II
Section 70.3 of 10 CFR part 70 requires persons who own, acquire,
deliver, receive, possess, use, or transfer special nuclear material
(SNM) to obtain a license pursuant to the requirements in 10 CFR part
70. The licensing requirements in 10 CFR part 70 apply to persons in
Agreement States possessing greater than critical mass quantities as
defined in 10 CFR 150.11.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 70.17(a), ``the Commission may * * * grant such
exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in this part as it
determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property
or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public
interest.''
On May 24, 1999, the NRC transmitted an Order to Envirocare. The
Order was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 1999 (64 FR
27826). The Order exempted Envirocare from certain NRC regulations and
permitted Envirocare, under specified conditions, to possess waste
containing SNM in greater quantities than specified in 10 CFR part 150,
at Envirocare's LLW disposal facility located in Clive, Utah, without
obtaining an NRC license pursuant to 10 CFR part 70. The methodology
used to establish these limits is discussed in the 1999 Safety
Evaluation Report (SER) that supported the 1999 Order (ADAMS Legacy
Library Accession No. 9905140064).
On January 30, 2003, the NRC revised the Order to: (1) Include
stabilization of liquid waste streams containing SNM; (2) include the
thermal desorption process; (3) change the homogenous contiguous mass
limit from 145 kilograms (kg) to 600 kg; (4) change the language and
SNM limit associated with footnotes ``c'' and ``d'' of Condition 1 to
reflect all materials in Conditions 2 and 3; and (5) omit the
confirmatory testing requirements for debris waste. The revised Order
was published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2003 (68 FR 7399).
In a letter dated July 8, 2003, Envirocare proposed that the NRC
amend the 2003 Order. The NRC has evaluated Envirocare's request in two
phases. In the first phase, the NRC evaluated the following requested
revisions: (1) Modify the table in Condition 1 to include limits for
uranium and plutonium in waste without magnesium oxide; (2) modify the
units of the table from picocuries of SNM per gram of waste material to
gram of SNM per gram of waste material; and (3) revise the language of
Condition 5 to be consistent with the revised units in the table in
Condition 1. The first phase of these revisions was published in the
Federal Register on December 29, 2003 (68 FR 74986).
In the second phase, which is the subject of this Order, the NRC
evaluated the remaining revisions that were requested by Envirocare.
These involve: (1) Modifying the table in Condition 1 to include
criticality-based limits for uranium-233 and plutonium isotopes in
waste containing up to 20 percent of materials listed in Condition 2
(e.g., magnesium oxide); (2) including criticality-based limits in the
table in Condition 1 for plutonium isotopes in waste with unlimited
materials in Condition 2, and in waste with unlimited quantities of
materials in Conditions 2 and 3 (e.g., beryllium); (3) providing
criticality-based limits for uranium-235 as a function of enrichment in
waste containing up to 20 percent of materials listed in Condition 2
and in waste containing none of the materials listed in Condition 2;
and (4) including additional mixed waste treatment technologies.
III
A principal emphasis of 10 CFR part 70 is criticality safety and
safeguarding SNM against diversion or sabotage. The NRC staff considers
that criticality safety can be maintained by relying on concentration
limits, under the conditions specified below. Safeguarding SNM against
diversion or sabotage is not considered a significant issue because of
the diffuse form of the SNM in waste meeting the conditions specified.
These conditions are considered an acceptable alternative to the
criticality definition provided in 10 CFR 150.11, thereby assuring the
same level of protection. The NRC staff reviewed the safety aspects of
the proposed action (i.e., the granting of Envirocare's request) in the
SER, dated November 2004. The NRC staff concluded that additional
conditions were required to maintain sufficient protection of health,
safety, and the environment. The exemption conditions would be revised
as follows:
1. For waste with no more than 20 weight percent of materials
listed in Condition 2, concentrations of SNM in individual waste
containers must not exceed the following values at time of receipt:
Table A
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum SNM concentration in waste
containing the described materials
(g SNM/g waste)
-------------------------------------
Maximum of 20
SNM nuclide weight percent of
No materials materials listed
listed in in Condition 2
Condition 2 and no more than
1 weight percent
of beryllium
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U-235 (>50%) \a\.................. 6.2E-4 5.4E-4
U-235 (=50%)...................... 6.9E-4 6.1E-4
U-235 (=20%)...................... 8.3E-4 7.4E-4
U-235 (=10%)...................... 9.9E-4 8.8E-4
U-235 (=5%)....................... 1.0E-3 9.6E-4
U-235 (=3%)....................... 1.3E-3 1.1E-3
U-235 (=2%)....................... 1.7E-3 1.5E-3
U-235 (=1.5%)..................... 2.3E-3 2.1E-3
U-235 (=1.35%).................... 2.8E-3 2.5E-3
[[Page 44125]]
U-235 (=1.2%)..................... 3.5E-3 3.2E-3
U-235 (=1.1%)..................... 4.5E-3 4.2E-3
U-235 (=1.05%).................... 5.0E-3 4.8E-3
U-233............................. 4.7E-4 4.3E-4
Pu-239............................ 2.8E-4 2.6E-4
Pu-241............................ 2.2E-4 1.9E-4
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ Percentage value refers to weight percent enrichment in U-235. For
enrichments that fall between identified values in the table, the
higher value is the applicable value (e.g., for an enrichment of 14
weight percent U-235, the applicable concentration limit is that for
20 weight percent U-235).
For waste with more than 20 weight percent of materials listed in
Condition 2, concentrations of SNM in individual waste containers must
not exceed the following values at time of receipt:
Table B
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum SNM concentration in waste
containing the described materials
(g SNM/g waste)
-------------------------------------
Radionuclide Unlimited
Unlimited quantities of
quantities of materials listed
materials listed in Conditions 2
in Condition 2 and 3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U-235 (>50%)...................... 3.4E-4 1.2E-5
U-235............................. N/A \a\ 3.1E-4
U-233............................. 2.9E-4 1.1E-5
Pu-239............................ 1.7E-4 7.5E-6
Pu-241............................ 1.3E-4 5.3E-6
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For uranium at any enrichment with sum of materials listed in
Conditions 2 and beryllium not exceeding 45 percent of the weight of
the waste.
Plutonium isotopes other than Pu-239 and Pu-241 do not need to be
considered in demonstrating compliance with this condition. When
mixtures of these SNM isotopes are present in the waste, the sum-of-
the-fractions rule, as illustrated below, should be used.
[GRAPHIC]
[TIFF OMITTED] TN01AU05.001
The concentration values in Condition 1 are operational values to
ensure criticality safety. Where the values in Condition 1 exceed
concentration values in the corresponding conditions of the State of
Utah Radioactive Material License (RML), the concentration values in
the RML, which are averaged over the container, may not be exceeded.
Higher concentration values are included in Condition 1 to be used in
establishing the maximum mass of SNM for non-homogeneous solid waste
and liquid waste.
The measurement uncertainty values should be no more than 15
percent of the concentration limit, and represent the maximum one-sigma
uncertainty associated with the measurement of the concentration of the
particular radionuclide. When determining the applicable U-235
concentration limit for a specific enrichment percentage, the
analytical uncertainty shall be added to the result (e.g., for a
measurement value of U-235 enrichment percentage of 1.1 +/-0.2, the U-
235 concentration limit corresponding to an enrichment percent of 1.35
shall be used). This shall be applied to analytical methods employed by
the generator prior to receipt and by Envirocare upon receipt.
The SNM must be homogeneously distributed throughout the waste. If
the SNM is not homogeneously distributed, then the limiting
concentrations must not be exceeded on average in any contiguous mass
of 600 kilograms of waste.
