***************************************************************** 12/21/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.296 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 RIA Novosti: Russian plan may boost talks on Iran's nuclear program 2 AFP: EU and Iran restart nuclear talks and agree to more 3 AFP: Diplomats pessimistic ahead of Iran-EU nuclear talks - 4 Guardian Unlimited: EU Diplomats Pessimistic About Iran Talks 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iranians, Europeans Agree to More Talks 6 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] DJ to Pyongyang 7 Korea Herald: [YEAR-END REVIEW]N.K. nuclear standoff, back to square 8 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Lawyer recommends compromise on North 9 Xinhua: Govt draws outline of energy supply system 10 Reuters: North Korea reactor plan may hurt disarmament talks-Seoul 11 AFP: Japan, North Korea to hold new talks despite nuclear impasse - 12 PRAVDA.Ru: Russia strengthens nuclear shield with up-to-date Bulava 13 Bellona: Duma set to vote on bill to curb civil society activity Wed NUCLEAR REACTORS 14 Guardian Unlimited: Blair faces organised rebellion on nuclear issue 15 US: JS Online: Meetings over nuclear plant sale questioned 16 Bellona: Short-circuit failure at Smolensk NPP 17 US: Portsmouth Herald: Nuclear plant touts its safety 18 US: Rockford Register Star: Exelon employee shot at nuclear plant 19 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Radioactive water found in new Indian Point test w 20 US: NEI Nuclear Notes: Checking the Data With Peter Asmus 21 US: NRC: Peter G. Crane; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking 22 US: AlterNet: Loving Nuclear Power 23 US: AlterNet: Nuclear Comes Back To the Party 24 AU ABC: Melbourne scientists argue the case for nuclear energy 25 US: WHO TV: Consumer advocates want second look at nuclear power pla NUCLEAR SECURITY 26 US: WCNC.com: Investigators look at what would happen during a nucle NUCLEAR SAFETY 27 US: DU Scandal at Veterans Administration 28 US: [du-list][downwinders] F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New 29 US: Deseret News: Ohio, Utah vie for plant 30 US: DOD: Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction 31 US: Matheson PR: Matheson Lauds Passage of Defense Authorization Bil 32 US: toledoblade.com: Brush Wellman weighs Elmore for $60 million ber 33 US: SFBV: Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bulle 34 US: SFBV: Heads roll at Veterans Administration NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 35 US: [NukeNet] U 235 Waste 36 US: [NukeNet] Reprocessing waste, a must read from Bob Alvarez, 37 US: NRC: NRC Staff Proposes $96,000 Civil Penalty Against PG for Spe 38 US: Bradenton Herald: Lockheed set to start cleaning Tallevast conta 39 US: AP Wire: PG&E to pay $96,000 fine nuclear power plant violations 40 US: Deseret News: Washington County law bans nuclear waste 41 Platts: Kazakhstan will store spent fuel from BN-350 in 2007 or 2008 42 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear waste storage: Four companies hold a 43 US: AFP: EU seeks to bolster rules on moving nuclear waste 44 US: Deseret News: PFS backer backs off 45 Mos News: Ukraine to Halt Shipments of Spent Nuclear Fuel to Russia PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 46 ContraCostaTimes.com: Decision on lab to come today 47 New Mexican: Los Alamos contract decision expected today 48 Hanford News: Energy Department fines Hanford contractor $206,000 49 Hanford News: Fluor Hanford may face fine from DOE; Safety problems 50 Hanford News: Congress elects not to make further cuts in Hanford pl 51 Hanford News: Vit money not in hurricane package 52 ABQJOURNAL: Univ. of California Retains Contract To Manage LANL 53 SF Chronicle: UC keeps control of Los Alamos 54 SF Chronicle: Los Alamos decision is expected today 55 Inside Bay Area: UC retains contract to manage Los Alamos 56 Bizjournal: UT loses bid for Los Alamos lab - 57 lamonitor.com: UC/Bechtel take the prize 58 lamonitor.com: Reaction to contract announcement positive 59 lamonitor.com: Udall, Richardson: Good decision 60 UPI: Operator of Los Alamos nuke site picked 61 Guardian Unlimited: U. of Calif. Wins Los Alamos Lab Contract 62 Rocky Mountain News: Adams landfill likely to get radioactive waste ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 RIA Novosti: Russian plan may boost talks on Iran's nuclear program - viewpoint 21/ 12/ 2005 MOSCOW, December 21 (RIA Novosti) - Russia's initiative on uranium enrichment on its territory may help break the deadlock in the talks on Iran's nuclear program, the head of the Russian Political Studies Center said Wednesday. Vladimir Orlov said he did not expect any significant results from Iran's talks with the EU troika (Britain, France and Germany) opening in Vienna Wednesday. He said the meeting itself was important given the current cooling of Iran's relations with the world community. He also said Iran's position on Russia's proposal to create a bilateral joint venture to enrich uranium in Russia was critical and that the initiative was backed by the United States, the EU troika, the IAEA and other countries. "The initiative does not fully comply with the interests of the Iranian side," Orlov said. "Iran should understand that the patience of the international community and key players negotiating over its nuclear program is being exhausted," he said. "The number of compromise proposals cannot be endless. Therefore, in this situation, Russia may expect Iran to be serious about its proposal." "The leadership of this country [Iran] should not think that the international community is ready to continuously postpone the resolution of this problem," Orlov said. "The Russian initiative is beneficial to Iran as it does not infringe on its national interests and does not hamper technological progress in the country." The talks between Iran and the EU troika recessed in August when Tehran resumed uranium enrichment activities. In September, the International Atomic Energy Agency adopted a resolution on preparations for handing the Iranian nuclear file over to the UN Security Council with the possibility of international sanctions being levied against the country. The IAEA Board of Governors did not adopt a resolution on Iran in November despite the tough position of some EU member states. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 2 AFP: EU and Iran restart nuclear talks and agree to more 21/12/2005 23h05 Javad Vaidi(L), head of the Iranian delegation, arrives at the French embassy in Vienna ©AFP - Dieter Nagl VIENNA (AFP) - The European Union and Iran restarted talks over Western concerns that Tehran seeks nuclear weapons and agreed to meet again in January but acknowledged that wide differences remained. With Iran insisting on its right to make nuclear fuel, and the West fearful that this could be used to manufacture atom bombs, the two sides are far apart, EU and Iranian officials said after five hours of talks geared towards resuming formal negotiations that broke off in August. The EU had in those negotiations offered trade and security incentives for Iran to abandon uranium enrichment. Enrichment makes fuel for power reactors but also the raw material for atom bombs. French foreign ministry political director Stanislas de Laboulaye told AFP that the Iranian and EU positions enunciated Wednesday in Vienna "are not the same. We repeated our positions and the Iranians repeated theirs." An EU diplomat said negotiators from Britain, France and Germany, the so-called EU-3, warned the Iranians not to take any steps "between now and January" which are considered enrichment work, even if they fall short of actual enrichment. Iran is reported to be considering taking such steps. There should be no movement "in the manufacturing of centrifuge components and research on centrifuges," the machines that enrich uranium, the diplomat said. Wednesday's meeting came at a time of growing tension. Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has raised an international outcry through a series of statements against Israel, notably his remark in October that the Jewish state should be wiped off the map. The EU-3 are threatening to take Iran before the UN Security Council for possible sanctions but the new effort towards dialogue was greeted by one European diplomat as a sign that "at least it looks like the Iranians want negotiations." Iran's Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki ©AFP - Henghameh Fahimi "Both sides agreed to consult their respective leaderships with the view of holding another round of talks in January with the aim of agreeing on a framework for (formal) negotiations," De Laboulaye told reporters. While the White House backed the EU-3's joint diplomatic efforts, one State Department official in Washington voiced exasperation about interrupting talks until January. "Remember, the objective of this diplomatic exercise is not 'talk to talk,' it is negotiations to achieve an end. On that, everybody is unified," the official said, asking not to be named. He said the Iranians "are going to have to overcome the presumption that they are not interested in negotiations. ... They have not give any indication to date that they are interested in resuming the talks in a serious manner." An Iranian technician stands as camera insalled by the IAEA is seen at the Isfahan plant ©AFP/File - Behrouz Mehri The United States charges that Iran is hiding the development of nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian atomic program that Tehran says is peaceful. In Vienna, Iranian negotiator Javad Vaidi said the new talks would also be in the Austrian capital. He said he hoped the two sides would have "more opportunity" to move towards agreement. Wednesday's talks were the first contact between the EU and Iran since August, when Iran resumed uranium conversion, thus torpedoing the EU-Iran negotiations. Conversion is the first step in making enriched uranium. Tehran claims it has the right to enrich under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, even if it is currently suspending enrichment as a confidence-building measure. Iran insists on the right to enrich uranium on its own soil, Iran's Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki said in Tehran, apparently rejecting a Russian proposal that Iran to do some fuel work at home while enriching uranium only on Russian territory to keep this strategic activity out of Iran. An EU diplomat said the divide between the West and Iran was so great that it "was unclear how there could be a compromise." Two Iranians work at the zirconium production plant at Isfanhan ©AFP/File - Henghameh Fahimi De Laboulaye said the talks were "open and frank." A diplomat said this meant the discussion was "heated." "The Iranians said they wanted to pursue their nuclear program. The Europeans said they could do this in Russia but then the Iranians said foreign countries could do joint ventures in Iran in order to make sure that Iranian enrichment was not dangerous," the diplomat said. "The real diplomatic work at the moment is trying to bring the Russians on board so we can take this to the Security Council," another EU-3 diplomat said. But Russia, which has a veto on the Council, is building Iran's first nuclear reactor and says there is no sign Iran seeks atomic weapons. + Àðàáñêèé Copyright Disclaimer ©AFP 2005 ***************************************************************** 3 AFP: Diplomats pessimistic ahead of Iran-EU nuclear talks - Wed Dec 21, 5:55 AM ET VIENNA (AFP) - Iran" /> Iranand the European Union" /> European Unionhave begun a key meeting in Vienna, with diplomats warning hopes are slim for getting Tehran to abandon making the nuclear fuel the West says could be used to manufacture atomic bombs. The talks between foreign ministry officials from Britain, France and Germany and Iranian National Security Council official Javad Vaidi are the first contact between the two sides since talks broke off in August, when Iran resumed uranium conversion. Conversion is the first step in making enriched uranium that can both be nuclear reactor fuel or the explosive core of nuclear weapons. All four delegations entered the French embassy on the baroque Schwarzenbergplatz in the Austrian capital at about 10:30am (0930GMT). Tehran made clear Wednesday that it would not stop the process of urnaium conversion. "From Iran's point of view the subject of the talks is to remove the suspension of the uranium processing facilities and this must happen within a clear timetable," Hossein Entezami, spokesman for Iran's Supreme National Security Council, told Iranian state radio. Iran will insist on the right to enrich uranium on its own soil during the talks, iran's Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki said in Tehran. "It is normal when we talk about enrichment for manufacturing nuclear fuel, it means having enrichment and the nuclear fuel cycle on our own territory," Mottaki told reporters. The tough stance comes at a time when Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has raised an international outcry through a series of statements against Israel" /> Israel, notably his remark in October that the Jewish state should be wiped off the map. "It won't be easy," a diplomat from one of the so-called EU-3 states told AFP, saying the chances of getting Iran to guarantee it will not make nuclear weapons by agreeing to give up enrichment were "not very bright". The diplomat noted that the two sides have not actually sat down together since April and that the Iranian government has changed since then. "There is a complete new set of people on the Iranian side, so it's going to be interesting, and a little bit unpredictable," the diplomat said. An Iranian diplomat said the talks were "just preliminary, setting the platform for the next round." "It is a good opportunity for the two sides to get to know each other, establish a working relationship and set the framework for future cooperation," the Iranian said. The EU-3 diplomat said the Europeans are ready to be "realistic and distinguish between what is desirable and what is possible," namely accepting some fuel cycle work but drawing the line at enrichment. The meeting was scheduled to be "talks about talks", hopefully setting the stage for a resumption of formal EU-Iran negotiations on guaranteeing Tehran will not make nuclear weapons. A breakdown at this stage, however, would likely spark a push by the Europeans and the United States, which backs the EU-3 initiative but is not attending the negotiations, to send the issue to the UN Security Council for possible sanctions against Iran. Iran has vowed it will not back down from what it describes as its right under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to carry out enrichment as part of a peaceful drive to generate electricity. Washington charges this civilian effort is a cover for developing atomic weapons. The West argues that Iran cannot be trusted to carry out enrichment since this process gives nations a "break-out capacity" to make nuclear weapons. Iran wants to at least be allowed to do research on centrifuges that carry out enrichment. The Europeans, however, want to push a Russian proposal for Iran to do some fuel cycle at home while enriching uranium only on Russian soil -- thus keeping the most sensitive nuclear work out of the country. Iran has already rejected this proposal. "The real diplomatic work at the moment is trying to bring the Russians on board so we can take this to the Security Council," an EU-3 diplomat said. Russia, which has a veto on the Council, is building Iran's first nuclear power reactor and says there is no sign Iran seeks atomic weapons. It is almost certain to resist this pressure. Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 4 Guardian Unlimited: EU Diplomats Pessimistic About Iran Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday December 21, 2005 1:01 PM AP Photo VIE111 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iranian and European negotiators on Wednesday focused on ways to revive dialogue on Tehran's nuclear program, but European diplomats said the meeting was unlikely to deter Tehran from plans to enrich uranium, even at the risk of referral to the U.N. Security Council. Wednesday's talks are high level. Britain, France and Germany were represented by officials who report directly to their foreign ministers, and Iran sent Javad Vaidi, who handles international affairs for the Supreme National Security Council. The two sides have not sat down formally at the same table since August, when Iran's decision to resume uranium conversion, a precursor of enrichment, torpedoed further meetings. As the talks broke for lunch, Mohammad Mehdi Akhonzadeh, Iran's permanent representative to the International Atomic Energy Agency and a part of his country's negotiating team, said the morning session served as ``a good opportunity to know each other's point of view better.'' ``It is too early to talk about results,'' he said. European diplomats accredited to the IAEA, which is monitoring Iran's nuclear activities, were pessimistic that the meeting would persuade the Iranians to compromise on their enrichment plans. On Tuesday, some of them described the upcoming session as ``non-talks'' about a ``non-offer.'' The choice of words not only reflected low expectations about the outcome of the meeting, but indicated that its status and focus were unclear. The diplomats, who insisted on anonymity in exchange for discussing details of the closed-door session, said the meeting was meant to do no more than establish whether there was a point to trying to meet again with the Iranians on enrichment - a process that can create either nuclear energy or the fissile core of warheads. European negotiators were seeking a positive Iranian reaction to a proposal that would move Tehran's planned enrichment program to Russia - a plan meant to eliminate the threat that the enriched uranium would be used to make nuclear arms. But Iranian officials have already rejected the plan, even though it has yet to be formally presented. Since the proposal was leaked more than a month ago, the Iranians have repeatedly insisted that they will not allow enrichment to be moved abroad. Indicating the limited scope of Wednesday's talks, the diplomats said they were set for one day only, although future and formal negotiating sessions were possible if enough common ground is found. Before the meeting, Iranian officials spoke of new initiatives they were bringing to the talks. But the diplomats said they were unaware of details. One of them suggested they could be offers previously rejected by the Europeans to keep enrichment in Iran but open it up to foreign investment and thereby indirect international control. Iranian officials also have cautioned against placing high expectations on the meeting. On Monday, Iran's top nuclear negotiator, Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Organization of Iran, said he hoped for a positive outcome but ``the results cannot be predicted.'' A European official suggested the EU was ready to show flexibility - perhaps even to the point of considering the previous Iranian proposal of keeping enrichment in Iran but allowing some degree of foreign control by forming joint ventures to run the program. But the official said that could only happen at a later stage, if the Europeans were convinced it made sense to resume formal talks because the Iranians were serious about reaching a negotiated compromise. Iran's enrichment ambitions are being viewed with suspicion because the country hid them from the world for nearly two decades before its secret nuclear program was revealed nearly three years ago. Since then, an IAEA probe has unearthed experiments, blueprints or equipment that either have ``dual-use'' applications or seem to have no nonmilitary function. That has further added to concerns, even though no firm evidence of a weapons program has been found. The growing suspicions have boosted international support for U.S. efforts to have Iran referred to the U.N. Security Council. Recent anti-Jewish comments by Iran's president have contributed to the country's isolation. But with Russia and China - two nations that wield Security Council vetoes - opposed, the West has stopped short of forcing a decision on the issue at past meetings of the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors. A diplomat said that for now, the Europeans were going into Wednesday's talks with the stance that any resumption of Iran's nascent enrichment program would be the ``red line'' that could provoke a renewed push for Security Council referral. Iran maintains its program is intended for producing power and not making atomic bombs, despite U.S. claims to the contrary. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Iranians, Europeans Agree to More Talks From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday December 21, 2005 8:31 PM AP Photo VIE119 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iranian and European negotiators tentatively agreed Wednesday to meet next month, signaling a possible new start to negotiations to restrain the Tehran regime's nuclear program and reduce fears it is trying to make atomic bombs Still, diplomats familiar with the closed-door meeting conceded no progress was made on the main issue - Iran's insistence on its right to enrich uranium, which is a process that has peaceful uses but also can produce the fissile core of nuclear warheads. Iran insists its program has the sole aim of making fuel for atomic reactors that would generate electricity and denies U.S. charges that it is trying to develop nuclear weapons. The European Union wants Tehran to move its enrichment program abroad, perhaps to Russia. That, in theory, would reduce the possibility that the technology would be used to make weapons-grade uranium. ``We repeated our positions and the Iranians repeated theirs,'' said Stanislas de Laboulaye, the senior negotiator for France, representing the European Union at the negotiations along with Britain and Germany. Despite the continued divide, the session signaled a return to dialogue after four months of growing nuclear tensions exacerbated by anti-Israel comments from Iran's president, EU criticism of Tehran's human rights record and Western allegations of Iranian support for terrorists. European negotiators said both sides would consult with their governments on the details of resuming the dialogue. The Europeans broke off previous talks in August after Iran ended a freeze on uranium conversion, a precursor to enrichment. ``Both sides set out their positions in an open and frank manner ... (and) agreed to consult with their respective leaderships with a view of holding another round of talks in January,'' Laboulaye said. He said those talks would be aimed at ``agreeing on the framework of (further) negotiations.'' Javad Vaidi, the senior Iranian negotiator who handles international affairs for the Supreme National Security Council, described Wednesday's session as giving both parties ``the opportunity to see the other side's point of view.'' An EU diplomat who like others spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the meeting were confidential said the discussions could be termed successful because ``they represent a return to dialogue.'' Another EU diplomat said the decision to meet again was achieved only because both sides avoided discussion of their differences on enrichment beyond mentioning their diverging positions. That raised the possibility that any negotiations in the new year might quickly founder, unless the sides showed a willingness to compromise. A European official suggested the EU was ready to show flexibility - perhaps even to the point of considering a previous Iranian proposal of keeping the enrichment process in Iran but allowing some degree of foreign control by forming joint ventures to run the program. But the official said that could only happen at a later stage, if the Europeans were convinced the Iranians were serious about reaching a negotiated compromise. Iran's enrichment ambitions are viewed with suspicion because the country hid them from U.N. inspectors for nearly two decades before its secret nuclear activities were revealed nearly three years ago. Since then, a probe by the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the Vienna-based International Atomic Energy Agency, has unearthed Iranian experiments, blueprints or equipment that either have ``dual-use'' applications or seem to have no nonmilitary function. That has further added to concerns, even though no firm evidence of a weapons program has been found. The growing suspicions have boosted international support for U.S. efforts to have Iran referred to the U.N. Security Council for consideration of sanctions. Recent comments by Iran's president - including calling the Holocaust a ``myth'' - have contributed to the country's isolation. But Russia and China - two of the five nations that wield vetoes on the Security Council - have opposed referral, so the West has stopped short of forcing a decision on the issue at past meetings of the IAEA's 35-nation board of governors. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 6 Korea Herald: [EDITORIAL] DJ to Pyongyang Former President Kim Dae-jung has indicated that he will visit Pyongyang to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. Any premature illusion and optimism should be left out, but it is an encouraging development because the six-party talks on the North's nuclear weapons programs are at a stalemate and relations between Washington and Pyongyang are becoming tense. "I'm going to Pyongyang," Kim said in an interview published on Tuesday. It is the most convincing remark made by the former president on the possibility of making his second trip to the North Korean capital. He said only his health remains as the deciding factor in his travel plans. In fact, a favorable atmosphere has been in the making for Kim's trip to Pyongyang. North Korean officials visiting Seoul have extended the North Korean leader's invitation several times, the most recently last August. President Roh Moo-hyun also publicly requested Kim to visit Pyongyang early this month, which followed similar suggestions by Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan and Unification Minister Chung Dong-young. Kim, whose historic trip to Pyongyang in 2000 led to a landmark agreement that improved relations with the North, said he hopes to talk with Kim about how the North should deal with the United States, Japan, international criticisms against it, as well as ways to make the six-nation talks a standing mechanism and achieve inter-Korean cooperation and eventual unification. The list of subjects on Kim's agenda well reflects the current state of affairs regarding the North. The six-party talks have been at a standstill since they went into recess in November following a confrontation between Washington-Pyongyang over U.S. financial sanctions and the North and Japan who have yet to make substantial follow-up progress on Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's visits to Pyongyang. The North is facing increasing international pressure over its human rights abuses. Moreover, as seen in the inter-Korean ministerial talks held on Jeju Island last week, the North is still reluctant to work towards making substantial progress in easing military tension. Even Kim may well not believe that he will be able to address all those issues and persuade Kim Jong-il to resolve them all at once. One can recall that past high-level visits to Pyongyang, such as Koizumi's in 2002 and 2004 and by then U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright in 2000, did not lead to any sustainable breakthroughs. Nonetheless, Kim's trip to Pyongyang would be worthwhile because Kim is one of South Korea's leaders who the North thinks it can speak with, which will help form a favorable environment for settling the entangled set of issues. Hopefully, Kim's visit could build ground for a summit between Roh and Kim Jong-il, who has yet to make good on his promise to visit the South for a second inter-Korean summit. 2005.12.22 ***************************************************************** 7 Korea Herald: [YEAR-END REVIEW]N.K. nuclear standoff, back to square one? This is the first in a series of articles reviewing major events that affected the nation this year. - Ed. By Lee Joo-hee With the success of this year's Joint Statement on denuclearization eclipsed by rising hostilities between the United States and North Korea, a turbulent year for the six-party talks is closing with mere flickers of hope for next year. To the disappointment of international watchers, the optimism that hovered over the peninsula in September quickly deteriorated after Washington adopted a harder line against the communist state citing illicit activities and Pyongyang threatened to boost its nuclear deterrent. "This year was definitely a turning point for the nuclear talks, but things do not appear easy for the members to progress to the next step," said Prof. Koh Yu-hwan of Dongguk University. He explained that not only are the North and the United States locking horns, but that coordination between the three allies - South Korea, the United States and Japan - were also faltering. Prospects for the next round of nuclear talks among the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States remain foggy because North Korea is threatening to boycott the provisional opening date sometime in January. The beginning of the year was as shaky as the closing end, with North Korea employing its signature brinkmanship in Feb. 10 by announcing that it possessed nuclear weapons. "But North Korea's betting with its strongest hand failed to spur its negotiations with North Korea, but instead worsened the crisis situation on the Korean peninsula," Koh Yu-hwan explained. Feeling devastated with a worsening economic situation and political isolation, North Korea sought cooperation from South Korea, which welcomed a new session of inter-Korean talks at the drop of the hat in May. Following a surprise meeting between North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and South Korean Unification Minister Chung Dong-young in Pyongyang on June 17, North Korea made it official that it will be returning to the six-party negotiations. This was after 13 months of hiatus and the new round of talks in July brought about positive reviews as it introduced a new form of negotiating style by arranging a bilateral meeting. Charles Pritchard, a research fellow at the America-based Brookings Institution summed-up the atmosphere in his latest report, "The fourth round of talks gave rise to cautious optimism at least from a procedural point of view that the (U.S.) administration had rejected the failed policy approach of the first four years and was committed to giving diplomacy a serious try." The United States, headed by former ambassador to South Korea Christopher Hill, and North Korea held a number of bilateral contacts during the first part of the fourth round of talks - an unprecedented incident and breakthrough after previous negotiations where Washington refused to sit one-on-one at all. Bilateral contacts among member delegates prevailed through the negotiations instead of the normal routine of holding plenary sessions. Based on China's statistics as of Aug. 4, just a couple of days before entering recess, China's bilateral meetings with the United States reached 14, while it held 11 with North Korea, four with South Korea, seven with Japan and six with Russia. North Korea was clearly satisfied with Hill's new approach, who came to Beijing with a new responsibility from Washington to make progress in the nuclear standoff. Within this atmosphere, the six parties managed to sign the Joint Statement of principles, preparing a comprehensive framework for solving North Korea's nuclear issue and seeking peace on the Korean peninsula when they returned for the second round of talks on Sept. 19. This was the first-ever joint statement to come from the negotiations that previously had usually ended with an unremarkable Chairman's statement from the host country, China. South Korea's separate proposal during the inter-Korean talks to provide electricity to replace North Korea's energy needs was also touted to have played a key role in seeing development in the talks. But things quickly deteriorated after North Korea argued that the other members must build a light-water nuclear reactor for it to start dismantling its nuclear programs, immediately after the Joint Statement was released. "It was North Korea's strategic mistake that aggravated the atmosphere after the signing of the Sept. 19 statement," Koh Yu-hwan said. "North Korea should have started to take action towards dismantlement, and the political offensive from the United States driven by domestic pressure did not help either." The situation back in Washington wasn't good either; Hill was reportedly lashed by hardliners for being too flexible with the North. In conjunction with the closure of the Joint Statement, Washington imposed sanctions against a Macau-based bank for allegedly assisting North Korea to circuit counterfeited U.S. dollars. It was the beginning of a crackdown by the United States on finances, coordinated by a fortified campaign against the Stalinist state's human rights issues. Washington accuses Pyongyang of funding its nuclear programs partly through money obtained from counterfeiting, money laundering and drug trafficking. By November, outside factors also started hindering efforts to move the nuclear negotiations forward. Rows over history remain high on South Korea's and Japan's diplomatic agenda over the repeated visits by the latter's Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi to the Yasukuni Shrine which Japan's Asian neighbors see as an insult to the victims of its imperial past. Questions also constantly arise over whether the "closest" alliance between South Korea and the United States remains strong. An example of this was when the newly appointed U.S. Ambassador to Korea Alexander Vershbow openly called the North a "criminal regime," a comment the South Korean government believed would do nothing but to provoke the emotional hermit state. Refusing Washington's offer to brief on financial issues, the North called Vershbow a "hooligan" and claimed the United States' financial sanctions were amounted to a declaration of a war. At present, North Korea continues to up its ante against the United States, and most recently declared that it will fortify its nuclear deterrent by building light-water atomic reactors and develop other reactors that can produce large amounts of fissile material. South Korea and China on their part are determined to maintain the momentum gathered this year by resuming the negotiations at before the end of next month. The communist state also reaffirmed its possession of nuclear arms, which they said are "necessary" and "legitimate" to defend itself from what it called possible preemptive nuclear attacks from the United States. While it remains unclear just how many nuclear weapons the North Korea actually has or is capable of possessing, experts predict that based on North Korea's assertion in May this year that it finished extracting 8,000 spent fuel rods, it may have the capacity to create up to eight nuclear warheads. (angiely@heraldm.com) 2005.12.22 ***************************************************************** 8 INSIDE JoongAng Daily: Lawyer recommends compromise on North December 22, 2005 KST December 22, 2005 ¤Ñ A Korean-American lawyer who is well-informed on U.S.-South Korea affairs said in a recent interview that Seoul and Washington are at a critical juncture to decide their future relations. He said the two are currently experiencing a disconnection on North Korea issues in particular. Kim Suk-han, 56, a partner of the Akin, Gump, Straus, Hauer &Feld law firm in Washington, advises a wide range of major Korean and American firms on their business in both countries. In an interview with the JoongAng Ilbo Tuesday, Mr. Kim said it was necessary to nurture the U.S.-South Korea relations as both countries need each other. He said the United States is in need of South Korea to check China, and South Korea should approach this situation strategically by maintaining close relations with the United States to maximize its national interests. Mr. Kim added that Seoul and Washington have three disagreements on North Korea. While Washington wants to replace the Kim Jong-il regime, South Korea wants to change the attitude of the North Korean regime, he said. "The United States focuses its North Korea policy on the nuclear crisis, while South Korea thinks that inter-Korean economic and cultural issues are also important," he said. He added that South Korea approaches issues on the North from a long-term perspective, while the United States approaches the matter with a short-term view. To resolve the discord, Mr. Kim recommended that Seoul assure Washington of its position as a firm ally. "It is most important that South Korea earns U.S. trust on matters that Washington thinks the most important, such as nuclear non-proliferation," he said. "Secondly, Seoul must find a compromise on North Korea. They should find a mid-point." Mr. Kim proposed creating public support for South Korea in the United States. "By using congress and companies doing business with South Korea, it is possible to influence the U.S. government to support Seoul's position," he said. "The North Korean nuclear issue can be a subject of such lobbying." Mr. Kim was born in Seoul. He currently resides in Washington, D.C. He studied at Guilford College, Columbia University and Georgetown University Law Center. by Choi Sang-yeon myoja@joongang.co.kr> Copyright by Joins.com, Inc. Terms of Use | ***************************************************************** 9 Xinhua: Govt draws outline of energy supply system www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2005-12-21 14:04:52 BEIJING, Dec. 21 (Xinhuanet) -- A stable, economical and clean state energy supply system will be established in China, says a central government document formally released here on Wednesday. The "Decision of the State Council on Implementing the Interim Regulations on Promoting the Adjustment of Industrial Structure," adopted earlier this month by the Chinese cabinet, targets the country's industrial structure adjustment, which is regarded as a "major task" for the government in the coming years. The energy issue assumes importance in the document, which outlines the key areas in the establishment of the state energy supply system. To meet the increasing demand for electricity, the Chinese government will give priority to the development of high-efficiency coal-power, develop hydro-power on an environment-friendly basis, and develop nuclear-power in an active manner. The country will also expand and improve state power grids in the future, and enlarge the scale of electricity transmission from the resource-rich west to the power-thirsty east, according to the State Council document. A group of large-scale coal production bases will be established in China, says the document. Some medium and small-sized coal mines will be upgraded to guarantee safe production, while some small mines with unqualified working conditions will be closed down. The document also calls for a comprehensive utilization of such mining resources as gangue, coal bed gas and mine water, and encourages the joint operation of the coal mining and electricity generating sectors. According to the document, the Chinese government will also increase input in the exploitation of petroleum and natural gas, and expand overseas cooperation in this field in the coming years. Development of new and renewable energies will be encouraged in China. The document says the Chinese government will encourage the exploitation and utilization of new, clean energies to gradually replace petroleum, and accelerate the scaled production of clean coal. Development of other new energies, such as wind power, solar energy and biological energy, will also be encouraged in China, it adds. Enditem Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 10 Reuters: North Korea reactor plan may hurt disarmament talks-Seoul Reuters.com Wed 21 Dec 2005 4:49 AM ET SEOUL, Dec 21 (Reuters) - North Korea's plan to build light-water atomic reactors and develop other reactors capable of producing fissile material could harm a nuclear disarmament deal signed by Pyongyang, South Korea's foreign minister said on Wednesday. "It runs counter to the spirit of the agreement reached on Sept. 19 for North Korea to boost peaceful nuclear activity," Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon told reporters at a briefing. He was referring to a deal reached at six-party talks under which North Korea agreed to scrap its nuclear weapons programmes in exchange for economic aid, security assurances and greater diplomatic recognition. The North announced on Tuesday its intention to build the light-water reactors and threatened to resume work on two graphite-moderated reactors, which could produce large amounts of material for atomic bombs. "North Korea should fulfil necessary measures to stop its nuclear activity and abandon its nuclear weapon programme for denuclearisation, based on the sprit of the agreement," Ban said. In Washington, the U.S. State Department has made clear that any reactor construction would break commitments North Korea made at the talks among the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States. Nuclear experts say North Korea, which operates one small nuclear reactor built with technology from the 1960s and 1970s, lacks the technology or money to build light-water reactors any time soon. The North's comments on the reactors could further complicate an already difficult negotiating process, diplomats said. The next round of the six-party talks is likely to take place in January, according to sources familiar with the discussions. But there is doubt about whether North Korea will participate, partly because of Pyongyang's anger over a U.N. vote to condemn it for human rights abuses and a U.S. crackdown on its finances. North Korea almost scuttled an outline statement agreed in September among the parties by demanding the United States build it a light-water reactor before it even started to consider scrapping its nuclear weapons programmes. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. [ border=] ***************************************************************** 11 AFP: Japan, North Korea to hold new talks despite nuclear impasse - Wed Dec 21, 3:03 AM ET TOKYO (AFP) - Japan said it will hold fresh talks with North Korea" /> North Koreathis weekend in Beijing, despite the communist state's vow to suspend six-nation talks with the United States on ending its nuclear program. The talks Saturday and Sunday will touch on North Korea's military development and its abductions of Japanese nationals, an emotional issue here that has prevented the two countries from normalizing relations. "We are still in an urgent situation," said Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe. "We'll urge Pyongyang to deal with the abduction issue sincerely by returning abductees, unveiling the truth and handing over suspects." "Unless the issue is solved, normalization of the diplomatic relations won't be possible," he told reporters. The meeting comes despite a rise in verbal attacks from North Korea, which last week said that six-party nuclear talks would be suspended indefinitely unless the United States lifts sanctions. The Beijing meeting, to be held between foreign ministry officials, will discuss how to proceed with future negotiations, the Japanese foreign ministry said. In the last negotiations held on November 3-4, Tokyo proposed to Pyongyang holding three separate talks concurrently on the issues of abductions, the North's nuclear and missile development and normalization of diplomatic ties. North Korea in 2002 admitted having kidnapped Japanese citizens to train its spies, mostly in the 1970s. It declared the issue settled after repatriating five kidnap victims along with their families. The North says that other abducted Japanese are dead. Japan has insisted the others -- at least eight of them -- are still alive and being kept under wraps because they know too many secrets. Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 12 PRAVDA.Ru: Russia strengthens nuclear shield with up-to-date Bulava missile systems - 12/21/2005 14:04 The new strategic missile complex Bulava would be added to Russia's military arsenal by the end of 2007 The head part of the Russian up-to-date Bulava ballistic missile was timely delivered to the Kura range ground in the Kamchatka region. A strategic submarine of Russia's Northern Navy successfully launched the from under the sea, Deputy Commander of the Russian Navy, Igor Dygalo said. "Dmitry Donskoy," a strategic nuclear cruiser, launched Russia's up-to-date ballistic missile Bulava successfully. The launch was performed from under the water surface in the White Sea and hit a target on the Kura range ground, Interfax reports. "This is the first underwater launch of the Bulava missile. It is also the second launch of the new missile within the framework of technological tests conducted for the complex. The chairman of the State Committee for technological tests of the Bulava missile complex, Admiral Mikhail Zakharenko, was staying on board the nuclear cruiser during the moment of the launch. The first launch of the new missile was performed on September 27. R-30 Bulava missile was launched from nuclear submarine Dmitry Donskoy to test the battling and technical capacities of the missile complex of the fourth generation. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov stated that the new strategic missile complex Bulava would be added to Russia's military arsenal by the end of 2007. Ivanov said that Russia's nuclear shield required reliable defense under the conditions of market economy. The strategic sea-based ballistic missile Bulava was designed by specialists of the [Bulava missile launch] Moscow Heat Engineering Institute. Bulava completed the first stage of launching tests at sea at the end of 2004. The missile complex will be finished during 2006. Defense Minister Ivanov said that the development of the missile complex Bulava was considered the most perspective direction for the Russian Strategic Missile Troops. Solid-fuel intercontinental ballistic missile Bulava is capable of carrying up to ten nuclear blocks of individual pointing. The sea-based Bulava complex has common features with silo-based Topol-M missile system. Bulava's action radius reaches 8,000 kilometers. The missile was developed for state-of-the-art nuclear submarines. The construction of three up-to-date nuclear cruisers is to be completed in Russia by 2010. The submarines will be outfitted with 12 Bulava missiles. ©1999-2002 "PRAVDA.Ru". When reproducing our materials in ***************************************************************** 13 Bellona: Duma set to vote on bill to curb civil society activity Wednesday US weighs in with heavy criticism The Russian State Duma will likely be convening Wednesday to approve the controversial bill that will severely curb the work of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in Russia during its crucial second reading, despite the international outcry that bill will all but hobble civil society in Russia. Charles Digges, 2005-12-20 20:09 The 450-seat Duma passed the bill on its first reading with flying colors, with a vote of 320-18, with 48 abstentions. Protests attended the first reading of the bill early this month. Five activists were jailed and at least one reporter was thrown to the ground by police surrounding the Duma, making the bill one of the most heated topics in Russian politics. Lawmakers and NGO observers alike have expressed a unified opinion that the NGO bill, which will require all NGOs in Russia to register with the governments, and force both foreign and domestic civil societies to undergo severe audits by the government, will likely pass through the Kremlin-held Duma with little fuss. This second reading, which was to have taken place Friday, was postponed at the behest of the Public Chamber so that the Duma and Russian President Vladimir Putin would have time to suggest amendments to the bill. But whether these amendments would soften the bill or make it more abrasive have become a matter of spin in Kremlin-watching circles. Putin’s proposed amendments Putin’s proposed amendments include dropping the requirement for branches of foreign NGOs to reregister as separately financed Russian entities. However, the amendments proposed by Putin and Duma deputies would leave intact the requirement that Russian and foreign NGOs file reports on their activities and funding with the Justice Ministry. The ministry would not be able to inspect NGOs’ books but could ask tax authorities to do the job, said Sergei Popov, head of the Duma’s Public and Religious Organisations Committee, Interfax reported. The bill would require Russian NGOs to reregister, and the authorities would be able to refuse to register an NGO if its founders included people suspected of money laundering or assisting in terrorism, granting the often capricious Russian government wide berth in who it considers to be worthy NGO founders. Putin, however, suggested that these and other criteria for refusing registration should be made clearer during the amendment process that delayed the second reading. The ostensible purpose behind forcing Russia’s some 450,000 NGOs and civil society organizations to register with the government is to protect Russian national security and to help apportion money—especially foreign donations, or project money spent by foreign NGOs—to areas where the Russian government says it is needed most. Critics of the bill, among them representatives of the US Government, have said that the registration process—which will be arduous and contain investigations into a civil society organizations political leanings, sources of funding, and overall adherence with Russian national policy—will cripple or liquidate the activities of those organizations whose activities are not popular with the Kremlin. The United States, in its first major outcry against Russian domestic policy since 9/11 made clear that it wanted to see the bill thrown out of the Duma or watered down significantly from its current form. US Congressional Representatives passed a non-binding resolution, with a vote of 405-15 last week, prompting some of the bill’s sponsors in the Duma to bristle and Russian NGOs to welcome the support. The House vote came after Putin, faced with a storm of international and domestic criticism over the legislation, proposed amendments that addressed some of the concerns of international NGOs. The US House of Representatives resolution Sponsored by House Representatives Henry Hyde and Tom Lantos, the US resolution urged the Russian government to withdraw or modify the bill because it “would have the effect of severely restricting the establishment, operations and activities of domestic and foreign” NGOs in Russia, “including imposing unprecedented restraints on foreign assistance,” according to the resolution text posted on the House of Representatives web site. Russia’s concerns that “foreign interests and intelligence agencies” could use NGOs to undermine the government and national security could “be addressed by more limited and appropriate measures,” the House resolution said. Putin, while ordering amendments to the NGO bill nonetheless defended it as necessary for preventing foreign funding of political activity in Russia, and for fighting terrorism—a popular beat with which Putin has managed to internationally justify some of his most egregious domestic policies in Chechnya, against the media, and for his war against civil society institutions that criticise his government The US resolution also said that “Russia’s destiny and the interests of her people lie in her assumption of her rightful place as a full and equal member of the Western community of democracies” but “the proposed measures ... are incompatible with membership in that community.” Konstantin Kosachyov, head of the Duma’s International Affairs Committee and one of the bill’s sponsors, said the U.S. resolution constituted interference in Russia’s legislative activity and was politically motivated. It was “another strong confirmation that some foreign NGOs active in Russia were really being used for political purposes and [...] our bill identified the right problem,” he said, Interfax reported Friday. Publisher: , President: Information: , Technical contact: Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 14 Guardian Unlimited: Blair faces organised rebellion on nuclear issue Patrick Wintour, chief political correspondent Thursday December 22, 2005 A group of Labour MPs are organising to prevent Tony Blair pressing ahead with a new generation of nuclear power stations, claiming that ministers will have to subsidise the nuclear industry massively to make it viable. It is the first sign of parliamentary opposition to nuclear power since the prime minister announced an energy review in the autumn, and is backed by the environment minister Elliot Morley. The group, brought together by a former minister, Alan Whitehead, is using the same tactic as the backbench opponents of government plans to establish semi-independent state secondary schools, publishing their own proposals in an effort to steer policy, rather than oppose it outright. Mr Whitehead is one of the authors of the alternative education white paper, which set out the terms on which the rebels would accept Downing Street's reforms. The new 9,000 word manifesto being drafted by the backbenchers will set out the case for continued investment in renewable energy, rather than taking "a dangerous leap with nuclear". It will be published in February, as the government's energy review gets under way with a consultation document in January. Many Labour MPs fear that Mr Blair privately favours renewing investment in nuclear energy as the most secure way of combating climate change, in the face of evidence that global warming is speeding up and that domestic programmes to cut carbon emissions are failing. Ministers believe the economics of nuclear energy are improving as gas and oil prices rise. The manifesto is being drawn up by Labour backbenchers with a background in green politics who have traditionally supported the government's reforms, and who cannot be dismissed as serial rebels. Those involved include two members of the environmental audit select committee, David Chaytor and Colin Challen, who hope to use the committee's imminent report to press the government to spell out the costs of nuclear power to consumers. They will also press for a pledge that no decision on nuclear power will be taken without a vote in parliament. The group claims the indirect support of the environment minister Elliot Morley, who in previously unreported remarks told a seminar organised by the socialist environmentalist group Sera: "I don't think nuclear development is economically viable, and since no one is offering to pay, it would certainly need to have financial support from the government. Is it the right time for that? Should we not be putting this money into renewables and other efficiency measures? I would prefer to see investment in carbon-capture technologies." The manifesto will set out a timescale showing how the contribution to the UK's energy supply of the current nuclear power stations could be run down over the next 20 years while renewables, including micro-generation and wind power, could be built up. A section will also argue that uranium provides no greater long-term security of supply than renewables or gas. Mr Whitehead said yesterday: "If there was a free market in energy, ie no assistance for new nuclear build, no long term promise of a guaranteed market and no minimum price for nuclear, no one would build a new nuclear station. Nuclear is not carbon-free, nor is it renewable. We have been promised by government that there is a debate to be had, and no decisions have been made. But there is a change in attitude in government. Only three years ago a white paper pretty well ruled out nuclear, but it is now centre stage." In a speech this week, the energy minister Malcolm Wicks suggested that the status quo in the energy market was not an option, saying: "By 2020 we may be importing over 80% of our annual gas requirements - last year it was around 10%. We need to ask ourselves now if we are comfortable with this scenario as investment decisions that will shape much of our energy mix for the next two or three decades ahead will be made in the next 10 years or so. Government needs to give the market the clarity it requires to ensure that these investment decisions reflect our goals for reducing carbon emissions and achieving reasonable energy security." [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 15 JS Online: Meetings over nuclear plant sale questioned + + JS Online [*] [*] News Business Sports Entertainment More... Classifieds [*] [*] DayWatch Milwaukee Waukesha Ozaukee Washington Racine Wisconsin US/World Editorials Obituaries Traffic Weather [*] News Business Sports Entertainment More... Classifieds [*] [*] News Investing Personal Finance Technology Careers Also see: Business 411 E-newsletter [*] News Business Sports Entertainment More... Classifieds [*] [*] Packers Brewers Bucks Badgers Marquette UWM Preps Golf Racing Hockey Soccer Outdoors | Also see: Packer Insider [*] News Business Sports Entertainment More... Classifieds [*] [*] Dining Movies Music & Night Life Arts Calendars Books TV & Radio Puzzles & Comics Visitors' Guide [*] News Business Sports Entertainment More... Classifieds [*] [*] Food & Cooking Health Lifestyle Travel Homes Multimedia Special Features Blogs Forums JSO Wireless Web Site Help [*] News Business Sports Entertainment More... Classifieds [*] [*] JSOnline Classifieds : Jobs Wheels Homes Rentals Stuff Also see: Personals AdFinder Tickets Coupons Contests [*] News Business Sports Entertainment More... Classifieds [*] [*] Journal Sentinel Newspaper Service Center Subscribe to the Journal Sentinel | Manage Your Subscription Account "> | Make Us Your Home Page | Subscriptions [*] Business & Your Money Business & Money Investments Technology Personal Finance WorkPlace/
Careers National News Dow Jones Index Nasdaq Composite S&P 500 Index Industry Groups Wisconsin Stocks Portfolio Stock Alerts Symbol Lookup Special Features [Urbanomics: Local Ventures, Global Vision] Rising Fortures China's Big Risks, Big Rewards Special Report: Made in ChinaSign up for Wisconsin Business 411--> Stanley Miller on Technology The Wall Street Journal Sunday - click here AP Business News - click hereSpecial Report: Global Milwaukee--> Need Help? Searching Archives Wireless Access Site Topics Table of Contents Contact Staff Subscriptions RSS NEWS FEEDS
XML / RSS What's this? JSO Wireless ON WISCONSIN : JS ONLINE : BUSINESS & YOUR MONEY : BUSINESS NEWS : E-MAIL | PRINT THIS STORY Meetings over nuclear plant sale questioned PSC defends procedure that has since been stopped By THOMAS CONTENT tcontent@journalsentinel.com Posted: Dec. 20, 2005 Meetings that took place between representatives of utilities seeking to sell the Kewaunee nuclear plant and aides at the state Public Service Commission raise more questions about the process that led to the eventual sale of the plant, a customer group representative says. Advertisement Executives and lawyers for Wisconsin Public Service Corp. of Green Bay met with the top aides to the three commissioners about a month before the commission held a vote on whether to approve the sale of the Kewaunee plant to Dominion Resources Inc. of Richmond, Va., and prior to a WPS fund-raiser for Gov. Jim Doyle, held one night before the commission voted to deny the sale. The agency later reversed course and voted earlier this year to approve the transaction. Kewaunee was sold in July for $191.5 million. Such staff-level meetings - which are no longer allowed - gave the utility an unfair advantage over consumer groups, said Nino Amato of the Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group. Commission officials said there's nothing wrong with the meeting taking place, and said they were part of a longstanding practice at the commission, in both Democratic- and Republican-led administrations, to have utility representatives meet with the agency's executive assistants. However, such meetings, disclosed in documents provided to the Journal Sentinel, could not take place today if the Kewaunee case still were pending, said Dan Schoof, executive assistant to Dan Ebert, the commission's chairman. Under a deal negotiated by the commission and state Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, the commission established new procedures to make its decision-making processes more transparent. The deal came after Lautenschlager threatened to sue the agency because of an investigation into another case of behind-closed-doors dealings between commission aides and representatives of We Energies, the state's largest utility. In that case, regulators shared copies of a draft decision of a case with bankers, lawyers and employees of the utility, and incorporated changes suggested by utility representatives into their final decision. That case authorized We Energies to borrow $425 million to pay for environmental upgrades at its power plants. "It was a longstanding practice at the commission for executive assistants to meet with parties on both sides of the issues. To the extent that led to perception issues we think those have been remedied and this has been fixed," Schoof said. Amato said the Kewaunee meetings and the We Energies case underscore that there was a pattern of meetings outside the public eye between utilities and regulators. As a result, he charged, the deck was stacked against outside groups such as his, which represents some of the state's largest manufacturers. "They should have informed all the intervenors that this was going on, and that this was their practice." Met with opponents, too But Schoof and Dave Gilles, the PSC's general counsel, said executive assistants had meetings with other groups that were opposed to utilities in cases pending before the commission. The matters surrounding the Kewaunee case remain under investigation by the state Department of Justice. That investigation was launched this fall, just before the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign issued a report analyzing campaign contributions from the two Wisconsin utilities seeking to sell the Kewaunee reactor to Dominion. The non-partisan campaign finance watchdog group found that the two utilities gave $43,650 to Doyle during the time that the PSC was considering the Kewaunee case. Both the governor's office and the PSC strongly denied any link between campaign donations and PSC decision-making. WPS held a fund-raiser the night before a PSC vote on the case, while Alliant, then a part owner of Kewaunee, held a fund-raiser for Doyle several weeks after the agency's final decision on the matter, in March 2005. The fund-raisers were planned well in advance and had no connection to the procedural timing at the PSC, utility officials said. From the Dec. 21, 2005, editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Have an opinion on this story? Write a letter to the editoror start an online forum. Subscribe today and receive 4 weeks free! Sign up now. BACK TO TOP News | Business | Sports | Entertainment | Classifieds | Jobs | Wheels | Homes | Rentals RSS XML/RSS News Feeds (What's this?) | JSO Wireless © 2005, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved. | Produced by Journal Interactive | Privacy Policy Journal Sentinel Inc. is a subsidiary of Journal Communications. ***************************************************************** 16 Bellona: Short-circuit failure at Smolensk NPP On December 19, at 16:41 local time, a transformer of the 330 kW general switchboard at the Smolensk NPP suffered a short-circuit failure. 