Liquid waste may be stabilized provided the SNM concentration does
not exceed the SNM concentration limits in Condition 1. For containers
of liquid waste with more than 600
[[Page 44126]]
kilograms of waste, the total mass of SNM shall not exceed the SNM
concentration in Condition 1 times 600 kilograms of waste. Waste
containing free liquids and solids shall be mixed prior to treatment.
Any solids shall be maintained in a suspended state during transfer and
treatment.
2. Except as allowed by Tables A and B in Condition 1, waste must
not contain ``pure forms'' of chemicals containing carbon, fluorine,
magnesium, or bismuth in bulk quantities (e.g., a pallet of drums, a B-
25 box). By ``pure forms,'' it is meant that mixtures of the above
elements, such as magnesium oxide, magnesium carbonate, magnesium
fluoride, bismuth oxide, etc., do not contain other elements. These
chemicals would be added to the waste stream during processing, such as
at fuel facilities or treatment such as at mixed waste treatment
facilities. The presence of the above materials will be determined by
the generator, based on process knowledge or testing.
3. Except as allowed by Tables A and B in Condition 1, waste
accepted must not contain total quantities of beryllium, hydrogenous
material enriched in deuterium, or graphite above one tenth of one
percent of the total weight of the waste. The presence of the above
materials will be determined by the generator, based on process
knowledge, physical observations, or testing.
4. Waste packages must not contain highly water soluble forms of
uranium greater than 350 grams of uranium-235 or 200 grams of uranium-
233. The sum of the fractions rule will apply for mixtures of U-233 and
U-235. Highly soluble forms of uranium include, but are not limited to:
uranium sulfate, uranyl acetate, uranyl chloride, uranyl formate,
uranyl fluoride, uranyl nitrate, uranyl potassium carbonate, and uranyl
sulfate. The presence of the above materials will be determined by the
generator, based on process knowledge or testing.
5. Waste processing of waste containing SNM will be limited to
stabilization (mixing waste with reagents), micro-encapsulation and
macro-encapsulation using low-density and high-density polyethylene,
macro-encapsulation with cement grout, spray-washing, organic
destruction (CerOx process and Solvent Electron Technology process),
and thermal desorption.
Envirocare shall confirm that the SNM concentration in the rinse
water does not exceed the limits in Condition 1 following spray-
washing, prior to further treatment. If the rinse water is evaporated,
the evaporated product shall comply with the requirements in Condition
1. Envirocare shall perform sampling and analysis of the liquid
effluent collection system at a frequency of one sample per 300 gallons
or when the system reaches capacity, whichever is less.
Envirocare shall track the SNM mass of waste treated using the
CerOx process. When the total concentration of SNM is 85 percent of the
sum of the fraction rule in Condition 1, Envirocare shall confirm the
SNM concentration in the phase reactor tank and replace the solutions.
The 10 percent enriched limit shall be used for uranium-235. The
contents of the phase reactor tank should be solidified prior to disposal.
When waste is processed using the thermal desorption process and
the Solvent Electron Technology process, Envirocare shall confirm the
SNM concentration following processing and prior to returning the waste
to temporary storage.
6. Envirocare shall require generators to provide the following
information for each waste stream:
Pre-Shipment
Waste Description. The description must detail how the waste was
generated, list the physical forms in the waste, and identify uranium
chemical composition.
Waste Characterization Summary. The data must include a general
description of how the waste was characterized (including the
volumetric extent of the waste, and the number, location, type, and
results of any analytical testing), the range of SNM concentrations,
and the analytical results with error values used to develop the
concentration ranges.
Uniformity Description. A description of the process by which the
waste was generated showing that the spatial distribution of SNM must
be uniform, or other information supporting spatial distribution.
Manifest Concentration. The generator must describe the methods to
be used to determine the concentrations on the manifests. These methods
could include direct measurement and the use of scaling factors. The
generator must describe the uncertainty associated with sampling and
testing used to obtain the manifest concentrations.
Envirocare shall review the above information and, if adequate,
approve in writing this pre-shipment waste characterization and
assurance plan before permitting the shipment of a waste stream. This
will include statements that Envirocare has a written copy of all the
information required above, that the characterization information is
adequate and consistent with the waste description, and that the
information is sufficient to demonstrate compliance with Conditions 1
through 4. Where generator process knowledge is used to demonstrate
compliance with Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 4, Envirocare shall review this
information and determine when testing is required to provide
additional information in assuring compliance with the Conditions.
Envirocare shall retain this information as required by the State of
Utah to permit independent review.
At Receipt
Envirocare shall require generators of SNM waste to provide a
written certification with each waste manifest that states that the SNM
concentrations reported on the manifest do not exceed the limits in
Condition 1, that the measurement uncertainty does not exceed the
uncertainty value in Condition 1, and that the waste meets Conditions 2
through 4.
7. Sampling and radiological testing of waste containing SNM must
be performed in accordance with the following: One sample for each of
the first ten shipments of a waste stream; or one sample for each of
the first 100 cubic yards of waste up to 1,000 cubic yards of a waste
stream, and one sample for each additional 500 cubic yards of waste
following the first ten shipments or following the first 1,000 cubic
yards of a waste stream. Sampling and radiological testing of debris
waste containing SNM ( that is exempted from sampling by the State of
Utah) can be eliminated if the SNM concentration is lower than one
tenth of the limits in Condition 1. Envirocare shall verify the percent
enrichment by appropriate analytical methods. The percent enrichment
determination shall be made by taking into account the most
conservative values based on the measurement uncertainties for the
analytical methods chosen.
8. Envirocare shall notify the NRC, Region IV office within 24
hours if any of the above conditions are not met, including if a batch
during a treatment process exceeds the SNM concentrations of Condition
1. A written notification of the event must be provided within 7 days.
9. Envirocare shall obtain NRC approval prior to changing any
activities associated with the above conditions.
IV
Based on the staff's evaluation, the Commission has determined,
pursuant to 10 CFR 70.17(a), that the exemption of above activities at
the Envirocare disposal facility is authorized by law, and will not
endanger life or property or
[[Page 44127]]
the common defense and security and is otherwise in the public
interest. Accordingly, by this Order, the Commission grants an
exemption subject to the stated conditions. The exemption will become
effective after the State of Utah has incorporated the above conditions
into Envirocare's radioactive materials license. In addition, at that
time, the Order transmitted in December 2003 will no longer be
effective.
Pursuant to the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, the Commission has
prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed action and
has determined that the granting of this exemption will have no
significant impacts on the quality of the human environment. This
finding was noticed in the Federal Register on July 18, 2005 (70 FR 41241).
V
Documents related to this action, including the application for
amendment and supporting documentation, will be available
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.NRC.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can access the
NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which
provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS
accession numbers for the documents related to this notice are:
Envirocare's June 8, 2003, request (ML031950334), the NRC staff's July
2005 Environmental Assessment (ML041200390), and the NRC staff's June
2005 SER (ML041190003).
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov.
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction
contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Margaret V. Federline,
Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 05-15123 Filed 7-29-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
------------------------------------------
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/index.html
Comments: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/comments.htm
Search: http://epa.gov/fedreg/search.htm
EPA's Federal Register: http://epa.gov/fedreg/
------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to epa-impact as: NEWS@energy-net.org
To unsubscribe, send a blank email to leave-epa-impact-46782Y@lists.epa.gov
OR:
Use the listserver's web interface at https://lists.epa.gov/read/all_forums/ to manage your subscription.
For problems with this list, contact epa-impact-Owner@lists.epa.gov
------------------------------------------
*****************************************************************
60 NRC: In the Matter of Envirocare of Utah, Inc.; Order Modifying
FR Doc 05-15123
[Federal Register: August 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 146)]
[Notices] [Page 44123-44127] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr01au05-63]
Exemption From 10 CFR Part 70 AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of order to modify Envirocare of Utah, Inc.'s
exemption from requirements of 10 CFR part 70.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Park, Environmental and
Performance Assessment Directorate, Division of Waste Management
and Environmental Protection, Office of Nuclear Material Safety
and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555- 0001. Telephone: (301) 415-5835, fax number: (301)
415-5397, e-mail: .
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing an Order pursuant to section 274f of
the Atomic Energy Act to Envirocare of Utah, Inc. (Envirocare) to
modify Envirocare's exemption from certain NRC licensing
requirements for special nuclear material.
[[Page 44124]] II. Further Information I Envirocare of Utah, Inc,
(Envirocare) operates a low-level waste (LLW) disposal facility
in Clive, Utah. This facility is licensed by the State of Utah,
an Agreement State. Envirocare also is licensed by Utah to
dispose of mixed waste, hazardous waste, and 11e.(2) byproduct
material (as defined under section 11e.(2) of the Atomic Energy
Act of 1954, as amended).
II Section 70.3 of 10 CFR part 70 requires persons who own,
acquire, deliver, receive, possess, use, or transfer special
nuclear material (SNM) to obtain a license pursuant to the
requirements in 10 CFR part 70. The licensing requirements in 10
CFR part 70 apply to persons in Agreement States possessing
greater than critical mass quantities as defined in 10 CFR
150.11. Pursuant to 10 CFR 70.17(a), ``the Commission may * * *
grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in
this part as it determines are authorized by law and will not
endanger life or property or the common defense and security and
are otherwise in the public interest.'' On May 24, 1999, the NRC
transmitted an Order to Envirocare.
The Order was published in the Federal Register on May 21, 1999
(64 FR 27826). The Order exempted Envirocare from certain NRC
regulations and permitted Envirocare, under specified conditions,
to possess waste containing SNM in greater quantities than
specified in 10 CFR part 150, at Envirocare's LLW disposal
facility located in Clive, Utah, without obtaining an NRC license
pursuant to 10 CFR part 70. The methodology used to establish
these limits is discussed in the 1999 Safety Evaluation Report
(SER) that supported the 1999 Order (ADAMS Legacy Library
Accession No. 9905140064). On January 30, 2003, the NRC revised
the Order to: (1) Include stabilization of liquid waste streams
containing SNM; (2) include the thermal desorption process; (3)
change the homogenous contiguous mass limit from 145 kilograms
(kg) to 600 kg; (4) change the language and SNM limit associated
with footnotes ``c'' and ``d'' of Condition 1 to reflect all
materials in Conditions 2 and 3; and (5) omit the confirmatory
testing requirements for debris waste. The revised Order was
published in the Federal Register on February 13, 2003 (68 FR
7399).
In a letter dated July 8, 2003, Envirocare proposed that the NRC
amend the 2003 Order. The NRC has evaluated Envirocare's request
in two phases. In the first phase, the NRC evaluated the
following requested revisions: (1) Modify the table in Condition
1 to include limits for uranium and plutonium in waste without
magnesium oxide; (2) modify the units of the table from
picocuries of SNM per gram of waste material to gram of SNM per
gram of waste material; and (3) revise the language of Condition
5 to be consistent with the revised units in the table in
Condition 1. The first phase of these revisions was published in
the Federal Register on December 29, 2003 (68 FR 74986).
In the second phase, which is the subject of this Order, the NRC
evaluated the remaining revisions that were requested by
Envirocare. These involve: (1) Modifying the table in Condition 1
to include criticality-based limits for uranium-233 and plutonium
isotopes in waste containing up to 20 percent of materials listed
in Condition 2 (e.g., magnesium oxide); (2) including
criticality-based limits in the table in Condition 1 for
plutonium isotopes in waste with unlimited materials in Condition
2, and in waste with unlimited quantities of materials in
Conditions 2 and 3 (e.g., beryllium); (3) providing
criticality-based limits for uranium-235 as a function of
enrichment in waste containing up to 20 percent of materials
listed in Condition 2 and in waste containing none of the
materials listed in Condition 2; and (4) including additional
mixed waste treatment technologies.
III A principal emphasis of 10 CFR part 70 is criticality safety
and safeguarding SNM against diversion or sabotage. The NRC staff
considers that criticality safety can be maintained by relying on
concentration limits, under the conditions specified below.
Safeguarding SNM against diversion or sabotage is not considered
a significant issue because of the diffuse form of the SNM in
waste meeting the conditions specified. These conditions are
considered an acceptable alternative to the criticality
definition provided in 10 CFR 150.11, thereby assuring the same
level of protection. The NRC staff reviewed the safety aspects of
the proposed action (i.e., the granting of Envirocare's request)
in the SER, dated November 2004. The NRC staff concluded that
additional conditions were required to maintain sufficient
protection of health, safety, and the environment. The exemption
conditions would be revised as follows: 1. For waste with no more
than 20 weight percent of materials listed in Condition 2,
concentrations of SNM in individual waste containers must not
exceed the following values at time of receipt: Table A
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- Maximum SNM concentration in waste containing the
described materials (g SNM/g waste)
------------------------------------- Maximum of 20 SNM nuclide
weight percent of No materials materials listed listed in
in Condition 2 Condition 2 and no more than 1 weight percent
of beryllium
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- U-235 (>50%) \a\.................. 6.2E-4
5.4E-4 U-235 (=50%)...................... 6.9E-4
6.1E-4 U-235 (=20%)...................... 8.3E-4
7.4E-4 U-235 (=10%)...................... 9.9E-4
8.8E-4 U-235 (=5%)....................... 1.0E-3
9.6E-4 U-235 (=3%)....................... 1.3E-3
1.1E-3 U-235 (=2%)....................... 1.7E-3
1.5E-3 U-235 (=1.5%)..................... 2.3E-3
2.1E-3 U-235 (=1.35%).................... 2.8E-3
2.5E-3
[[Page 44125]] U-235 (=1.2%).....................
3.5E-3 3.2E-3 U-235 (=1.1%).....................
4.5E-3 4.2E-3 U-235 (=1.05%)....................
5.0E-3 4.8E-3 U-233.............................
4.7E-4 4.3E-4 Pu-239............................
2.8E-4 2.6E-4 Pu-241............................
2.2E-4 1.9E-4
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- \a\ Percentage value refers to weight percent enrichment
in U-235. For enrichments that fall between identified values in
the table, the higher value is the applicable value (e.g., for an
enrichment of 14 weight percent U-235, the applicable
concentration limit is that for 20 weight percent U-235).
For waste with more than 20 weight percent of materials listed in
Condition 2, concentrations of SNM in individual waste containers
must not exceed the following values at time of receipt: Table B
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- Maximum SNM concentration in waste containing the
described materials (g SNM/g waste)
------------------------------------- Radionuclide Unlimited
Unlimited quantities of quantities of materials listed materials
listed in Conditions 2 in Condition 2 and 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- U-235 (>50%)...................... 3.4E-4
1.2E-5 U-235............................. N/A \a\
3.1E-4 U-233............................. 2.9E-4
1.1E-5 Pu-239............................ 1.7E-4
7.5E-6 Pu-241............................ 1.3E-4
5.3E-6
-----------------------------------------------------------------
------- \a\ For uranium at any enrichment with sum of materials
listed in Conditions 2 and beryllium not exceeding 45 percent of
the weight of the waste.