2005-12-20 17:20 The incident reportedly did not influence the reactors’ operation and safety at the plant. There was no explosion or fire ”just a flash and that’s all!” Regnum reported with the reference to the press-department of the Smolensk NPP. The switchboard is situated 300m from the reactor unit. Smolensk NPP has three RBMK-1000 (”Chernobyl” type) reactors in operation at the moment with the total load of 2940 MW. The radiation levels are reported to be normal. The Smolensk NPP is situated 350 km west from Moscow. It was originally planned to construct four reactor units, but after the Chernobyl explosion the last reactor unit was not completed. Publisher: , President: Information: , Technical contact: Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 17 Portsmouth Herald: Nuclear plant touts its safety Wed. December 21, 2005 [PHOTO] Members of Seabrook Station’s communications team and representatives from the nuclear plant’s emergency planning group lead members of the local media on a tour of FPL Energy Seabrook Station last December. Herald file photo Photographer's Name NO EMAIL HERE--> By Beth LaMontagne blamontagne@seacoastonline.com SEABROOK - Seabrook Station nuclear power plant is running safely, has improved security and continually updates their emergency plan, according to plant officials. The station held its annual media briefing Tuesday at its Science and Nature Center, answering questions on everything from what to do when the emergency alarms sound to whether a plane could breach the outer walls of the reactor dome. The event is a requirement of the Nuclear Regulation Commission in order to keep local news outlets updated on what to do in the event of an emergency. Jim Van Dongen of the New Hampshire Emergency Management Agency said the current emergency plan contains 50 volumes on CD-ROM, outlining the safety and evacuation plans for 23 surrounding towns and cities in New Hampshire and Massachusetts. Each year, the plan is updated to take into account population change, new housing developments and changes to major roadways, Van Dongen said. The Seabrook Station also issues a calendar to residents in each of the 23 communities with information about the plant and where to direct questions, said Alan Griffith, the plant’s spokesman. People concerned about what to do if they hear an emergency alarm should remember to listen to local television and radio stations, which will be immediately briefed on any incident that warrants public action, said education coordinator David Barr. Incidents at the nuclear station are broken down into four categories. "Unusual event" is the least threatening and is often weather related. General emergency is the most serious and requires media and state agency notification and possible evacuation. Since the plant opened, there have been nine unusual events. The last was in November 2003 when the non-nuclear generator had a small hydrogen leak, said Griffith. He added the plant has never has an incident more serious than an unusual event. Since the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the plant has been "enhancing and modifying" plant security, said Griffith. This summer, there were media reports of inadequate security fences and overworked security officers, but Griffith said these issues have been addressed. Concerning the safety of the dome which houses the nuclear reactor, Griffith said that due to the plant’s proximity to the former Pease Air Force Base, the dome was built to withstand the impact of an airplane. Print this Story Email this Article Back to the Portsmouth Herald Portsmouth Herald Home Delivery Best Offer Seacoast Online is owned and operated by Seacoast Media Group. Copyright © 2005 Seacoast Online. All rights reserved. Please read our Copyright Notice and Terms of Use. Seacoast Media Group is a subsidiary of Ottaway Newspapers, Inc., a Dow Jones Company. ***************************************************************** 18 Rockford Register Star: Exelon employee shot at nuclear plant Wednesday, December 21, 2005 Customer Service: The stray bullet may have come from security personnel training nearby. BYRON  An Exelon employee at the Byron nuclear plant was recuperating Tuesday night at his home, a day after being shot on the grounds of the nuclear reactor plant by an apparent stray bullet. Officials are investigating the possibility that the bullet was accidentally fired by the plant’s security personnel training at a nearby outdoor firing range. Michael A. Davidson, 56, of Cherry Valley was leaving work Monday afternoon when a bullet struck him in his lower left leg. He was treated at OSF Saint Anthony Medical Center and released Tuesday. Exelon spokesman Bob Kartheiser said the plant immediately went into a heightened level of security after the 2:45 p.m. shooting. “There is a process in place that we follow,” he said without going into details, “and the key thing is to determine if you have any type of credible threat being made at the plant.” Ogle County authorities arrived shortly before 3 p.m. Deputies learned that firearms qualifications were being conducted at the station’s shooting range about the time the incident occurred. Sheriff Mel Messer said the plant does a good job with security, and it’s necessary for officers to undergo extensive training. “These are high-powered rifles,” Messer said. “Everything is frozen and hard, and a ricochet is quite possible. Right now, it’s strictly speculation. But I think it’s pretty valid that this is what happened.” Kartheiser said the power generating station has a private security force provided by Wackenhut Corp. The guards are required to undergo extensive training, even more so since Sept. 11, 2001. Wackenhut provides security at all Exelon plants. The range was built about four years ago to accommodate the guards who found it cumbersome and costly to train at commercial facilities, Kartheiser said. The range is about three-quarters of a mile away, to the west of the main plant buildings. “We don’t know if it is a bullet from the range,” Kartheiser said. “The bullet is still in his leg. The leg is at a point that doctors do not want to remove the bullet.” Once retrieved, the bullet will be turned over to the state police crime lab for ballistics testing to determine whether the bullet was fired from security personnel firearms. Messer said the tests could take 30 to 45 days. Davidson could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Contact: mwestpha@registerstartower.com; 815-987-1352 ***************************************************************** 19 JOURNAL NEWS: Radioactive water found in new Indian Point test wells By GREG CLARY gclary@thejournalnews.com (Original publication: December 21, 2005) BUCHANAN  Federal nuclear regulators confirmed yesterday afternoon that radioactive water is showing up in storm sewer lines and recently dug wells near Indian Point 2 as engineers try to determine the cause of a four-month leak there and its presence in the site's groundwater. A spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said elevated tritium levels were found in manholes and testing wells in the area of Indian Point 2, where as much as two liters a day of radioactive water has leaked since the end of August. Tritium is a radioactive isotope of the element hydrogen. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said the tritium levels found in the new wells and the sewer manholes do not constitute a public-health concern because they are not in drinking water sources, but they exceed acceptable Environmental Protection Agency standards. Sheehan also said a well dug near the Hudson River to test for tritium showed levels of isotope below the EPA's acceptable levels of 20,000 picocuries/liter of water and that the amount of tritium released by the company into the Hudson River still falls within acceptable discharge levels. Two hairline cracks at the base of a 400,000-gallon spent-fuel tank were found Aug. 22 during an excavation to put in a new crane to handle spent-fuel assemblies as they're being moved in and out of water for storage. Tritium, which emits a relatively weak radiation that can increase the risk of cancer, is routinely found in the water used in the 40-foot-deep tanks. A spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast, which owns and operates the two working nuclear reactors at Indian Point, said the elevated levels in the manholes on site were not unexpected because of the sewer pipes' proximity to the testing wells. Entergy spokesman Jim Steets said the leaking water, which has been captured by a specially designed system since early September, has all but dried up. "We're getting an ounce over several days now," Steets said. The company hasn't determined the cause of the leak. Entergy workers and consultants have undertaken a number of steps to find and stop it, including sending a diver into the tank to probe for flaws. Steets said the company would drill more wells and continue to search for the source and reach of the tritium. "We have a couple more pieces of the puzzle with this latest information, but they're still not telling us enough," Steets said. "By themselves, they're not that conclusive." Local elected officials continued to hammer the NRC and Entergy about the leak and its potential health hazards. "The NRC needs to prove it can protect surrounding communities and the Hudson River from this leak," said Rep. Sue Kelly, R-Katonah, who asked NRC chairman Nils Diaz at a Dec. 8 meeting to intensify the agency's investigation of the leak. "We're not seeing the progress we should be in containing this problem." Copyright 2005 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper ***************************************************************** 20 NEI Nuclear Notes: Checking the Data With Peter Asmus NEI Nuclear Notes News and commentary on the commercial nuclear energy industry. Wednesday, December 21, 2005 Earlier this year, author Peter Asmustook to the pages of the Washington Post to attack the idea that new nuclear build could help provide affordable electricity in an environmentally sensitive manner. And though NEI Vice President Scott Peterson responded via a letter to the editor, Asmus is back again, this time in the pages of Alternet, making the same old arguments with the same old bad data. Here's Asmus: The underlying assumption of those now clamoring for a major expansion of nuclear power is that the threat of global climate change is so great, that we have no other choice. What a bunch of baloney! Wind and solar power have been the fastest growing power sources globally over the past several years, and we have barely begin to tap these abundant non-polluting and increasingly cost-effective sources of power.First of all, while concerns over greenhouse gas emissions have played a significant role in nuclear energy getting a second look from the public and policymakers, it's not the only reason. Raw economics is equally important, as extreme volatility in American natural gas marketshave helped make nuclear generation of electricity more competitive. Asmus also ignores the significant role that nuclear energy plays in supporting clean air compliance, something that my colleague Mary Quillian has pointed out before. For more on this issue, click here. We've also seen the claims about wind and solar being the fastest growing power sources before, and as my colleague David Bradish has written, it's a claim that relies on some sleight of hand when it comes to data provided by Amory Lovins and the Rocky Mountain Institute: The graph they provided is only looking at capacity (GWe). What you should be looking at is generation, the real result. Typically when looking at renewables, you need three times as much capacity as nuclear to produce the same amount of electricity. Nuclear power plants'Â’ capacity factor(how efficient a plant generates electricity) is the highest of any fuel source (90.5%). Renewables are in the 30% range, natural gas for cogeneration is about 40%. The second reason the graph is misleading is because of yearly capacity increases. The reader only sees what was built in that year. What you should see in the graph is the total operating capacity in existence today. From the Department of Energy'Â’s Annual Energy Outlook 2005, a table hereshows the total capacity in 2003 and projected capacity for 2004-2025. Cogeneration and renewables make up about 15% of the US capacity and nuclear only makes up about 10%. But as I stated above, cogeneration and renewables made up a combined total of 13% of US electricity generation while nuclear was at 20%. It's efficiency not quantity.Later, after Lovins complained about David's analysis, David went back and checked his work again-- where it only got worse for Lovins. More from Asmus: Then there is the dirty little secret that during the nuclear fuel processing process, the uranium enrichment process depends on great amounts of electricity, most of which is provided by two extremely dirty fossil fuel plants releasing all of the traditional air pollution emissions not released by the nuclear reactors themselves (albeit relatively small sums of pollution in the grand scheme of things). Still, it is not entirely accurate to say that the US nuclear industry emits no emissions contributing to global climate change.This claim is based on another blatant distortion peddled by Helen Caldicott, which we keep debunking over and over again: [The] claim that uranium enrichment plants use electricity generated from "two coal plants" is untrue. There is only one enrichment plant in the United States - in Paducah, Ky. By contract, it obtains electricity from the Tennessee Valley Authority's fleet of power plants, so about 40 percent of its electricity comes from non-emitting nuclear and hydroelectric power plants.For more on how this disinformation keeps getting repeated, while folks like Asmus and Caldicott keep hoping that nobody double checks their data, click hereand here. As for the issue of the total life-cycle emissions of nuclear energy, David Bradish poked a number of holes in the research undergirding the claims that Asmus makes. For a third party look at the same issue, here's Tim Worstall. Here's Asmus on cost: The cost (and time involved) in adding a whole new fleet of nuclear reactors around the world is just as staggering as the alternative route: a gradual shift to all renewable energy fuels, including solar, wind, geothermal steam, biomass (including urban waste streams), hydroelectric, wave, ocean current and tidal power technologies.Actually, going the route that Asmus suggests is far more staggering, something that our friend Rod Adams pointed out in a comment he left for us at NEI Nuclear Notes back in July: Here are the sources that the Energy Information Agency considers in the "renewables" category and their relative importance within that category as of 2002, the latest year in which statistics are available. Geothermal 4.13% Hydro 75.25% MSW/Landfill 5.75% Biomass 0.76% Solar 0.16% Wind 2.95% Wood 11.01% (Source: Table C6. Total Renewable Net Generation by State, 2002 - Energy Information Agency) In other words, take away conventional hydro power and you have very tiny contributions from "renewable" power. Take away combustion based - i.e. polluting - "renewable" fuels and you are down to the real contribution of new renewable power supplies after 30-40 years of heavy government subsidies. Between wind, solar, and geothermal you get about six tenths of one percent of the electricity produced in the US. Since electricity is only about 1/3 of the total energy consumption, that means that all of the noise about wind and solar power is about something that produces two tenths of one percent of the energy used in the US each year.More from Asmus: Of course, the prime problem with nuclear power is that it is really the most expensive power source there is. No other technology requires greater subsidy and government intervention than nuclear... Fresh and outrageously generous tax credits for nuclear power were also just signed into law.Asmus is referring to production tax credits, the same exact kind of production tax credits that renewable sources of energy like wind and solar have enjoyed for many years. Here's what I wrote last month on nuclear energy and renewables: Saying that the world has to decide between nuclear energy or renewables is a false choice. The fact of the matter remains that future energy demand will rise so much, that there will be more than enough room for nuclear energy and renewables in the marketplace. It's just that over the next few decades, we're going to need baseload power generation, and right now, the only technology that can provide that baseload power is nuclear energy.POSTSCRIPT: One of the devices that Asmus uses is putting "scare quotes" around the word "environmentalists" when referring to James Lovelock, Stewart Brandand Patrick Moore. But the fact is that all three aren't just environmentalists, they're scientists as well. In fact, Lovelock isn't just the progenitor of the "Gaia" theory, he actually created many of the precision instruments that were first used to detect elevated levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Asmus also conveniently forgets to link to any source material that would give a reader a chance to evaluate their arguments on their own. Click herefor Lovelock's piece in the Independent from 2004 where he took his stand in favor of nuclear energy as a wedge against greenhouse gas emissions. Click herefor Brand's article, "Environmental Heresies," that appeared in MIT Technology Review. In that piece, Brand touched on exactly why folks like Asmus are able to get public traction with their views even though sound science doesn't support their claims: The success of the environmental movement is driven by two powerful forces -- —romanticism and science—— -- that are often in opposition. The romantics identify with natural systems; the scientists study natural systems. The romantics are moralistic, rebellious against the perceived dominant power, and combative against any who appear to stray from the true path. They hate to admit mistakes or change direction. The scientists are ethicalistic, rebellious against any perceived dominant paradigm, and combative against each other. For them, admitting mistakes is what science is. There are a great many more environmental romantics than there are scientists. That's fortunate, since their inspiration means that most people in developed societies see themselves as environmentalists. But it also means that scientific perceptions are always a minority view, easily ignored, suppressed, or demonized if they don't fit the consensus story line.For those interested in Moore's take on this issue, his congressional testimony from earlier this yearwould be a good place to start. One last thought about Moore: While he is a supporter of the expanded use of nuclear energy, Asmus neglects to mention that Moore is a big fan or renewables himself, including the potential of geothermal for residential heating -- just another example of how pitting renewables against nuclear energy is deceptive and counterproductive to honest public debate. Technorati tags: Nuclear Energy, Environment, Energy, Politics, Technology, Economics, Electricity, Natural Gas, James Lovelock, Stewart Brand, Patrick Moore, Peter Asmus posted by Eric McErlain @ 10:39 AM 1 comments   1 Comments: At 1:08 PM, Unknown said... + I found your article very informative. Peter Asmus is WAY off. I wonder what he'd say about re-licensing efforts, or if he's even done enough research to know what that is. My dad works for one of the big utilities and headed up the relicensing project for two of their plants (4 reactors). It was one of the first half dozen applications and they have a couple more either done or on their way. That same utility (which I won't name) has been thinking about adding 2 more reactors to one of these sites in the very near future. I hope they are allowed to, because if not, they'll just put in a big coal plant. Money is money and the big utilities just want to make it however they can. They'd prefer to do it with clean, cost efficient nuclear, but if they can't they'll do it however regulations allow them. Anyway, I found this article about the founder of greenpeace, who has come out as pro-nuke. I don't know if the founder of such a wack-job is really worth listening to on any issue, but it's at least interesing. ***************************************************************** 21 NRC: Peter G. Crane; Receipt of Petition for Rulemaking NRC: [Docket No. PRM-35-18] FR Doc E5-7641 [Federal Register: December 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 244)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 75752-75753] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21de05-19] AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; Notice of receipt. SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received and requests public comment on a petition for rulemaking filed by Peter G. Crane (petitioner). The petition has been docketed by the NRC and has been assigned Docket No. PRM-35-18. The petitioner is requesting that the NRC amend the regulation that governs medical use of byproduct material concerning release of individuals who have been treated with radio pharmaceuticals. The petitioner believes that this regulation is defective on legal and policy grounds. The petitioner requests that the patient release rule be partially revoked to not allow patients to be released from radioactive isolation with more than the equivalent of 30 millicuries of radioactive iodine I-131 in their bodies. DATES: Submit comments by March 6, 2006. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any one of the following methods. Please include the following number (PRM-35-18) in the subject line of your comments. Comments on petitions submitted in writing or in electronic form will be made available for public inspection. Because your comments will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against including personal information such as social security numbers and birth dates in your submission. Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications staff. E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov. If you do not receive a reply e- mail confirming that we have received your comments, contact us directly at (301) 415-1966. You may also submit comments via the NRC's rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Address comments about our rulemaking Web site to Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905; (e- mail cag@nrc.gov). Comments can also be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal http:http://www.regulations.gov. Hand deliver comments to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. on Federal workdays. Publicly available documents related to this petition may be viewed electronically on the public computers located at the NRC Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The PDR reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee. Selected documents, including comments, may be viewed and downloaded electronically via the NRC rulemaking Web site at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov. Publically available documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999 are also available electronically at the NRC's Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading_rm/adams.html. From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415- 4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. For a copy of the petition, write to Michael T. Lesar, Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael T. Lesar, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Telephone: 301-415-7163 or Toll-Free: 1-800-368-5642 or E-mail: MTL@NRC.Gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The NRC has received a petition for rulemaking dated September 2, 2005, submitted by Peter G. Crane (petitioner) entitled ``Re: Petition for Partial Revocation of the Patient Release Criteria Rule.'' The petitioner is an attorney who was formerly employed in the NRC's Office of the General Counsel from 1975 until his retirement from the NRC in 1999. The petitioner requests that the NRC amend 10 CFR part 35, ``Medical Use of Byproduct Material.'' Specifically, the petitioner requests that the 1997 amendment to 10 CFR 35.75, ``Release of Individuals Containing Radiopharmaceuticals or Permanent Implants'' (62 FR 4120; January 29, 1997 (Patient Release Criteria Rule), be partially revoked. The petitioner believes the Patient Release Criteria Rule is defective on both legal and policy grounds. The petitioner recommends that 10 CFR 35.75 be amended to prohibit the release of patients from radioactive isolation with more than the equivalent of 30 millicuries of radioactive iodine-131 (I-131) in their systems. The NRC has determined that the petition meets the threshold sufficiency requirements for a petition for rulemaking under 10 CFR 2.802. The petition has been docketed as PRM-35-18. The NRC is soliciting public comment on the petition for rulemaking. Discussion of the Petition The NRC amended its patient release criteria in 10 CFR Part 35 in 1997 to allow the release of patients from licensee control who had been administered unsealed by product material if the total dose equivalent to any other individual from exposure to the released individual is not likely to exceed 5 mSv. (0.5rem). Prior to that time, NRC regulations required the hospitalization of patients with the equivalent of 30 millicuries or more of radioactive iodine 131 (I-131) in their systems, a dose which the petitioner believes is consistent with the International Basic Safety Standards on radiation protection. The petitioner objects to the release of patients with more than the equivalent of 30 millicuries of I-131 in their systems. The petitioner clarifies that his objection to the patient release criteria rule is based on both legal and policy grounds. On legal grounds, the petitioner asserts that the 1997 rulemaking was ``a sham'' in that it was ``legally tainted'' by collusion between the NRC staff and a petitioner. Specifically, the petitioner asserts that a former member of NRC's Advisory Committee on the Medical Uses of Isotopes (ACMUI) who submitted a petition for rulemaking in 1991 requesting the patient release criteria rule, submitted the petition at the NRC staff's request with NRC staff assistance, in violation of NRC regulations. [[Page 75753]] The petitioner also objects to the patient release criteria rule on policy grounds, stating that it creates unwarranted hazards with regard to the radioactive iodine treatment of thyroid patients. The petitioner's concern is that there is no ``hard and fast limit on the amount of I-131'' administered to an outpatient, and that a licensee must only perform a calculation showing that no one will receive a dose that exceeds a prescribed limit. However, the patient release criteria rule means that patients who are sick, stressed, hypothyroid, potentially nauseous, and highly radioactive are being ``sent out the door,'' where they may come into close contact with family members and members of the public, and although they are supposed to receive instructions on minimizing exposure, may have trouble comprehending and remembering the guidance they are given. The petitioner expresses particular concern regarding how children of released patients will be adequately protected from radiological exposure, stating that children are more radiation-sensitive than adults and deserve more protection. The petitioner also expresses concern that there is a likelihood of vomiting and that, unlike hospital staff who wear protective clothing to protect against radiological contamination encountered while cleaning up, family members caring for patients at home will be unlikely to take such precautions. The petitioner also claims that during the 1997 rulemaking, when the NRC gave notice of the receipt of the petition for rulemaking, it received numerous adverse comments from the ACMUI, Agreement States, and other commenters. However, according to the petitioner, the NRC proceeded to issue the proposed rule and largely ignored comments that ran counter to the NRC staff's preferred approach. In fact, the petitioner asserts that the notice of the final rule misrepresented critical comments on the release of patients with I-131 in their systems. The petitioner states that the NRC acknowledged in promulgating the 1997 final rule that family members of patients would receive higher doses of radiation, but justified this in part by arguing that members of the clergy who visit hospitals frequently would receive lower doses of radiation as a result of patients having been sent out of the hospital, and by referring to the emotional benefit of releasing these patients. Specifically, the petitioner asserts that the NRC claimed in the final rule (see, 62 FR 4129) that although individuals exposed to the patient could receive higher doses than if the patient had been hospitalized longer, ``these higher doses are balanced by shorter hospital stays and thus lower health care costs. In addition, shorter hospital stays may provide emotional benefits to patients and their families. Allowing earlier reunion of families can improve the patient's state of mind, which in itself may improve the outcome of the treatment and lead to the delivery of more effective health care.'' The petitioner argues, however, that the NRC's reasoning ignored his and other thyroid patients' comments that some ``patients may experience greater `emotional benefit' from knowing that by receiving their treatment as in-patients, they are protecting their families from unnecessary radiation exposure.'' Moreover, the petitioner is skeptical of the NRC's rationale that releasing patients with treatment doses of radioactivity in their bodies will reduce exposure to clergy who regularly visit hospitals, or hospital orderlies. Finally, the petitioner takes issue with other aspects that he notes constituted part of the NRC staff's rationale for the patient release criteria rule. Specifically, he contests the NRC's assertion that I-131 treatment for thyroid cancer occurs ``probably no more than once in a lifetime,'' the NRC's implication that no harm is done by exposing family members to the exposure from just one treatment, and the implication that it is not ``reasonably achievable'' to keep radiation exposure to family members low by treating patients in radioactive isolation. The Petitioner's Conclusion The petitioner concludes that the patient release criteria rule is irredeemably flawed, as was the rulemaking that produced that rule. The petitioner therefore requests that the NRC institute rulemaking to rescind that portion of 10 CFR 35.75 that allows patients to be released from radiological isolation with I-131 in their systems in amounts greater than 30 millicuries. The petitioner requests that this rulemaking be undertaken expeditiously. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 15th day of December, 2005. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E5-7641 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 22 AlterNet: Loving Nuclear Power By Peter Asmus, AlterNet. Posted December 21, 2005. Why are growing numbers of 'green' visionaries hopping on the bandwagon of the most ill-conceived and dangerous energy source in the world? One would think that environmentalists these days would be giddy over the high price of fossil fuels such as oil and natural gas. It has long been the prediction that when these finite and polluting fuels increased in cost due to supply shortages, that we as a society would finally make the transition to the renewable, sustainable energy system that has always seemed to lie just out-of-reach, beckoning to us just over the horizon. But then something shocking happened. Growing numbers of "green" visionaries started beating the drum for more nuclear power, a technology that in the past has been a lightening rod to spur on activists to protest and demand for a greater reliance upon efficiency and solar, wind and other renewable energy technologies. Among those endorsing the process of splitting atoms to generate the majority of our future electricity are the following "environmentalists:" + James Lovelock, the fellow from London who came up the "Gaia" theory of the earth being a self-regenerating organism, proclaimed that nuclear power was "the only green solution" to our power supply woes, maintaining that there wasn't enough time to allow renewable energy technologies to fill the gap. + The Bay Area's Stewart Brand, the utopian thinker behind the "Whole Earth Catalog," echoed Lovelock's claims, adding that the nuclear power industry's half century of experience rendered concerns about safety and waste as obsolete. + Patrick Moore, co-founder of the radical Greenpeace activist group, has proclaimed: "There is now a great deal of scientific evidence showing nuclear power to be an environmentally sound and safe choice." Nuclear power is suddenly in vogue. Even the alternative LA Weekly newspaper has a two-part feature touting nuclear power by author Judith Lewis, whose blog is entitled "Another Green World." In essence, she argues the good outweighs the bad when it comes to nuclear power. "Is it possible that we have come to this: a choice between a catastrophic warming trend and the most feared energy source on earth?" she asks in the first of a two part series entitled "How I tried to stop worrying and love nuclear power." Our federal government has now launched a "Nuclear Power 2010" program that hopes to jump-start a nuclear industry that has not constructed a new power plant in two decades. Certainly, the biggest push for nuclear has come from the Bush Administration. While visiting a Maryland nuclear power plant earlier this year, President Bush proclaimed: "There is a growing consensus that more nuclear power will lead to a cleaner, safer nation. It is time for this country to start building nuclear power plants again." But you can add Democratic Senators Joe Liebermann of Connecticut and Barack Obama of Illinois to the growing list of federal lawmakers calling for the construction of new nuclear power plants. I first learned about nuclear power in my own backyard when I was living in Sacramento, California in the late 1980s. A laundry list of safety, environmental and economic issues resulted in a ballot initiative vote to close the Rancho Seco nuclear power plant in 1989. Energy experts across the country predicted that the owner of this nuke -- the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (SMUD) -- would be in dire straits once such a large portion of its power supply portfolio went away. Interestingly enough, SMUD's closure of its nuclear power plant was the best thing to happen as it was forced to launch major solar, wind and energy efficiency programs. Instead of being viewed as one of the biggest losers among electric utilities, SMUD's embracing of clean power sources helped this troubled municipal utility turn around, gaining it respect from around the world. SMUD is now in the process of expanding its service territory due, in part, to its progressive and attractive clean power plans. The underlying assumption of those now clamoring for a major expansion of nuclear power is that the threat of global climate change is so great, that we have no other choice. What a bunch of baloney! Wind and solar power have been the fastest growing power sources globally over the past several years, and we have barely begin to tap these abundant non-polluting and increasingly cost-effective sources of power. Today, wind power is already cheaper than the dominant competition -- natural gas-fired power plants -- in many regions of this country and the rest of the world. Solar power, though still expensive, is the kind of modular, small-scale and customer-friendly power sources that allow communities, businesses and individuals to take control of their own energy needs, the key trend of the future if we truly want to become sustainable. The cost (and time involved) in adding a whole new fleet of nuclear reactors around the world is just as staggering as the alternative route: a gradual shift to all renewable energy fuels, including solar, wind, geothermal steam, biomass (including urban waste streams), hydroelectric, wave, ocean current and tidal power technologies. Renewable energy technologies keep dollars in communities and spread far greater amounts of good jobs throughout rural and urban areas, In contrast, nuclear power concentrates power and money into the same entities that created our current power supply woes in the first place. If we indeed look at the power supply imbroglio from a total systems standpoint, the goal is to make our power grid look like the Internet. In this utopian view of the future, each of us employs smart appliances, intelligently monitoring of our consumption and real-time power costs, and, where possible, generating clean electrons right on-site or right in our own communities. Nuclear power, with its emphasis on central power stations controlled by technologists trusted with guarding us against terrorist strikes, tragic safety accidents or other risks, is the outright antithesis of this vision of a decentralized, self-empowering and intelligent energy future. The key to virtually all of society's pressing problems -- global climate change, terrorist threats, fossil fuel price spikes and poverty in the developing world -- can be solved by democratizing our energy supply through the development of indigenous renewable resources. The basis for calling nuclear power "green" is the amount of emissions -- so-called greenhouse gases -- that are not going up into the atmosphere because of our existing fleet of nuclear reactors. If all of our nuclear reactors were suddenly replaced with coal-fired plants, 600 million tons of carbon dioxide would spew into the atmosphere. For that, I suppose, we should be thankful for. Indeed, coal is the cheapest and dirtiest source of electricity. But does that mean nuclear power is green? What about the fact that nearly 90 percent of the US uranium deposits have been found in the Rocky Mountain States, the vast majority of which reside on Native American lands. Do we really need to find new ways to insult our own indigenous peoples? Then there is the dirty little secret that during the nuclear fuel processing process, the uranium enrichment process depends on great amounts of electricity, most of which is provided by two extremely dirty fossil fuel plants releasing all of the traditional air pollution emissions not released by the nuclear reactors themselves (albeit relatively small sums of pollution in the grand scheme of things). Still, it is not entirely accurate to say that the US nuclear industry emits no emissions contributing to global climate change. And then there are the abandoned mines contaminated with high-level radioactive waste can continue to pose radioactive risks for as long as 250,000 years after closure. Despite all of the claims about safety, the fact remains that any catastrophic accident could easily kill as many as 100,000 people or more. And in today's scary world of smart terrorists, these risks have only increased in magnitude. The US, with its 103 operating nuclear power plants, is already the world's top consumer of electricity generated from nuclear fission. Still, we have yet to build a federal repository for nuclear waste. Given the fact that reactors currently in operation produce about 2,000 tons of high-level waste every year of operation, calling for greater reliance upon nuclear power is not only economically questionable, but a grave disservice to the true values of the environmental movement. Of course, the prime problem with nuclear power is that it is really the most expensive power source there is. No other technology requires greater subsidy and government intervention than nuclear. Congress, with strong backing from President Bush and other Republican leaders, just re-authorized the Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity Act, a law dating way back to 1957 limiting the nuclear industry's liabilities in the case of a major accident. Fresh and outrageously generous tax credits for nuclear power were also just signed into law. The fact that Republicans can call for more nuclear power with a straight face is truly an outrage, given the GOP constant calls for free markets. There has never been a more subsidized, socialized power technology as nuclear. In the final analysis, no other technology offers so little benefit -- climate change mitigation -- with such a long list of drawbacks. If we really need to turn to nuclear power to stave off global climate change, then maybe we as a society deserve whatever calamities the weather Gods bring upon us. With a plethora of abundant and barely tapped renewable energy fuels surrounding all of us everywhere, we surely can respond to the global climate change with a more sane, innovative and democratic energy strategy! There has been much talk recently about whether the environmental movement is dead. If nuclear power moves forward in the US with the blessings of those deeming this expensive monster of a technology as "green," I am willing to write the epitaph. Hopefully, cooler heads will prevail on global warming, and the misguided leaders pushing nuclear power will once and for all see clearly that this is a technology that will never, ever pass the laugh test if judged on the basis of our collective long-term sustainability. Peter Asmus is author of "Reaping The Wind, Reinventing Electric Utilities and In Search of Environmental Excellence." Nuclear power is green? Hardy har har har! Sounds like another pipe dream that only an idiot could like. The author does not even mention thermal pollution of river systems. Another aspect I am sure that the utility industry and bush administration will show great conern. Excuse the sarcasm. The authors mention of decentralized power generation would be a nightmare for neocon visions. Reply to this Comment --> --> get ready to watch this nation be even more vulnerable to terrorism. With renewable energy at least, there are major savings, economically, environmentally, and national security wise. It's a shame that the Republicans and much of the Democrats, even the liberal ones, are falling for this trap. And don't forget that with deregulation and lax security, the terrorism crisis will only get worse. And people who call themselves "green" want to tell us that only nuclear energy is the solution? Apparently, like all other culture issues, these people and politicians just want to keep the terrorism boiling pot simmering without solving the problem. It's bad enough that Yucca Mountain's being misused to store unusable nuclear waste. What's next, storing the waste on every single mountain top? Posted by: Media_max on Dec 21, 2005 6:57 AM [Report this comment] © 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. --> ***************************************************************** 23 AlterNet: Nuclear Comes Back To the Party By John Elkington and Mark Lee, Grist Magazine. Posted December 21, 2005. The industry that was once consigned to the corner seems set to become the belle of the business world's ball. Most of us know what torture it is to be a wallflower, so it's hard not to feel at least a slight frisson of sympathy for the nuclear industry. Once considered "most likely to succeed," this promising power source found itself stumbling in the 1970s. It was bad enough after Three Mile Island in 1979 -- particularly when Jane Fonda got to work in The China Syndrome. But this wallflower status was taken to an altogether different level in 1986, in the wake of an event whose ongoing repercussions will provide some of next year's great news hooks. After Chernobyl, nuclear folk worldwide found themselves not just wallflowers, but actively disinvited wherever people came together to dance around the subject of sustainable energy. It was rather like Cinderella's coach and horses turning back into something a lot more mundane. And when the ill-fated Chernobyl site was shut down for good in 2000, some critics hailed the closure as the beginning of the industry's end. Was it? Hardly -- and not just because of the high-level waste that will undoubtedly outlive our civilization by several hundred thousand years. In fact, this industry that was once consigned to the corner seems set to become the belle of the business world's ball. Sting Your Partner The sheer horror of the statistics that will no doubt be rolled out in 2006 would give even a nuclear engineer pause. Take thyroid cancer, normally a rare disease, with