Plutonium isotopes other than Pu-239 and Pu-241 do not need to be
considered in demonstrating compliance with this condition. When
mixtures of these SNM isotopes are present in the waste, the
sum-of- the-fractions rule, as illustrated below, should be used.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN01AU05.001 The concentration values in
Condition 1 are operational values to ensure criticality safety.
Where the values in Condition 1 exceed concentration values in
the corresponding conditions of the State of Utah Radioactive
Material License (RML), the concentration values in the RML,
which are averaged over the container, may not be exceeded.
Higher concentration values are included in Condition 1 to be
used in establishing the maximum mass of SNM for non-homogeneous
solid waste and liquid waste.
The measurement uncertainty values should be no more than 15
percent of the concentration limit, and represent the maximum
one-sigma uncertainty associated with the measurement of the
concentration of the particular radionuclide. When determining
the applicable U-235 concentration limit for a specific
enrichment percentage, the analytical uncertainty shall be added
to the result (e.g., for a measurement value of U-235 enrichment
percentage of 1.1 +/-0.2, the U- 235 concentration limit
corresponding to an enrichment percent of 1.35 shall be used).
This shall be applied to analytical methods employed by the
generator prior to receipt and by Envirocare upon receipt.
The SNM must be homogeneously distributed throughout the waste.
If the SNM is not homogeneously distributed, then the limiting
concentrations must not be exceeded on average in any contiguous
mass of 600 kilograms of waste.
Liquid waste may be stabilized provided the SNM concentration
does not exceed the SNM concentration limits in Condition 1. For
containers of liquid waste with more than 600
[[Page 44126]] kilograms of waste, the total mass of SNM shall
not exceed the SNM concentration in Condition 1 times 600
kilograms of waste. Waste containing free liquids and solids
shall be mixed prior to treatment. Any solids shall be maintained
in a suspended state during transfer and treatment.
2. Except as allowed by Tables A and B in Condition 1, waste must
not contain ``pure forms'' of chemicals containing carbon,
fluorine, magnesium, or bismuth in bulk quantities (e.g., a
pallet of drums, a B- 25 box). By ``pure forms,'' it is meant
that mixtures of the above elements, such as magnesium oxide,
magnesium carbonate, magnesium fluoride, bismuth oxide, etc., do
not contain other elements. These chemicals would be added to the
waste stream during processing, such as at fuel facilities or
treatment such as at mixed waste treatment facilities. The
presence of the above materials will be determined by the
generator, based on process knowledge or testing.
3. Except as allowed by Tables A and B in Condition 1, waste
accepted must not contain total quantities of beryllium,
hydrogenous material enriched in deuterium, or graphite above one
tenth of one percent of the total weight of the waste. The
presence of the above materials will be determined by the
generator, based on process knowledge, physical observations, or
testing.
4. Waste packages must not contain highly water soluble forms of
uranium greater than 350 grams of uranium-235 or 200 grams of
uranium- 233. The sum of the fractions rule will apply for
mixtures of U-233 and U-235. Highly soluble forms of uranium
include, but are not limited to: uranium sulfate, uranyl acetate,
uranyl chloride, uranyl formate, uranyl fluoride, uranyl nitrate,
uranyl potassium carbonate, and uranyl sulfate. The presence of
the above materials will be determined by the generator, based on
process knowledge or testing.
5. Waste processing of waste containing SNM will be limited to
stabilization (mixing waste with reagents), micro-encapsulation
and macro-encapsulation using low-density and high-density
polyethylene, macro-encapsulation with cement grout,
spray-washing, organic destruction (CerOx process and Solvent
Electron Technology process), and thermal desorption.
Envirocare shall confirm that the SNM concentration in the rinse
water does not exceed the limits in Condition 1 following spray-
washing, prior to further treatment. If the rinse water is
evaporated, the evaporated product shall comply with the
requirements in Condition 1. Envirocare shall perform sampling
and analysis of the liquid effluent collection system at a
frequency of one sample per 300 gallons or when the system
reaches capacity, whichever is less.
Envirocare shall track the SNM mass of waste treated using the
CerOx process. When the total concentration of SNM is 85 percent
of the sum of the fraction rule in Condition 1, Envirocare shall
confirm the SNM concentration in the phase reactor tank and
replace the solutions. The 10 percent enriched limit shall be
used for uranium-235. The contents of the phase reactor tank
should be solidified prior to disposal.
When waste is processed using the thermal desorption process and
the Solvent Electron Technology process, Envirocare shall confirm
the SNM concentration following processing and prior to returning
the waste to temporary storage.
6. Envirocare shall require generators to provide the following
information for each waste stream: Pre-Shipment Waste
Description. The description must detail how the waste was
generated, list the physical forms in the waste, and identify
uranium chemical composition.
Waste Characterization Summary. The data must include a general
description of how the waste was characterized (including the
volumetric extent of the waste, and the number, location, type,
and results of any analytical testing), the range of SNM
concentrations, and the analytical results with error values used
to develop the concentration ranges.
Uniformity Description. A description of the process by which the
waste was generated showing that the spatial distribution of SNM
must be uniform, or other information supporting spatial
distribution.
Manifest Concentration. The generator must describe the methods
to be used to determine the concentrations on the manifests.
These methods could include direct measurement and the use of
scaling factors.
The generator must describe the uncertainty associated with
sampling and testing used to obtain the manifest concentrations.
Envirocare shall review the above information and, if adequate,
approve in writing this pre-shipment waste characterization and
assurance plan before permitting the shipment of a waste stream.
This will include statements that Envirocare has a written copy
of all the information required above, that the characterization
information is adequate and consistent with the waste
description, and that the information is sufficient to
demonstrate compliance with Conditions 1 through 4. Where
generator process knowledge is used to demonstrate compliance
with Conditions 1, 2, 3, or 4, Envirocare shall review this
information and determine when testing is required to provide
additional information in assuring compliance with the
Conditions. Envirocare shall retain this information as required
by the State of Utah to permit independent review.
At Receipt Envirocare shall require generators of SNM waste to
provide a written certification with each waste manifest that
states that the SNM concentrations reported on the manifest do
not exceed the limits in Condition 1, that the measurement
uncertainty does not exceed the uncertainty value in Condition 1,
and that the waste meets Conditions 2 through 4.
7. Sampling and radiological testing of waste containing SNM must
be performed in accordance with the following: One sample for
each of the first ten shipments of a waste stream; or one sample
for each of the first 100 cubic yards of waste up to 1,000 cubic
yards of a waste stream, and one sample for each additional 500
cubic yards of waste following the first ten shipments or
following the first 1,000 cubic yards of a waste stream. Sampling
and radiological testing of debris waste containing SNM ( that is
exempted from sampling by the State of Utah) can be eliminated if
the SNM concentration is lower than one tenth of the limits in
Condition 1. Envirocare shall verify the percent enrichment by
appropriate analytical methods. The percent enrichment
determination shall be made by taking into account the most
conservative values based on the measurement uncertainties for
the analytical methods chosen.
8. Envirocare shall notify the NRC, Region IV office within 24
hours if any of the above conditions are not met, including if a
batch during a treatment process exceeds the SNM concentrations
of Condition 1. A written notification of the event must be
provided within 7 days.
9. Envirocare shall obtain NRC approval prior to changing any
activities associated with the above conditions.
IV Based on the staff's evaluation, the Commission has
determined, pursuant to 10 CFR 70.17(a), that the exemption of
above activities at the Envirocare disposal facility is
authorized by law, and will not endanger life or property or
[[Page 44127]] the common defense and security and is otherwise
in the public interest. Accordingly, by this Order, the
Commission grants an exemption subject to the stated conditions.