just one in a million children falling victim; a third of children who were younger than 4 when exposed in the main Chernobyl fallout zone are thought likely to develop the disease. In Belarus -- where 60 to 70 percent of the fallout landed, contaminating some 25 percent of the country's farmland and forest -- nearly 1,000 children have come down with thyroid cancer, compared to seven in the 10 years before the accident. This type of thing has made the nuclear industry a darned unattractive prospect for NGOs and anyone else wanting to fill their partnership dance card. Today, anti-nuclear folk point with glee to the trend line for reactor construction starts -- which, having sketched the spiky outline of a pine forest from the mid-1960s to mid-1980s, plummeted over the subsequent 20 years to the stuttering outline of melting snowdrifts. If the message weren't so gloomy for the nuclear folk, it might have made a nice Christmas card. But irony of ironies, the industry is back, thanks in great part to environmental concerns. In 2004, for example, greens were shocked when one of their idols -- James Lovelock of Gaia hypothesis fame -- warned that only a massive expansion of nuclear power would save our current industrial civilization from rapidly advancing climate change. The peak-oil debate has been another driver, and it's all left environmentalists wondering: should we open our arms to the industry? It's a complicated question. Much of the 20th century was spent in a hate-love-hate relationship with nuclear technology, mainly thanks to the shadow of the A-bomb. One of us remembers his father shipping off in 1957 to fly monitoring missions around the British H-bomb bursts above, yes, Christmas Island. On the upside, we were told we were going to zoom around in nuclear cars, trains, and planes. Energy too cheap to meter, we were promised, and a glowing cornucopia of atomic toys and gadgets. Now, again, nuclear is being dangled as the great, white-hot hope. Even as today's giant companies like BP and GE begin to tilt to windmills and other renewable-energy technologies, countries like Indonesia and Vietnam are thinking seriously of going nuclear. The World Energy Council claims that the industry is "poised to expand its role in world electricity generation. Plant life will be extended in some markets, such as Finland or Sweden; new plants will be built in Asia; governments and voters will accept the inevitability of new nuclear power stations in Europe, Africa, North America, Latin America, and even the Middle East." If the Slipper Fits ... So the question arises: is the environmental movement in danger of letting its allergic response to nuclear power blind it to a scenario filled with new technologies and players? If commercial opportunity -- like some Prince Charming -- does come a-knocking at the nuclear industry's door, we will desperately need to know who the Ugly Stepsisters are, and whose foot we might be happy to see the slipper fit. What do we really know about the nuclear activities of companies like GE, TVO, or Westinghouse? If we ignore the whole sector and some form of nuclear renaissance does occur, are we in danger of losing the chance to shape the industrial consequences? (Full disclosure: our organization, SustainAbility, was founded the year after Chernobyl, and while we have always insisted that we will not work with the nuclear industry, we have been working recently in non-nuclear areas with a French company that has some nuclear involvement.) It's truly a case of the glass being half empty or half full. Some of the world's biggest users of nuclear power are signaling that they will have to decommission many of their plants in the coming years. While anti-nuclear activists assume renewables and energy efficiency will fill that gap, the nuclear industry sees such closures in an increasingly carbon-constrained world as huge potential opportunities to build new reactors. Common sense would suggest that we should avoid even thinking about the nuclear option. Just as the 20th anniversary of the Bhopal disaster in 1984 turned up the heat under the international chemical industry, 2006 will do the same for nuclear. And yet, we can't get out of our minds the argument of some industry observers that the debate may well change over the next decade -- from questions about whether or not reactors should be built to what sort of reactors should be built. Ultimately, the swing factor in determining our energy future may not be the Lovelocks or the anti-nuclear activists of this world, but China. If Hollywood ever makes China Syndrome 2, it's conceivable that the story line would be about Chinese engineers helping to save the planet from melting down. While Western power producers continue to favor slight tweaks on conventional large-scale reactor designs -- and as a result will likely keep trying to shoehorn their big-footprint feet into environmentally constrained shoes -- China is different. With a fast-growing appetite for energy and a serious dislike of the idea of being in thrall to anyone else for access to said energy, China is beginning to develop a taste for a very different form of nuclear technology. Get ready to hear a lot more about "pebble-bed modular reactor" designs, either as a stepping stone or as an ultimate destination. First developed in Germany, the technology is winning growing support in countries like South Africa and France. These reactors are, among other things, a fifth the size of conventional reactors, much less capital-intensive, and much less prone to meltdowns. For countries that fear overdependence on the West, they also have the added advantage that they don't need Western-style fuels or refueling services. In short, they have all the makings of a potential Cinderella story. John Elkington is cofounder and chief entrepreneur of SustainAbility. He blogs at johnelkington.com. Mark Lee is CEO of SustainAbility. © 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. --> ***************************************************************** 24 AU ABC: Melbourne scientists argue the case for nuclear energy AM - Thursday, 22 December , 2005 08:20:00 Reporter: Nick McKenzie TONY EASTLEY: A new study by a group of Melbourne scientists endorses the use of nuclear energy and attacks some of the data used by anti-nuclear campaigners. The scientists from the University of Melbourne say their research shows that the benefits of nuclear energy have been underestimated and concerns about nuclear waste overplayed. Nick Mckenzie reports. NICK MCKENZIE: Associate Professor, Martin Sevior, of Melbourne University's school of physics leads a small team of scientists and students researching nuclear energy. He says the team's latest study strengthens the case for Australia to invest more in nuclear energy for both economic and environmental reasons. MARTIN SEVIOR: Well, I hope people will take our study, and look at it, and look at the numbers, and see what's real and what isn't. Part of what isn't real is this idea that there's not enough uranium in the world and it's not worth the effort because even if we built all these nuclear power plants we'd run out of uranium very shortly. I mean, there's a lot of energy in uranium. NICK MCKENZIE: Associate Professor Sevior says his research into nuclear waste disposal should help dispel many environmentalists' fears. MARTIN SEVIOR: One thing that's perhaps not always realised is that the amount of waste that comes out of a typical plant is around 30 tonnes a year. The amount of waste that comes out of a coal-fired power plant is around 1,000 tonnes a day. So the actual volume of waste that comes out of a nuclear power plant is actually rather small. And there have been very well-developed proposals to bury it deep underground in the Nordic countries. I think it's entirely feasible to bury it very safely. NICK MCKENZIE: Associate Professor Sevior says his study has exposed serious flaws in an often-quoted European study into the limits of the uranium industry. But while he says nuclear energy investment would be more beneficial than investment in sustainable energy sources, he also acknowledges that debate about nuclear energy has some way to go. MARTIN SEVIOR: Part of the reason I'm not… we're not all-out saying yes, we must do this, is that part of that credible case depends on nuclear power industry living up to its promises, and one of the promises it makes is that the next generation of power plants that it has on the boards and are touting around the world, live up to their expectations. NICK MCKENZIE: Several members of the coalition are open to increasing the nation's nuclear power industry. Some in the Opposition are also open to more debate about the issue, although Labor Party policy opposes any new uranium mines. The Australian Conservation Foundation's nuclear campaigner, Dave Sweeney, says the Melbourne University study appears flawed and does not provide a sound argument for the use of nuclear energy. DAVE SWEENEY: It glances over some really key concerns of proliferation, key areas of reactor safety are not delved into too deeply and they have direct links to industry websites for further information. I'm not sure it's altogether appropriate or altogether balanced to be referring people to the nuclear industry's own websites for further information on such matters as radioactive waste, nuclear weapons and nuclear reactor safety. TONY EASTLEY: The Australian Conservation Foundation's Dave Sweeney ending that report by Nick McKenzie. ***************************************************************** 25 WHO TV: Consumer advocates want second look at nuclear power plant sale Des Moines CEDAR RAPIDS, Iowa A fight over the sale of Iowa's only nuclear power plant may not be over.State regulators approved Alliant Energy's proposed sale of the Duane Arnold Energy Center near Palo (PAY'-loh) to a Florida company last month. Alliant Energy is the majority owner in the plant.Consumer advocates have now asked the Iowa Utilities Board for a rehearing or at least clarify its order to provide additional consumer protections. They also want a stay of the board's order.The state Office of Consumer Advocate says the sale of the plant would cost ratepayers between 350 (m) million dollars and 700 (m) million dollars extra compared to Alliant continuing to own the plant.Alliant Energy spokesman Ryan Stensland says the utility is disappointed with the appeal and doesn't believe it raises new issues. Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights All content © Copyright 2001 - 2005 WorldNow and WHO-TV, a division of NYT Broadcast Holdings, LLC. ***************************************************************** 26 WCNC.com: Investigators look at what would happen during a nuclear attack on the Queen City Charlotte, North Carolina | 08:52 AM EST on Wednesday, December 21, 2005 By JIM FRY / 6NEWS Washington Bureau At all ports, radiation portal monitors are the primary defense against all sources of radiation. The 6NEWS Investigators asked just what would happen if a nuclear attack took place in the heart of Charlotte, and a new computer program showed us just how many casualties there would be. The Country's Homeland Security Department has quietly ranked the worst 15 terrorist attacks or disasters the nation could face. The most catastrophic is the unlikely detonation of a nuclear bomb. Nuclear physicists used a Defence Department computer to show us what the consequences of just such an attack in Charlotte would be. In Uptown Charlotte it's December, Christmas is coming. The threat of nuclear terrorism seems distant. On the Mexican border at EL Paso, they scan trucks. They are reading those trucks for any nuclear or radioactive material. On the coasts at the nation's ports they scan shipping containers. Video on Demand VIDEO: Watch this story Build your own newscast The hope is to prevent a Hiroshima-style terrorist blast. The nuclear fuel, highly enriched uranium, is dense and deadly and small enough to be hidden. Tons of it are lightly guarded in places like the former Soviet Union. A smart terrorist could assemble a simple design like the Hiroshima bomb. You would only need about ten soda cans, less than a 12 pack, of the bad uranium to build a ten kiloton bomb. Customs agents review all shipping manifests before cargo arrives. At all ports, radiation portal monitors are the primary defense against all sources of radiation. Critics said they don't always work. "They can easily be defeated," said Tom Cockran of the Natural Defense Council. He designed two tests, shipping a small amount of depleted uranium lightly shielded by lead. "If they didn't detect that they wouldn't have detected the good stuff, the highly enriched uranium," he said. We watched in New Jersey as a monitor signaled an alert in an agent's handheld detector. They identified the source. 6NEWS If a nuclear bomb was detonated in the heart of Uptown an estimated 25,000 people would be dead in a flash. In this case it turned out to be natural, clay pottery. Safe and routine, but officials there said that even if it had been shielded it would have been picked up. "And that's where they're wrong," said Cockran. "There's more than one thing one can do to hide it." On the Mexican border, undocumented immigrants could just carry the stuff across. The nation's most deadly scenario cited in a Homeland Security document was a ten kiloton bomb. Imagine Bank of America Stadium is ground zero. The blast would send up a mushroom cloud five miles over the city. "That's the heart of Charlotte, (it) would be destroyed in such an attack," said nuclear physicist Matt McKenzie. The destruction is unthinkable. The casualties would be nearly unimaginable, an estimated 25,000 people dead. Experts said the only way real solution is to secure the material at its source, securing stockpiles halfway across the world. This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow. This text is invisible on the page, but this text is affected by the invisible item's flow. More 2005 WCNC-TV, a Belo subsidiary ***************************************************************** 27 DU Scandal at Veterans Administration Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 02:50:00 -0600 (CST) X-Fingerprint: owner-imap@chumbly.math.missouri.edu-127.127 Forwarded with Compliments of Free Voice of America (FVOA): Accurate News and Interesting Commentary for Amerika's Huddled Masses Yearning to Breathe Free. NOTE: Actually, it's surprising that the VA has been able to keep the lid on such a huge scandal for as long as it has; it has gotten away with this for fourteen years! -- kl, pp From: Rick Davis Date: December 20, 2005 8:12:00 PM EST Subject: DU scandal at Veterans Administration http://www.sfbayview.com/012605/headsroll012605.shtml Heads Roll at Veterans Administration Mushrooming Depleted Uranium (DU) Scandal Blamed By Bob Nichols Project Censored Award Winner [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type image/jpeg which had a name of firesoldier.jpg] Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can truly be called a nuclear war. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War. Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, The real reason for Mr. Principis departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the Gulf War Syndrome has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military. Bernklau continued, This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed. He added, Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of Disabled Vets means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems! The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam. The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000, wrote Bernklau. He, and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Morets report, (it) ... is far too big to hide or to cover up! Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA Central Office, recently reported that Gulf Era Veterans now on medical disability, since 1991, number 518,739 Veterans, said Berklau. The long-term effects have revealed that DU (uranium oxide) is a virtual death sentence, stated Berklau. Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as spectacular and a matter of concern! When asked if the main purpose of using DU was for destroying things and killing people, Fulk was more specific: I would say it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people! Principi could not be reached for comment prior to deadline. References: 1. Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets: A death sentence here and abroad by Leuren Moret, http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml. 2. Veterans for Constitutional Law, 112 Jefferson Ave., Port Jefferson NY 11777, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director, (516) 474-4261, fax 516-474-1968. 3. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter. Email Gary Kohls, gkohls@cpinternet.com, with Subscribe in the subject line. Email Bob Nichols at bobnichols@cox.net. San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper 4917 Third Street San Francisco California 94124 Phone: (415) 671-0789 Fax: (415) 671-0316 Email: editor@sfbayview.com ======================================================================== == ***************************************************************** 28 [du-list][downwinders] F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:32:17 -0800 ----- Original Message ----- From: easlavin@aol.com To: GLIL@yahoogroups.com ; AMOJ_MAIN@yahoogroups.com ; downwinders@yahoogroups.com ; nucnews@yahoogroups.com Cc: EASlavin@aol.com Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 11:33 AM Subject: [downwinders] F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show By ERIC LICHTBLAU Agents conducte F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show By ERIC LICHTBLAU Agents conducted surveillance involving groups active in such causes as the environment and poverty relief. .................. Click here: F.B.I. Watched Activist Groups, New Files Show - New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/politics/20fbi.html?hp&ex=1135141200&en=171df5b870cdd147&ei=5094&partner=homepage Click here: An insidious culture of surveillance - The Boston Globe ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS a.. Visit your group "downwinders" on the web. b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: downwinders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your home page http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/FGYolB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 29 Deseret News: Ohio, Utah vie for plant [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, December 21, 2005 Beryllium returning to demand in certain U.S. military systems Associated Press CLEVELAND — The Pentagon-pushed comeback of a metal used to make parts for missiles, satellites and fighter jets means an Ohio company is in the running for a new beryllium plant. The Defense Department is helping underwrite plans at Cleveland-based Brush Wellman Inc. for a plant in either Ohio or Utah. Earlier this month, the company won a $9 million contract from the department to help build the plant, which could cost as much as $60 million. The end of the Cold War reduced the nation's need to stockpile beryllium, used to make nuclear bomb triggers. Brush Wellman, a unit of Cleveland-based Brush Engineered Materials Inc., closed its obsolete primary beryllium operation near Toledo in Elmore about five years ago, after the Defense Logistics Agency said it would begin selling beryllium from a national stockpile. But the metal is finding more uses in advanced military systems, said Michael Anderson, president of Brush Wellman's beryllium products group. Beryllium is used to make guidance systems for missiles and targeting systems for jet fighters. Its stiffness reduces vibration and improves reliability of the fighter's optical system for locating and tracking targets. Brush says that for some uses, there is no substitute. Since the Elmore operation closed, the nation has lacked a sustainable domestic supply, the company says. A Defense Department report to Congress last year forecast that defense demand for beryllium will grow and the domestic stockpile will be depleted between 2008 and 2011. As the stockpile declines, Brush will be working on the new plant, which is expected to operating within five years. "We expect there will be material to take us through most of this decade, which will be the period of time it will take us to build the new plant," Anderson said. Besides the Elmore site, Brush is studying whether to put the plant in Delta, Utah, where it has mining and processing operations that employ 68 people. Elmore is considered the company's flagship plant and employs about 500 people. It's Ottawa County's second-largest employer. The new plant is expected to add about 25 jobs and create additional support jobs. Anderson said both locations have advantages. In Elmore, "you've already got the infrastructure to support the new plant," he said. But the new plant will be a chemical facility that is "more akin to the kinds of things we already do in Utah," he said. Last year, beryllium products totaled $39.5 million of Brush Engineered Materials' $496 million in revenue, or 8 percent. Defense and other government-related markets, including aerospace, were the largest, accounting for more than 60 percent of beryllium sales. Other beryllium markets include medical, telecommunications, computers, electronics, optical scanning and automotive. The metal is six time stronger than steel but only one-fourth of steel's weight. It's stiff and able to withstand high heats. It also is transparent to X-rays, which makes it ideal for windows in X-ray medical equipment. Exposure can result in a potentially fatal lung ailment that affects a small number of people whose immune systems are susceptible. Brush has been sued over the years by people alleging the company failed to warn of the dangers. The company has aggressively fought the claims. © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 30 DOD: Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction FR Doc 05-24291 [Federal Register: December 21, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 244)] [Notices] [Page 75794-75795] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr21de05-38] DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE Office of the Secretary AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Threat Reduction Agency. ACTION: Notice of advisory board meeting. SUMMARY: The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) will hold the second public meeting of the Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction (VBDR). The VBDR was established at the recommendation of the National Research Council report, entitled ``Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency.'' The report recommended the need to establish an advisory board that will provide suggestions for improvements in dose reconstruction and claim adjudication procedures. The goal of VBDR is to provide guidance and oversight of the dose reconstruction and claims compensation programs for veterans of U.S.- sponsored atmospheric nuclear weapons tests from 1945-1962; veterans of the 1945-1946 occupation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan; and veterans who were prisoners of war in those regions at the conclusion of World War II. In addition, the advisory board will assist VA and DTRA in communicating with the veterans. Radiation does reconstruction has been carried out by the Department of Defense under the Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) program since the 1970s. DTRA is the executive agent for the NTPR program which provides participation data and actual or estimated radiation dose information to veterans and the VA. Board members were selected to fulfill the statutory requirements mandated by Congress in Section 601 of Public Law 108-183. The Board was appointed on June 3, 2005, and is comprised of 16 members. Board members were selected to provide expertise in historical dose reconstruction, radiation health matters, risk communications, radiation epidemiology, medicine, quality management, decision analysis and ethics in order to appropriately enable the VBDR to represent and address veterans' concerns. The Board is governed by the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463, which sets forth standards for the formation and conduct of government advisory committees. [[Page 75795]] DATES: Thursday, January 12, 2006, from 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. and 4-6 p.m. with a public comment session from 1:30-3:30 p.m., and Friday, January 13, 2006, from 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. and 3:15-5 p.m., with a public comment session from 1:30-3 p.m. ADDRESSES: Sheraton Gateway Hotel, Los Angeles Airport, 6101 West Century Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90045. AGENDA: On Thursday, the meeting will open with a discussion of the charge and responsibilities of the advisory board, and will review and approve the minutes of the inaugural VBDR meeting conducted August 17- 18, 2005 in Tampa, FL. The following briefings will be presented: ``Interactive Radio-Epidemiological Program: Future Development'' by Dr. Charles Land; ``NAS Report: Assessment of the Scientific Information for the Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program'' by Dr. Julian Preston; ``NTPR Dose Reconstruction, Quality Assurance Manuals and Veterans Communication Activities'' by Dr. Paul Blake; and ``VA Radiation Claims Compensation Program for Veterans, and VA Quality Assurance Manuals'' by Mr. Thomas Pamperin. On Friday, the four subcommittees established during the inaugural VBDR session will report on their activities since August 2005. The subcommittees are the ``Subcommittee on DTRA Dose Reconstruction Procdures'', the ``Subcommittee on VA Claims Adjudication Procedures'', the ``Subcommittee on Quality Management and VA Process Integration with DTRA Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program'', and the ``Subcommittee on Communication and Outreach.'' The Board will close with a discussion of the Subcommittee reports, future business and meeting dates. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The Veterans' Advisory Board on Dose Reconstruction hotline at 1-866-657-VBDR (8237). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: May be found at http://vbdr.org. Dated: December 15, 2005. L.M. Bynum, OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense. [FR Doc. 05-24291 Filed 12-20-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 5001-06-M ***************************************************************** 31 Matheson PR: Matheson Lauds Passage of Defense Authorization Bill From the Office of Utah Congressman Jim Matheson MATHESON NEWS Second Congressional District For Further Information Alyson Heyrend: (801) 455-5593 (cell) www.house.gov/matheson December 19, 2005 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Washington DC-Congressman Jim Matheson today supported a vital military authorization bill which included his legislation to preserve historical records on radioactive fallout and the creation of a wilderness area to block transport of high level nuclear waste to Utah. Matheson said it is critical to American troops and their families that this bill passes. It essentially lays out the spending blueprint to fund military programs during the coming fiscal year. Matheson expressed satisfaction that his bill -HR 2633-- is included. It prohibits the Department of Defense from destroying historical records relating to the exposure of soldiers to nuclear weapons testing and other atomic era experiments. Scientists had expressed concern that without a moratorium in place, DOD might have done away with a rare and important source of data for veterans, their families and the scientific community studying the effects of exposure to radioactive fallout. Matheson said it is critical to American troops and their families that this bill passes. It essentially lays out the spending blueprint to fund military programs during the coming fiscal year. He also pointed to the Utah delegation's success in adding legislation to create a wilderness area adjacent to Skull Valley in Utah's west desert to block construction of a proposed rail spur. A consortium of electrical utilities has received a license to store thousands of tons of lethal nuclear waste on the Goshute Reservation and needs the rail spur to efficiently transport it. "After several years of trying to make this happen, it is very satisfying to see how a bipartisan effort can get it done. Utah does not want to be the dumping ground for this toxic garbage," said Matheson. The fiscal year 2006 Defense Authorization bill-HR 1815-had been delayed by a political fight over specific anti-torture language inserted in the Senate version by Arizona Senator John McCain. Earlier this week, by an overwhelming bipartisan margin, the House passed a nonbinding resolution expressing support for the anti-torture provisions. "Torture is morally wrong. It is politically damaging to our country throughout the civilized world. And, as retired Utah Brig. General David Irvine testified here this month, it is an ineffective way of extracting truth," said Matheson. # # # Alyson Heyrend Communications Director 240 East Morris Ave. #235 South Salt Lake, UT 84115 (801) 486-1236 (phone) (801) 455-5593 (cell) (801) 486-1417 (fax) ***************************************************************** 32 toledoblade.com: Brush Wellman weighs Elmore for $60 million beryllium plant Thursday, December 22, 2005 Article published Wednesday, December 21, 2005 ASSOCIATED PRESS CLEVELAND - The Pentagon-pushed comeback of a metal used to make parts for missiles, satellites, and fighter jets means an Ohio company is in the running for a new beryllium plant. The Defense Department is helping underwrite plans at Brush Wellman Inc. of Cleveland for a plant in either Ohio or Utah. Earlier this month, the company won a $9 million contract from the department to help build the plant, which could cost up to $60 million. The end of the Cold War reduced the nation's need to stockpile beryllium, used to make nuclear bomb triggers. Brush Wellman, a unit of Brush Engineered Materials Inc., closed its obsolete primary beryllium operation near Toledo in Elmore about five years ago, after the Defense Logistics Agency said it would begin selling beryllium from a national stockpile. But the metal is finding more uses in advanced military systems, said Michael Anderson, president of Brush Wellman's beryllium products group. Its stiffness reduces vibration and improves reliability of jet fighters' optical system for locating and tracking targets. Brush says that for some uses, there is no substitute. Since the Elmore operation closed, the nation has lacked a sustainable domestic supply, the company says. A Defense Department report to Congress last year forecast that defense demand for beryllium will grow and the domestic stockpile will be depleted between 2008 and 2011. As the stockpile declines, Brush will be working on the new plant, which is expected to be operating within five years. Besides the Elmore site, Brush is studying whether to put the plant in Delta, Utah, where it has mining and processing operations that employ 68 people. Elmore is considered the company's flagship plant and employs about 500 people. It's Ottawa County's second-largest employer. The new plant is expected to add about 25 jobs and create additional support jobs. Exposure to beryllium can result in a potentially fatal lung ailment. Brush has been sued over the years by people alleging the company failed to warn of the dangers. A 1999 series of articles by The Blade reported that an estimated 1,200 current and former beryllium industry workers have contracted the disease since the 1940s. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 33 SFBV: Depleted uranium: Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets San Francisco Bay View - National Black Newspaper of the Year 12/14/05 A death sentence here and abroad by Leuren Moret At an April press conference, a group of New York Army National Guard vets raised their hands when asked if they have health problems. The soldiers, all from the 442nd Military Police Company, are complaining of headaches and fatigue after what they think is exposure to depleted uranium during their recent tour in Iraq. Photo: www.american freepress.net “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used as pawns in foreign policy.” - Henry Kissinger, quoted in “Kiss the Boys Goodbye: How the United States Betrayed Its Own POW’s in Vietnam” Vietnam was a chemical war for oil, permanently contaminating large regions and countries downriver with Agent Orange, and environmentally the most devastating war in world history. But since 1991, the U.S. has staged four nuclear wars using depleted uranium weaponry, which, like Agent Orange, meets the U.S. government definition of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Vast regions in the Middle East and Central Asia have been permanently contaminated with radiation. And what about our soldiers? Terry Jemison of the Department of Veterans Affairs reported this week to the American Free Press that “Gulf-era veterans” now on medical disability since 1991 number 518,739, with only 7,035 reported wounded in Iraq in that same 14-year period. This week the American Free Press dropped a “dirty bomb” on the Pentagon by reporting that eight out of 20 men who served in one unit in the 2003 U.S. military offensive in Iraq now have malignancies. That means that 40 percent of the soldiers in that unit have developed malignancies in just 16 months. Since these soldiers were exposed to vaccines and depleted uranium (DU) only, this is strong evidence for researchers and scientists working on this issue, that DU is the definitive cause of Gulf War Syndrome. Vaccines are not known to cause cancer. One of the first published researchers on Gulf War Syndrome, who also served in 1991 in Iraq, Dr. Andras Korényi-Both, is in agreement with Barbara Goodno from the Department of Defense’s Deployment Health Support Directorate, that in this war soldiers were not exposed to chemicals, pesticides, bioagents or other suspect causes this time to confuse the issue. This powerful new evidence is blowing holes in the cover-up perpetrated by the Pentagon and three presidential administrations ever since DU was first used in 1991 in the Persian Gulf War. Fourteen years after the introduction of DU on the battlefield in 1991, the long-term effects have revealed that DU is a death sentence and very nasty stuff. Scientists studying the biological effects of uranium in the 1960s reported that it targets the DNA. Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist retired from the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab and formerly involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in soldiers from the 2003 war as “spectacular … and a matter of concern.” This evidence shows that of the three effects which DU has on biological systems - radiation, chemical and particulate – the particulate effect from nano-size particles is the most dominant one immediately after exposure and targets the Master Code in the DNA. This is bad news, but it explains why DU causes a myriad of diseases which are difficult to define. In simple words, DU “trashes the body.” When asked if the main purpose for using it was for destroying things and killing people, Fulk was more specific: “I would say that it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people.” Soldiers developing malignancies so quickly since 2003 can be expected to develop multiple cancers from independent causes. This phenomenon has been reported by doctors in hospitals treating civilians following NATO bombing with DU in Yugoslavia in 1998-1999 and the U.S. military invasion of Iraq using DU for the first time in 1991. Medical experts report that this phenomenon of multiple malignancies from unrelated causes has been unknown until now and is a new syndrome associated with internal DU exposure. Just 467 U.S. personnel were wounded in the three-week Persian Gulf War in 1990-1991. Out of 580,400 soldiers who served in Gulf War I, 11,000 are dead, and by 2000 there were 325,000 on permanent medical disability. This astounding number of disabled vets means that a decade later, 56 percent of those soldiers who served now have medical problems. The number of disabled vets reported up to 2000 has been increasing by 43,000 every year. Brad Flohr of the Department of Veterans Affairs told American Free Press that he believes there are more disabled vets now than even after World War II. They brought it home Not only were soldiers exposed to DU on and off the battlefields, but they brought it home. DU in the semen of soldiers internally contaminated their wives, partners and girlfriends. Tragically, some women in their 20s and 30s who were sexual partners of exposed soldiers developed endometriosis and were forced to have hysterectomies because of health problems. In a group of 251 soldiers from a study group in Mississippi who had all had normal babies before the Gulf War, 67 percent of their post-war babies were born with severe birth defects. They were born with missing legs, arms, organs or eyes or had immune system and blood diseases. In some veterans’ families now, the only normal or healthy members of the family are the children born before the war. The Department of Veterans Affairs has stated that they do not keep records of birth defects occurring in families of veterans. How did they hide it? Before a new weapons system can be used, it must be fully tested. The blueprint for depleted uranium weapons is a 1943 declassified document from the Manhattan Project. Harvard President and physicist James B. Conant, who developed poison gas in World War I, was brought into the Manhattan Project by the father of presidential candidate John Kerry. Kerry’s father served at a high level in the Manhattan Project and was a CIA agent. Conant was chair of the S-1 Poison Gas Committee, which recommended developing poison gas weapons from the radioactive trash of the atomic bomb project in World War II. At that time, it was known that radioactive materials dispersed in bombs from the air, from land vehicles or on the battlefield produced very fine radioactive dust which would penetrate all protective clothing, any gas mask or filter or the skin. By contaminating the lungs and blood, it could kill or cause illness very quickly. They also recommended it as a permanent terrain contaminant, which could be used to destroy populations by contaminating water supplies and agricultural land with the radioactive dust. The first DU weapons system was developed for the Navy in 1968, and DU weapons were given to and used by Israel in 1973 under U.S. supervision in the Yom Kippur war against the Arabs. The Phalanx weapons system, using DU, was tested on the USS Bigelow out of Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in 1977, and DU weapons have been sold by the U.S. to 29 countries. Military research report summaries detail the testing of DU from 1974-1999 at military testing grounds, bombing and gunnery ranges and at civilian labs under contract. Today 42 states are contaminated with DU from manufacture, testing and deployment. Women living around these facilities have reported increases in endometriosis, birth defects in babies, leukemia in children and cancers and other diseases in adults. Thousands of tons of DU weapons tested for decades by the Navy on four bombing and gunnery ranges around Fallon, Nevada, is no doubt the cause of the fastest growing leukemia cluster in the U.S. over the past decade. The military denies that DU is the cause. The medical profession has been active in the cover-up - just as they were in hiding the effects from the American public - of low level radiation from atmospheric testing and nuclear power plants. A medical doctor in Northern California reported being trained by the Pentagon with other doctors, months before the 2003 war started, to diagnose and treat soldiers returning from the 2003 war for mental problems only. Medical professionals in hospitals and facilities treating returning soldiers were threatened with $10,000 fines if they talked about the soldiers or their medical problems. They were also threatened with jail. Reporters have also been prevented access to more than 14,000 medically evacuated soldiers flown nightly since the 2003 war in C-150s from Germany who are brought to Walter Reed Hospital near Washington, D.C. Dr. Robert Gould, former president of the Bay Area chapter of Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), has contacted three medical doctors since February 2004, after I had been invited to speak about DU. Dr. Katharine Thomasson, president of the Oregon chapter of the PSR, informed me that Dr. Gould had contacted her and tried to convince her to cancel her invitation for me to speak about DU at Portland State University on April 12. Although I was able to do a presentation, Dr. Thomasson told me I could only talk about DU in Oregon “and nothing overseas … nothing political.” Dr. Gould also contacted and discouraged Dr. Ross Wilcox in Toronto, Canada, from inviting me to speak to Physicians for Global Survival (PGS), the Canadian equivalent of PSR, several months later. When that didn’t work, he contacted Dr. Allan Connoly, the Canadian national president of PGS, who was able to cancel my invitation and nearly succeeded in preventing Dr. Wilcox, his own member, from showing photos and presenting details on civilians suffering from DU exposure and cancer provided to him by doctors in southern Iraq. Dr. Janette Sherman, a former and long-standing member of PSR, reported that she finally quit some time after being invited to lunch by a new PSR executive administrator. After the woman had pumped Dr. Sherman for information all through lunch about her position on key issues, the woman informed Dr. Sherman that her last job had been with the CIA. How was the truth about DU hidden from military personnel serving in successive DU wars? Before his tragic death, Sen. Paul Wellstone informed Joyce Riley, R.N., B.S.N., executive director of the American Gulf War Veterans Association, that 95 percent of Gulf War veterans had been recycled out of the military by 1995. Any of those continuing in military service were isolated from each other, preventing critical information being transferred to new troops. The “next DU war” had already been planned, and those planning it wanted “no skunk at the garden party.” The US has a dirty (DU) little (CIA) secret A new book just published at the American Free Press by Michael Collins Piper, “The High Priests of War: The Secret History of How America’s Neo-Conservative Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire,” details the early plans for a war against the Arab world by Henry Kissinger and the neo-cons in the late 1960s and early 1970s. That just happens to coincide with getting the DU “show on the road” and the oil crisis in the Middle East, which caused concern not only to President Nixon. The British had been plotting and scheming for control of the oil in Iraq for decades since first using poison gas on the Iraqis and Kurds in 1912. The book details the creation of the neo-cons by their “godfather” and Trotsky lover Irving Kristol, who pushed for a “war against terrorism” long before 9/11 and was lavishly funded for years by the CIA. His