The exemption will become effective after the State of Utah has
incorporated the above conditions into Envirocare's radioactive
materials license. In addition, at that time, the Order
transmitted in December 2003 will no longer be effective.
Pursuant to the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, the Commission
has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the proposed
action and has determined that the granting of this exemption
will have no significant impacts on the quality of the human
environment.
This finding was noticed in the Federal Register on July 18, 2005
(70 FR 41241).
V Documents related to this action, including the application for
amendment and supporting documentation, will be available
electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at .
From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Document
Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and
image files of NRC's public documents. The ADAMS accession
numbers for the documents related to this notice are:
Envirocare's June 8, 2003, request (ML031950334), the NRC staff's
July 2005 Environmental Assessment (ML041200390), and the NRC
staff's June 2005 SER (ML041190003).
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209,
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to .
These documents may also be viewed electronically on the public
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated in Rockville, Maryland this 22nd day of July, 2005.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Margaret V. Federline, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear
Material Safety and Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 05-15123 Filed 7-29-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
61 AU ABC: Communication breakdown muddies Territory nuclear dump debate
(ACST)Monday, 1 August 2005. 00:11 (AEDT)Monday, 1 August 2005.
Discussions between the Territory and Federal governments over
a proposed nuclear waste dump have hit some communication
hurdles.
Chief Minister Clare Martin has said she had not received a
federal Government offer to store the Territory's nuclear waste
at a planned Commonwealth dump, to be built at one of three
remote Territory sites.
CLP senator Nigel Scullion has told the ABC the federal
Government has made its offer in writing.
The Chief Minister said she had not received it and that she has
been seeking an interview with the Prime Minister to tell him
Territorians do not want the dump.
The Prime Minister's office says it has not decided on a meeting
because it has not received an official request.
It says it is checked all correspondence from the Chief Minister
since the middle of July and there has been no request for a
meeting.
*****************************************************************
62 WIBW: Nebraska Pays $146 Million to Settle Waste Compact Suit
The 18-year fight over locating a low-level nuclear waste dump
in Nebraska ends Monday with a phone call.
The state is making a payment of nearly $146 million to settle a
lawsuit with the compact created to find a place to store the
low-level waste.
The compact now includes Kansas, Arkansas, Louisiana and
Oklahoma. It won a federal court ruling against Nebraska after
the state refused to license a waste facility near the
Nebraska-South Dakota line.
The legal wrangling came to an end in 2002, when a federal judge
ruled that former Nebraska Governor Ben Nelson, now a U.S.
senator, waged a politically motivated plot to keep the dump
from being built in Nebraska. The state left the compact in July
2004.
Gray Television Group, Inc.
Copyright © 2002-2005
*****************************************************************
63 Las Vegas RJ: Yucca Mountain facing new delay
Monday, August 01, 2005
License application date pushed back
By ERICA WERNER THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON -- The Energy Department probably will not submit its
license application to build Yucca Mountain until March 2006 at
the earliest, several months later than the most recent target
date, according to an updated project timeline.
The Energy Department plans to update a Nuclear Regulatory
Commission licensing board on the timeline this week. An Energy
Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity so as
not to interfere with the licensing process, disclosed the
timeline.
Under NRC rules, the Energy Department cannot submit its
license application to build the nuclear waste repository until
it publicly releases background documents for the application.
DOE must certify, six months before submitting the license
application, that relevant documents have been disclosed through
Web-based Licensing Support Network, which can be seen by the
public at http://www.lsnnet.gov.
Under the updated timeline, the certification would not happen
until September or later, the official said. That would make
March 2006 the earliest date DOE could submit its license
application.
DOE had hoped to submit the license application in December, and
it certified in June 2004 that it had made the background
documents available as required. That certification was rejected
as inadequate by an NRC board.
After that setback, DOE said it would aim for this December.
That date has slipped as well.
The Energy Department official said no new date has been set.
The official said the department's priority is to ensure that
this time, the certification passes muster.
The official said the Energy Department has completed 85 percent
to 90 percent of the work of entering the millions of relevant
documents into the Licensing Support Network.
Yucca Mountain, planned for 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas,
has been beset by several problems, including an appeals court's
rejection last year of the government's proposed radiation
safety standard for the repository. This spring, internal
e-mails became known suggesting government workers had falsified
data.
Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal
*****************************************************************
64 Las Vegas SUN: Yucca licensing application facing another delay
Today: August 01, 2005 at 11:2:22 PDT
By Suzanne Struglinski
SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- The license application for the Yucca Mountain
nuclear dump may not be filed until March 2006, if not later,
pushing the dump further behind schedule.
The Energy Department today is expected to submit an updated
Yucca Mountain schedule to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. An
Atomic Safety Licensing Board judge ordered the department to
file monthly status reports starting June 1.
Department spokesman Craig Stevens said there is no set
timeline or a specific date as to when the department will
submit the application for the proposed nuclear waste repository
at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. There are a
lot of pre-licensing matters that need to be resolved first, he
said.
"The process is going to drive the schedule now," Stevens said.
"I wouldn't even talk dates at this point."
Stevens said department staff will go over everything
meticulously before turning in the application. Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman has insisted the application and the document
collection be in top shape so the department can try to avoid
additional obstacles and delays down the road, Stevens said.
A department official disclosed the new March 2006 target date
for the license application to the Associated Press on Sunday,
but that estimate is based on when it would finalize its
document collection.
The department aimed to submit the application by December
2004, but legal and financial complications forced it to miss
that deadline.
Submitting the license application by March 2006 could be
difficult as well. Several outstanding issues need to be
resolved before the department could complete the license
application or finalize its document collection with the
commission.
Under commission rules, it cannot docket the project's
application until six months after the department publicly
releases all its background documents that support their
research. The department must finalize its collection through
the Licensing Support Network, a document database that can be
accessed by the public.
The department has been giving thousands of documents to the
commission to put into the database since earlier this year, but
the Atomic Safety Licensing Board is still considering how
specific documents must be labeled and loaded into the network.
Until the board issues its document guidelines, it is unclear
what exactly needs to be put into the database in certain
categories such as employee concern files and those deemed as
confidential under the attorney-client privilege.
Department lawyers said July 20 that the department would
comply with the board's format for the documents. The department
wanted to finalize its documents database by the end of this
month, but under the updated timeline, it would not do so until
September or later.
A September certification would push the license application
submission to at least March, but department lawyers have also
told the board they may go beyond that six-month period before
turning in the application.
In addition to outstanding specifics on the documents, the
Environmental Protection Agency may not issue a new proposed
radiation standard until September.
The EPA needs to set a new standard for the proposed nuclear
waste repository because a federal court threw out the
10,000-year radiation protection standard last year.
EPA spokesman John Millett said he can provide no update on the
standard's progress beyond saying the agency is working in it.
Once the proposed standard is announced, it will be at least
several months before it is finalized. There will be a minimum
of 90 days for a public comment period before a final rule is
issued.
Some Yucca supporters say that depending on what the EPA
proposes, the department could file a license application with
the 10,000-year protection standard as a base and then update it
later as necessary. But Yucca critics, who want to see a
stronger protection standard in place, say the department may
need to go back to square one with its documentation.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
65 GreenLeft: Science minister fails the NT nuclear dump test
www.greenleft.org.au
Jim Green
Federal science minister Brendan Nelson announced on July 15
that the Coalition government intends to dump its nuclear waste
in the Northern Territory, thus breaching assurances given prior
to the 2004 federal election that the radioactive waste would
not be imposed on Territorians.
It wasn't a great day for Nelson. He kept fluffing his lines. He
said that the material to be dumped in the NT is low-level
waste. Wrong. If built, the dump will also take long-lived
intermediate-level waste, including waste arising from
reprocessing spent nuclear fuel from the Lucas Heights nuclear
reactor in Sydney operated by the Australian Nuclear Science and
Technology Organisation (ANSTO).
The waste to be dumped in the NT is orders of magnitude more
radioactive — and more hazardous — than the lower-level waste
the federal government wanted to dump in South Australia before
it abandoned that plan last year.
Nelson said that “there's no high-level waste in Australia”.
Wrong again. Spent nuclear fuel from Lucas Heights meets the
radiological and heat criteria for classification as high-level
waste, but ANSTO and the government persist with the fiction
that spent fuel is not waste. So it's high-level non-waste!
By the time spent nuclear fuel has been reprocessed in Europe
and returned to Australia as reprocessing wastes, the heat has
dropped below the high-level cut-off point of 2 kilowatts per
cubic metre. But the waste is just as dangerous as spent fuel,
as it still contains a toxic soup of uranium fission products
and transuranics such as various plutonium isotopes.
Nelson said that “you've got a lot of uranium in the ground up
there in the Territory, and that's actually more radioactive
than the waste we're talking about”. Wrong. The spent fuel
reprocessing waste — and some other waste to be dumped in the NT
— is far more radioactive and hazardous than uranium.
Predictably, Nelson's announcement was accompanied by misleading
claims about medical isotopes produced at Lucas Heights, but no
mention of the fact that there is very little if any disruption
to isotope supply when the Lucas Heights reactor is closed for
extended periods for maintenance.
Nelson repeatedly claimed that every Australian will undergo a
nuclear medicine procedure at some stage in their life. Wrong.
At one point the minister got so excited he implied that all
Australians undergo a nuclear medicine procedure every day.
Would that we were so lucky.
In fact, many Australians will never undergo a nuclear medicine
procedure. Fewer people would submit to nuclear medicine
procedures if the profit-driven overuse of nuclear medicine,
especially in private clinics, was more widely understood. Fewer
people would submit to nuclear medicine procedures if the
attendant risks were better understood.
If nuclear medicine was the criterion for selecting a dump site,
which it isn't, the NT would be the last choice because it has
fewer nuclear medicine procedures than any other state or
territory, and also the fewest nuclear medicine procedures on a
per capita basis.
According to Nelson, the waste “facility” that the government
plans will be an above-ground store. Nelson explained: “What can
we expect? What is involved in a facility like this? Is it a
building, is it underground, how does it work? Well this will be
above ground.” Wrong. The “information” sheets released by
Nelson stated that lower-level wastes might be dumped
underground or stored above ground, while the higher-level waste
would be stored above ground.
Where would the higher-level wastes be disposed of in the
long-term, a journalist asked. The minister had no idea.
Nelson said that states would have to deal with their own
radioactive waste — the proposed federal dump in the NT would
not accept such waste. Then he said the dump would accept waste
from the states. Then he said the NT could dump its waste in the
federal waste “facility” but the states could not.
Nelson was asked if any of the three sites short-listed by the
federal government — one near Katherine and two near Alice
Springs — had also been short-listed in the 1990s when
scientific and environmental criteria were used to identify
eight potential sites for a lower-level waste dump. “I am not
able to tell you”, Nelson replied.
In fact, none of the three sites currently under consideration
were short-listed in the 1990s. And we don't know if any of the
three sites was short-listed for an above-ground store in a
process initiated by the federal government several years ago,
because the government refuses to release the list.
“This waste represents no threat to human health or life”,
Nelson claimed. Really? If the waste is that innocuous, surely
it could go to any suburban landfill.
Nelson said that “it's often not appreciated that in Australia
each year, there are 30,000 shipments of nuclear waste material
by road across Australia”. Wrong, again.
Nelson complained on July 26 that there had been a number of
“misleading” comments in relation to the nuclear dump plan.
Indeed.
At his July 15 media conference, Nelson said that “preliminary
assessment in terms of environmental impacts, particularly water
tables, is that these three sites do lend themselves to the
storage of this nature”. ABC Science Online was unable to obtain
the “preliminary assessment” from Nelson's Department of
Education, Science and Training (DEST).
The department said it based its assessment on Geoscience
Australia's Hydrogeology of Australia publication, but that
document indicates that the short-listed Fishers Ridge site near
Katherine has extensive, highly productive aquifers.
The short-listing of Fishers Ridge was attacked by Dr Peter
Jolly, a hydrogeologist with the NT environment department, who
told ABC Science Online that a leak from the proposed Fishers
Ridge site has the potential to endanger pristine groundwaters,
and the Katherine and Daly rivers downstream.
Jolly noted that the Fishers Ridge area sometimes gets rainfall
of more than two metres in two months and that water falling on
the area forms many springs on Aboriginal land and flows onto
sites used for ecotourism.
“If there were any leaks from a facility at this site it would
be one of the worst sites in Australia in terms of having an
impact on ecosystems and an impact on an aquifer that is used
for drinking and for other water uses”, Jolly said.
Warren de With, president of the Amateur Fishermen's Association
NT, described the short-listing of Fishers Ridge as “laughable”.
He said the site was probably short listed as a “red herring”
and that the government's real intention was to target one of
the sites near Alice Springs.
[Jim Green is a nuclear campaigner with Friends of the Earth.]
Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW
*****************************************************************
66 North County Times: Pentagon drags feet on base cleanup
North San Diego and Southwest Riverside County News
Opinion: Columns Last modified Sunday, July 31, 2005 9:12 PM PDT
By: Gail Chatfield - Commentary
For more than 50 years Camp Pendleton has buffered San Diego and
Orange counties from becoming one continuous, overbuilt
coastline. The 17-mile stretch of ocean to mountain scenery is
appreciated, but, more important, Pendleton must remain a
working base.
With its 125,000 or so acres, I never realized that Camp
Pendleton might feel the urban encroachment assaults from its
neighbors. Urbanization around military bases across the nation
has presented the military with new challenges on how to
maintain combat readiness.
Air-space restrictions, noise regulations, air quality rules and
concerns for endangered species are claimed to be responsible
for limiting training on bases. As housing developments edge
closer to Pendleton, the habitat for endangered and protected
species is depleted and the critters move toward the natural
terrain on the base.
Forming a novel arrangement with conservation groups The Nature
Conservancy and the Trust for Public Land, Pendleton hopes to
create a conservation buffer zone outside the base.
By purchase or transfer of property development rights,
Pendleton would acquire the undeveloped land on its northeast
boundary near Fallbrook and conservationists would be able to
preserve the natural terrain as a migration route and habitat
for indigenous wildlife.
That's good news for animal species, but what about human
species living or working on our nation's military bases?
By the nature of their business, military bases are toxic waste
sites. The extent of the damage is not known until the base is
closed and the installation is decontaminated before being
converted to another use.
Since 1988, there have been 34 military facilities closed, yet
not one has been completely cleaned up. They have been
decontaminating Fort Ord for 14 years.
Costs to clean up the sites could trump any cost savings of base
closures. So far, the Pentagon has spent $8.3 billion and
anticipates spending $3.6 billion more. The Department of
Defense has even suggested delaying Superfund cleanup until the
contamination has spread "outside the fence" of military
installations.
Difficult-to-remove contaminants like cancer-causing
trichloroethylene, asbestos-tainted soil, perchlorate in jet
fuel, lead paint, radioactive materials and a contaminated water
table remain after the military leaves. These same pollutants
were present when the base was open.
The military must be able to perform its duties, but one would
hope the Pentagon would have the strictest possible EPA
standards to protect the military personnel who live and work
around these contaminants on a daily basis. An investigation by
USA Today found that since 2001, EPA inspections of military
bases have dropped 26 percent; fines and enforcement actions
against the military are down 25 percent; and the Pentagon
budget for pollution cleanup is down 20 percent. This may be due
to the exemptions and immunity from environmental regulations
granted to the military.
Marines shouldn't need to restrict training because of a Pacific
pocket mouse, but our military's health is a part of the
environment we also need to protect.
Gail Chatfield lives in Carmel Valley.
© 1997-2005 North
County Times - Lee Enterprises editor@nctimes.com
*****************************************************************
67 Forbes.com: Hanford's Sludge Becomes Glass -
Nuclear Energy
Christopher Helman, 08.01.05, 3:12 PM ET
Barring further delays, the Department of Energy and Bechtel
National should complete construction on their $7 billion-plus
nuclear waste plant in Hanford sometime in the next decade. Then
the DOE can finally begin the 20-year process of turning 53
million gallons of ultra-radioactive sludge into steel-encased
blocks of glass (see: "Waste Mismanagement").
The most deadly components of the waste, including radioactive
isotopes of strontium, cesium and technetium, were formed as
by-products of nuclear fission in Hanford's nine uranium-fueled
reactors. The purpose of the reactions was to produce plutonium
for nuclear warheads.
To separate the valuable plutonium from other by-products, the
slugs of spent uranium fuel were dissolved in nitric acid and
chemically filtered. Once the plutonium was removed the rest was
dumped in the 177 sludge tanks. These tanks now contain 200
million curies of radiation and constitute roughly half of the
nation's highest-level nuclear waste.
When the plant begins operating, the sludge will flow through a
mile of double-walled, concrete-shielded pipelines from its
underground tanks to the pretreatment building. To ease the
flow, operators will ultimately add 100 million gallons of water
to the material.
Pretreatment will be the largest structure in the complex—12
stories tall and 500,000 square feet with a reinforced concrete
pad 10 feet thick. There, the first stop for all that muck is
the "black cell" area, where 275-ton stainless steel vessels
surrounded by steel-reinforced concrete walls 6 feet thick
receive the waste. This area has some of the most robust
engineering of the entire complex. Once the plant is
operational, the black cells will become so highly radioactive
that no person will ever be allowed to set foot there.
Overall, the building will boast 51 major stainless steel
vessels with liquid capacity of 4 million gallons. Waste will
move from vessel to vessel, with filters and chemical
precipitation processes used to separate high-level solid waste
from lower-level liquid waste. The process will have to be
continually adjusted: No two sludge tanks contain the same toxic
stew.
Then it's time to make glass. The two waste streams will flow to
either the high-level waste building or to the low-activity
waste building. In either case, the waste is pumped into a
holding vat where glass ingredients such as silica, zinc oxide
and aluminum silicate are mixed in. The resulting slurries are
then injected into melters designed with technology from Duratek
(nasdaq: DRTK - news - people ), a $300 million sales public
company, which specializes in radioactive waste management.
Duratek has built a half-dozen melters across the country,
including one currently vitrifying millions of gallons of waste
at the Savannah River site in South Carolina.
The size of a two-car garage, the melters receive the slurry and
zap it with 600 kilowatt current of electricity from
nickel-based alloy electrodes, heating it to 2,000 degrees
Fahrenheit. Mixed up with hot-air bubblers, the brew is poured
into stainless steel canisters—1,500 a year. The high-level
waste canisters are 2 feet in diameter and 14.5 feet long; once
filled, they will weigh 4 tons. Ultimately, the Department of
Energy expects to produce 10,000 high-level waste canisters and
thousands more low-level ones. The low-level canisters will be
buried in the desert at Hanford, where their radioactivity will
decay to safe levels in several hundred years. The high-level
canisters will go to a geologic depository, such as Yucca
Mountain, if it ever opens. For thousands of years, they will
remain radioactive enough to kill a person on contact.
On the strength of its designs for the feds, Duratek has
tentatively won a contract with Russia for a melter to treat
plutonium-laced sludge. It's also in the running for a $60
million melter in China and another in Israel, all to treat
plutonium waste. But none will be as big as Hanford. Says
Duratek's chief melter engineer Mark Clements, "If we win the
Chinese contract we'll have that melter built, operating and
even decommissioned before Hanford's vitrification gets under
way." No doubt.
Forbes.com
*****************************************************************
68 KVBC: Another Setback For The Yucca Mountain Project
August 2, 2005
There's been another delay for the Yucca Mountain project. The
Energy Department says it won't submit its license application
to operate Yucca Mountain until March 2006.
That's several months later than the most recent target date.
The Department of Energy plans to notify the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission on the new timeline this week.
Under the Commission's rules, the Energy Department cannot
submit an application for six months after it publicly releases
background documents on the project. Those in charge say that
might not happen until September or later.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2005 WorldNow and KVBC. All
Rights Reserved.
For more information on this site, please read our Privacy
Policy and Terms of Service.
*****************************************************************
69 News & Star: Cars monitored in N-plant security blitz
Published on 01/08/2005
['Sellafield: Security stepped up again
By Andrea Thompson
THE British Nuclear Group is to spend millions of pounds logging
the registration numbers of all vehicles entering the Sellafield
site as part of new security moves to combat terrorism.
Automatic Vehicle Number Plate Recognition Systems will be
installed at all the main entrances to the West Cumbrian nuclear
plant, which has been on amber alert since the London bombings.
Special nuclear material detection systems to test vehicles and
pedestrians are also being fitted.
British Nuclear group says the measures, which will cost
millions of pounds, are part of enhanced security arrangements
being installed across Sellafield and comply with the Office of
Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) requirements.
A spokeswoman said the new security systems are not intended to
impact greatly on the time required for employees to enter and
leave the site.
Today the site was stepped down from amber alert to black
special.
A working group is being set up to review current arrangements
and future options for site access and car parking arrangements
for Sellafield.
Currently workers are being encouraged to car share, with all
single-occupancy vehicles having to park off site at Yottenfews.
*****************************************************************
70 Rocky Mountain News: Demolition of last building at Rocky Flats progresses
By Rocky Mountain News
August 1, 2005
Building 371 was built like a fortress, with four-foot-thick
walls of concrete and steel to protect the plutonium and other
hazardous materials inside.
On Monday, giant excavators fitted with pincers at the ends of
their mechanical necks were tearing into the last building at
Rocky Flats, bringing it down one dusty bite at a time. In
October, when building 371 is gone, the place where America
manufactured its nuclear arsenal will be prarie again. Graders
are leveling the sites of the other Rocky Flats buildings stood.
Some have already been seeded with prairie grass.
Rubble from the buildings is being loaded onto rail cars for
shipment to a hazardous waste dump in Utah.
2005 © Rocky Mountain News
*****************************************************************
71 Platts: DOE may offer Savannah River weapons site for new nuclear plant
+ The US Dept of Energy has authorized its Savannah River, South
Carolina, operations office to begin land lease discussions with
nuclear utilities interested in building a commercial nuclear
power plant at the site, an Energy Dept spokesman said Friday.
Agency officials would not elaborate on the authorization and
guidance issued by the department, but a group from NuStart
Energy Development is to meet with state and local officials at
the site on Tuesday. Savannah River is one of six sites the
consortium is considering to test the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission's new process for licensing the construction and
operation of a next generation power plant.
NuStart signed an agreement in May with the Energy Dept under its
Nuclear Power 2010 program, and is to receive $260-mil in federal
funding for the combination operating license process. South
Carolina has not completed the package of benefits it will offer
NuStart for selecting the Savannah River site. For more similar
news take a trial to Platts Nucleonics Week at
http://nucleonicsweek.platts.com.
Birmingham, Ala (Platts)--29Jul2005
Copyright © 2005 - Platts, All Rights Reserved
[The McGraw-Hill Companies]
*****************************************************************
72 lamonitor.com: Countermeasure systems clarified
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
CAROL A. CLARK, , Monitor Staff Writer
Physicist Laurie Waters delivered an illuminating lecture on
systems architecture for radiation and nuclear countermeasures
to students as part of LANL's Center for Homeland Security
summer seminar series Wednesday morning.
Waters works in D-5, the Nuclear Design &Risk Analysis Decision
Applications Division.
She recently returned from a nine-month assignment in
Washington, D.C., at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
where she served as deputy director of the Radiological &Nuclear
Countermeasures Portfolio in the Plans, Programs &Budget office
of the DHS Science &Technology Directorate.
The seminar series is geared toward students interested in
pursuing basic science and technology innovations applicable to
the DHS mission.
The roomful of mostly undergraduate scholars and graduate school
fellows from around the country listened intently as Waters
described how various elements fit together in the world of
systems architecture for RAD/NUC countermeasures.
"Systems Architecture is the documented, significant design
decisions which, taken together, describe the structure and
behavior of a proposed or implemented system," Waters said. "The
documented elements include components which make up the system
and the interfaces between these components, system usage,
functionality, performance, resilience, and constraints and
trade-offs."
She explained that components include hardware, software,
physical infrastructure and intelligence.
Interfaces include the communications or reachback capability.
Usage consists of the conduct of operations or CONOPS.
Functionality is meeting requirements, performance is the
measurement against the requirements, resilience is the response
to unanticipated challenges, constraints are the budgets, space,
legal, trained personnel, etc., and tradeoffs, meaning what are
the different ways to handle risk?
Waters spoke of the process of layering - the practice of
layering defenses to provide added protection.
"Defense in depth increases security by raising the cost of an
attack," she said.
"This system provides multiple barriers for the attacker to
penetrate to reach the objective - the deeper an attacker tries
to go, the harder it gets.
"These multiple layers prevent direct attacks against important
systems and avert easy reconnaissance of your networks."
In addition, Waters said a defense-in-depth strategy provides
natural areas for the implementation of intrusion-detection
technologies.
"Ideally, the defense-in-depth measures you implement should buy
you time to detect and respond to a breach, thus reducing its
impact," she said.
Waters also addressed layered architecture as it relates to
first line - MCP, second line of defense/megaports, in transit
as in water, air and ground, points of entry, interior (CONUS)
and targets.
Waters said the Port of Los Angeles encompasses some 7,500
acres, with 43 miles of waterfront, 26 cargo terminals (eight
major container terminals) and four dockside intermodal rail
yards.
The port moved some 150 million metric tons of cargo in 2004.
The Port of Long Beach comprised some 65.3 million metric tons
in 2003.
Leading imports by tonnage include petroleum, furniture,
machinery, electric machinery, cement, steel products, plastics,
vehicles, toys, and chemicals.
Leading imports by value include machinery, electric machinery,
vehicles, clothing, toys, furniture, shoes, petroleum, plastics,
and medical equipment.
Waters recounted remarks of Secretary Michael Chertoff, U.S.
Department of Homeland Security at the George Washington
University Homeland Security Policy Institute on March 16.
Chertoff said he believes the most effective way to apply this
risk-based approach is by using the trio of threat,
vulnerability and consequence as a general model for assessing
risk and deciding on the protective measures we undertake.
Waters injected a note of caution, saying the media and public
often focus principally on threats.
"Threats are important, but they should not be automatic
instigators of action," Waters said. "A terrorist attack on the
two-lane bridge down the street from my house is bad but has a
relatively low consequence compared to an attack on the Golden
Gate Bridge. At the other end of the spectrum, even a remote
threat to detonate a nuclear bomb is a high-level priority
because of the catastrophic effect."
Waters said each threat must be weighed along with consequence
and vulnerabilities.
"Our strategy is, in essence, to manage risk in terms of these
three variables - threat, vulnerability, consequence," she said.
"We seek to prioritize according to these variables, to fashion
a series of preventive and protective steps that increase
security at multiple levels."
Waters presented students with an overview of the DHS
organizational structure, followed by the description of a new
national office.
The organization will have dedicated responsibilities to develop
the global nuclear detection architecture, and acquire, and
support the deployment of the domestic detection system to
detect and report attempts to import or transport a nuclear
device or fissile or radiological material intended for illicit
use.
PhD in physics at the State University of New York at Stony
Brook.
She joined LANL as a post-doc in group P-17 at LANSCE in 1991.
She is the current chair of the American Nuclear Society
Accelerator Applications Division and an author on over 80
scientific publications and presentations.
Lecture 10 in the summer seminar series on homeland security
will feature terrorist expert Ed MacKerrow and his presentation
on terrorist motivation and intent.
For information, call 665-8031.
© 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
73 lamonitor.com: Bombs ended war, while debate continues today
The Online News Source for Los Alamos
CAROL A. CLARK, lanews@lamonitor.com, Monitor Staff Writer
EDITOR'S NOTE: This is the third of a four-part series
illustrating personal accounts of the atom bomb era as the 60
year anniversary approaches.
On Aug. 6, 1945, Little Boy destroyed the center of Hiroshima.
And on Aug. 9, 1945, Fat Man exploded over Nagasaki.
These events, which killed hundreds of thousands, brought about
an end to World War II.
But many believe a much larger number of Japanese - and
Americans - would have perished had the atomic bombs not been
dropped.
Hans Bethe, director of theoretical physics for the Manhattan
Project, said the Japanese would have had far greater losses
because the conventional fire bombing would have continued.
And it was Los Alamos scientists that produced the atomic bomb
first, which ultimately ended the most destructive war in
history.
"The development of nuclear weapons was inevitable," Scientist
Louis Rosen said in a recent interview. "The fact that it was
the United States that developed the technology and not Hitler,
Stalin or Saddam Hussein has to be one the most fortunate
incidents in all of humanity."
Rosen joined the laboratory in 1944, as a member of the
Manhattan Engineering District's Project Y.
His wartime work in neutron cross-section measurements and
nuclear test diagnostics proved immensely valuable to the
mission and beyond.
Rosen has spent the last six decades working to advance science,
mentor new comers and forge global bonds.
"Nuclear weapons have a dark side and we must develop
international cooperation, collaboration and controls never
before attempted," Rosen said. "That's part of the bright side;
to force the world to work together, if there is one - that's
the silver lining."
Rosen received the 2002 Los Alamos National Laboratory Medal,
the highest award the lab can bestow upon an individual.
President Harry Truman estimated that the atomic bomb saved a
million American lives.
Some disagree, thinking Japan would have surrendered soon and
the use of the bombs was actually to intimidate the Soviet Union.
The discovery of fission in the 1930s had added to the growing
concern about the fate of the world, and to the Manhattan
Project.
Physicists understood the energy released by nuclear fission
could be transformed into an extraordinarily powerful bomb.
American scientists and political leaders became increasingly
anxious as Hitler's armies entered the Rhineland, Austria, and
Czechoslovakia - dreading the possibility of German scientists
building an atomic bomb.
President John F. Kennedy, in a speech to Los Alamos National
Laboratory personnel in 1962, noted the lab's contribution to
history.
"There is no group of people in this country whose record over
the last 20 years has been more pre-eminent in the service of
their country than all of you here in this small community in
New Mexico," Kennedy said. "We want to express our thanks to
you. It is not merely what was done during the days of the
Second World War, but what has been done since then, not only in
developing weapons of destruction which, by irony of fate, help
maintain the peace and freedom."
© 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:
*****************************************************************