son, William Kristol, is one of the most influential men in the United States. Both are public relations men for the Israeli lobby’s neo-conservative network, with strong ties to Rupert Murdoch. Kissinger also has ties to this network and the Carlyle Group, who, one could say, have facilitated these omnicidal wars beginning from the time former President Bush took office. It would be easy to say that we are recycling World Wars I and II, with the same faces. When I asked Vietnam Special Ops Green Beret Capt. John McCarthy, who could have devised this omnicidal plan to use DU to destroy the genetic code and genetic future of large populations of Arabs and Moslems in the Middle East and Central Asia - just coincidentally the areas where most of the world’s oil deposits are located - he replied: “It has all the handprints of Henry Kissinger.” In Zbignew Brzezinski’s book “The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives,” the map of the Eurasian chessboard includes four regions strategic to U.S. foreign policy. The “South” region corresponds precisely to the regions now contaminated permanently with radiation from U.S. bombs, missiles and bullets made with thousands of tons of DU. A Japanese professor, Dr. K. Yagasaki, has calculated that 800 tons of DU is the atomicity equivalent of 83,000 Nagasaki bombs. The U.S. has used more DU since 1991 than the atomicity equivalent of 400,000 Nagasaki bombs. Four nuclear wars indeed, and 10 times the amount of radiation released into the atmosphere from atmospheric testing! No wonder our soldiers, their families and the people of the Middle East, Yugoslavia and Central Asia are sick. But as Henry Kissinger said after Vietnam when our soldiers came home ill from Agent Orange, “Military men are just dumb stupid animals to be used for foreign policy.” Unfortunately, more and more of those soldiers are men and women with brown skin. And unfortunately, the DU radioactive dust will be carried around the world and deposited in our environments just as the “smog of war” from the 1991 Gulf War was found in deposits in South America, the Himalayas and Hawaii. In June 2003, the World Health Organization announced in a press release that global cancer rates will increase 50 percent by 2020. What else do they know that they aren’t telling us? I know that depleted uranium is a death sentence … for all of us. We will all die in silent ways. To learn more Sources used in this story that readers are encouraged to consult: American Free Press four-part series on DU by Christopher Bollyn. Part I: "Depleted Uranium: U.S. Commits War Crime Against Iraq, Humanity," http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/depleted_uranium.html Part II: "Cancer Epidemic Caused by U.S. WMD: MD Says Depleted Uranium Definitively http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/cancer_epidemic_.html Part III: "DU Syndrome Stricken Vets Denied Care: Pentagon Hides DU Dangers to Deny Medical Care to Vets", http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/du_syndrome.html Part IV: "Pentagon Brass Suppresses Truth About Toxic Weapons: Poisonous Uranium Munitions Threaten World", http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/pentagon_brass.html August 2004 World Affairs Journal. Leuren Moret: "Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War," http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04.htm August 2004 Coastal Post Online. Carol Sterrit: "Marin Depleted Uranium Resolution Heats Up - GI's Will Come Home To A Slow Death," http://www.coastalpost.com/04/08/01.htm World Depleted Uranium Weapons Conference, Hamburg, Germany, October 16-19, 2004: http://www.uraniumweaponsconference.de/speakers.htm International Criminal Tribunal for Afghanistan. Written opinion of Judge Niloufer Baghwat: http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2004/Afghanistan-Criminal-Tribuna l10mar0 4.htm "Discounted Casualties: The Human Cost of Nuclear War" by Akira Tashiro, foreword by Leuren Moret, http://www.chugoku-np.co.jp/abom/uran/index_e.html Leuren Moret is a geoscientist who has worked around the world on radiation issues, educating citizens, the media, members of parliaments and Congress and other officials. She became a whistleblower in 1991 at the Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab after experiencing major science fraud on the Yucca Mountain Project. An environmental commissioner in the City of Berkeley, she can be reached at leurenmoret@yahoo.com. sfbayview.com San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper 4917 Third Street San Francisco California 94124 Phone: (415) 671-0789 Fax: (415) 671-0316 Email: ***************************************************************** 34 SFBV: Heads roll at Veterans Administration San Francisco Bay View - National Black Newspaper of the Year 12/14/05 Mushrooming depleted uranium (DU) scandal blamed by Bob Nichols Project Censored Award Winner Considering the tons of depleted uranium used by the U.S., the Iraq war can truly be called a nuclear war. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter charged Monday that the reason Veterans Affairs Secretary Anthony Principi stepped down earlier this month was the growing scandal surrounding the use of uranium munitions in the Iraq War. Writing in Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter No. 169, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director of Veterans for Constitutional Law in New York, stated, “The real reason for Mr. Principi’s departure was really never given, however a special report published by eminent scientist Leuren Moret naming depleted uranium as the definitive cause of the ‘Gulf War Syndrome’ has fed a growing scandal about the continued use of uranium munitions by the US Military.” Bernklau continued, “This malady (from uranium munitions), that thousands of our military have suffered and died from, has finally been identified as the cause of this sickness, eliminating the guessing. The terrible truth is now being revealed.” He added, “Out of the 580,400 soldiers who served in GW1 (the first Gulf War), of them, 11,000 are now dead! By the year 2000, there were 325,000 on Permanent Medical Disability. This astounding number of ‘Disabled Vets’ means that a decade later, 56% of those soldiers who served have some form of permanent medical problems!” The disability rate for the wars of the last century was 5 percent; it was higher, 10 percent, in Viet Nam. “The VA Secretary (Principi) was aware of this fact as far back as 2000,” wrote Bernklau. “He, and the Bush administration have been hiding these facts, but now, thanks to Moret’s report, (it) ... is far too big to hide or to cover up!” “Terry Jamison, Public Affairs Specialist, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs, Department of Veterans Affairs, at the VA Central Office, recently reported that ‘Gulf Era Veterans’ now on medical disability, since 1991, number 518,739 Veterans,” said Berklau. “The long-term effects have revealed that DU (uranium oxide) is a virtual death sentence,” stated Berklau. “Marion Fulk, a nuclear physical chemist, who retired from the Lawrence Livermore Nuclear Weapons Lab, and was also involved with the Manhattan Project, interprets the new and rapid malignancies in the soldiers (from the 2003 Iraq War) as ‘spectacular … and a matter of concern!’” When asked if the main purpose of using DU was for “destroying things and killing people,” Fulk was more specific: “I would say it is the perfect weapon for killing lots of people!” Principi could not be reached for comment prior to deadline. References 1. Depleted uranium: “Dirty bombs, dirty missiles, dirty bullets: A death sentence here and abroad” by Leuren Moret, http://www.sfbayview.com/081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml. 2. Veterans for Constitutional Law, 112 Jefferson Ave., Port Jefferson NY 11777, Arthur N. Bernklau, executive director, (516) 474-4261, fax 516-474-1968. 3. Preventive Psychiatry E-Newsletter. Email Gary Kohls, gkohls@cpinternet.com, with “Subscribe” in the subject line. Email Bob Nichols at bobnichols@cox.net. sfbayview.com San Francisco Bay View National Black Newspaper 4917 Third Street San Francisco California 94124 Phone: (415) 671-0789 Fax: (415) 671-0316 ***************************************************************** 35 [NukeNet] U 235 Waste Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:31:39 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) And this doesn't include the tons of radioactive waste now being stored in Idaho. Hundreds of shipping containers are stored at the DOE Idaho site waiting to be reprocessed in order to regain the bomb grade U 235 remain after core depletion. This is the material left over from the Nuclear Navy inventory. An attempt was made to reprocess some of the waste years ago, but the reprocessing facility was so poorly built it leaked radioactive waste over a significant portion of the facility. The reactor only uses about 30% of the original U 235 bomb grade inventory. I doubt if a single gram of Naval Reactor fuel has every been reprocessed. It just sits in Idaho waiting for something to happen. The storage facility has, furthermore, never been inspected by a single agency outside of the Naval Reactor program. John Shannon Retired Nuclear Physicist/Nuclear Engineer _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 36 [NukeNet] Reprocessing waste, a must read from Bob Alvarez, Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:35:41 -0800 NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) >Dear All -- > > > >In addition to the radioactive wastes generated La Hague in France, >I draw your attention to the mess that was created in the USA from >reprocessing of spent fuel. Attached is an article I wrote >("Reducing the Risks of High-Level Radioactive Wastes at >Hanford)" that appeared this summer in Science and Global >Security. >http://www.ips-dc.org/projects/nuclear/Hanford.pdf > > > > >The GAO reported to the U.S. Congress in 2003 that the total estimated >cost to stabilize and dispose of DOE's HLW was in excess of $100 >billion.After more than 20 years, when DOE began to address these >wastes, >less than 5% have been vitrified. About 1,600+ glass logs have been >produced at SRS, which contain less than 10% of of the total amount of >radioactivity based on design requirements. > > > >Estimated at ~ $60 billion, the processing and disposal of Hanford's >HLW, >is the most complex, expensive and risky environmental project in the >U.S. In 2001, the NRC estimated that the unmitigated risk of a >catastrophic accident at Hanford was as high as 50/50 ( same as the >Space >Shuttle). Meanwhile, because of management failures, DOE is seeking to >dispose of the rough equivalent of the Cs-137 inventory contained in >several densely compact spent fuel pools onsite at Hanford and SRS >(plus >large amounts of very long-lived radionuclides). > > > >However, the French and British generated and stored their HLW in a >nitric acid form. The nitric acid wastes are subsequently calcined >into a powder as feed for vitrification. Unfortunately, the U.S. >neutralized the major preponderance of its wastes, so they could be >stored in cheaper carbon steel tanks. As a result DOE HLW are >inhomogenous, chemically complex, and inherently flammable and >explosive. This has made vitrification of DOE HLW much more >difficult and dangerous. > > > >But, HLW vitrification in Europe is not without a few >"show-stopping" problems. Recently, at Britain's Thorpe plant, >a leak in a "black cell" ( a sealed process area, which cannot >be entered by humans) has effectively crippled the whole >operation. > > > >Nonetheless, I believe that we should not lose site of the mess created >in our own country from reprocessing and, moreover, DOE's persistent >culture of mismanagement. > >(In 1996, GAO reported to Congress that DOE had an 80% failure rate for >projects in excess of $100 million). DOE has created a very large >"balloon mortgage" payment for reprocessing which is now come >due. Somehow, we should connect these dots for the Congress and the >public to see what we are getting into. > > > > > >Best Regards, > > > >Bob > >kitbob@starpower.net > > > > > > > > > > > SPONSORED LINKS > > > > > Issue management > > > Money issue > > > Cause rheumatoid arthritis > > > > > Cause of hair loss > > > Causes of joint pain > > > Cause of teen depression > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > > > Visit your group "srs-action" on the web. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > srs-action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 37 NRC: NRC Staff Proposes $96,000 Civil Penalty Against PG for Spent Fuel Pool Storage Violations at Humboldt Bay News Release - Region IV - 2005-04 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region IV No. IV-05-040 December 21, 2005 CONTACT: Victor Dricks Phone: 817-860-8128 E-mail: opa4@nrc.gov civil penalty against Pacific Gas & Electric Company for violations of NRC requirements related to the storage of spent radioactive fuel and other radioactive material in the spent fuel storage pool at the Humboldt Bay Unit 3 nuclear power plant near Eureka, Ca. Bruce S. Mallett, Administrator of the NRC Region IV office in Arlington, Tex., said in a December 20 letter to the company that the violations originated from a July 2004 PG&E report to the NRC which indicated that the company could not locate three 18-inch segments of a fuel rod that records show were removed from the reactor in 1968. The company also said its records failed to account for radioactive incore detectors after some were cut in 1973. It is important that licensees maintain an accurate inventory of the content of their spent fuel pools, Mallett said. Based on our inspections and review of their response to this incident, we are confident that PG&E has taken the appropriate corrective actions to ensure this. The plant was shut down in 1976 and has been in a SAFSTOR status since 1988. SAFSTOR is a method of decommissioning in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in such condition that it can be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated to levels that permit release for unrestricted use. The violations were identified in 2004 during PG&Es review of the inventory of the material in the spent fuel pool. The NRC conducted special inspections at the plant from Nov. 2, 2004 through Aug. 2, 2005 to review the circumstances of the reported loss and ensure appropriate corrective actions had been taken to prevent recurrence. In its December 20 letter to the company, NRC identified three violations: (1) failure to keep adequate records of special nuclear material inventory, transfer or disposal; (2) failure to establish adequate procedures for control and accounting of special nuclear material; and (3) failure to conduct adequate physical inventories of special nuclear material. The violations cumulatively constituted a Severity Level 2 violation, the second most serious under the NRC enforcement program which existed at the time they occurred. In determining the severity level of enforcement, the NRC took into account that PG&E had self-identified the violations and taken prompt and comprehensive corrective action. NRC officials determined that it was highly unlikely that the missing fuel or incore detectors were stolen or pose any public risk. The NRC also concluded that the materials had most likely been shipped to a licensed low-level waste disposal site in the United States. Copies of the letter to the company and the Notice of Violation will be available online at: http://www.nrc.gov/what-we-do/regulatory/enforcement/current.html . They are also available from the NRC Public Document Room in Rockville, Md., or on the NRCs document system (ADAMS) by entering ML053540386. ADAMS is accessible from the NRC web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is available by calling the NRC Public Document Room at (301) 415-4737. The company has 30 days from receipt of the Notice of Violation to either pay the civil penalty or to protest it, in whole or in part. Last revised Wednesday, December 21, 2005 ***************************************************************** 38 Bradenton Herald: Lockheed set to start cleaning Tallevast contamination site : Toxins to be pumped out of groundwater 12/21/2005 | Tallevast investigation. DONNA WRIGHT Herald Staff Writer TALLEVAST - Scientists working for Lockheed Martin Corp. are ready to start cleaning up contaminated groundwater at the site of the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant, if state regulators approve their plan. Lockheed's plan calls for using a pump-and-treat system to clean the groundwater. Once cleansed to county standards, the treated groundwater will be discharged into the county sewer system. "A pump-and-treat system is a very conservative first step," said Tina Armstrong, Lockheed's senior project manager for the Tallevast cleanup. Equipment for a pump-and-treat system will be housed in a small building that will blend into the campus of the former Loral American Beryllium Co. plant at 1600 Tallevast Road, according to the plan released Tuesday. The system will treat up to 60 gallons of groundwater per minute. Lockheed is starting at the site of the former beryllium plant - now operated by WPI Inc, a cable manufacturer - because that is where the most contamination has been found and the source of plume is believed to be. If approved, the remediation plan will begin as soon as possible. Meanwhile, more test wells will be drilled off-site to determine how far and how deep the contamination of industrial solvents has spread, according to Gail Rymer, Lockheed spokeswoman. The engineering firm of Blasland, Bouck &Lee, Inc. is in charge of the remediation project. Blasland engineers also will be searching for the existence of NAPLs - non-aqueous phase liquid - or globs of contaminates that may hinder the effectiveness of the pump-and-treat system. Armstrong defined a NAPL as a high concentration of a chemical that is not easily soluble in water. A super-dense concentration is called a DNAPL, or dense non-aqueous phase liquid, said Armstrong. Because TCE, or trichloroethene - one of the most worrisome of toxins - is heavier than water it tends to form DNAPLs, said Armstrong. While probes and tests for DNAPLs have yielded no evidence they exist on the plant site, Armstrong said, high concentrations of TCE and 1,4 dioxane - found in some groundwater samples indicate the potential for their presence. But Armstrong cautioned DNAPLs do not pose a threat to community because there is no exposure route. "They don't tend to move beyond the source," said Armstrong. "But if a DNAPL exists, we might have to go after it more aggressively." One method would be to put a biological agent into the water that would consume the DNAPL, said Armstrong. DNAPLs are common in sites that have been contaminated with TCE, according to the Web site of the Interagency Dense Non Aqueous Phase Liquid Consortium, a strategic alliance of several government agencies formed to explore ways to destroy the blobs. The consortium says DNAPLs are often difficult to locate and remediate, which is why government agencies and industries have spent billions of dollars to find ways to clean up DNAPL-contaminated sites. In addition to installing the pump-and-treat system, capping existing private drinking water and irrigation wells in Tallevast is an important step in remediation, the Lockheed plan stated. Those wells can act as conduits or draws for the contamination. On Tuesday, Lockheed began mailing informational letters to property owners in Tallevast who have wells that need to be sealed. Lockheed plans to follow up with visits to property owners to answer questions. "As we are made aware of any additional wells, we will also include discussions with these property owners," Rymer said in an e-mail announcement. HeraldToday.com More information online: • Photos related to the Tallevast plume • Documents related to the Tallevast plume ***************************************************************** 39 AP Wire: PG&E to pay $96,000 fine nuclear power plant violations Posted on Wed, Dec. 21, 2005 PG&E to pay $96,000 fine nuclear power plant violations Associated Press SAN FRANCISCO - Federal regulators on Wednesday proposed fining Pacific Gas and Electric Co. $96,000 for losing track of material removed from a nuclear reactor more than 30 years ago. The violations occurred at a PG&E nuclear power plant near Eureka, which the utility shut down in 1976. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission's fine revolves around three 18-inch segments of a fuel rod removed from the Humboldt Bay plant in 1968, as well as radioactive incore detectors that were cut in 1973. San Francisco-based PG&E realized it couldn't properly account for what happened to the material during a review last year. Although the exact location of the material remains unknown, regulators don't believe the missing fuel or detectors pose a safety risk. In a statement, the NRC said it had concluded "the materials had most likely been shipped to a licensed low-level waste disposal site in the United States." PG&E said it won't protest the proposed fine, giving it 30 days to pay the penalty. "We regret that shortcomings in our past record-keeping caused this problem, and acknowledge that the level of detail and thoroughness of records we kept in the 1960s and '70s are no where near the levels they are at today," said Dave Oatley, the general manager of nuclear power plant that PG&E currently operates near San Luis Obispo. Oatley guaranteed PG&E wouldn't make the same mistakes again. PG&E can easily afford the fine. Its corporate parent, PG&E Corp., earned $737 million on revenue of $8 billion during the first nine months of this year. PG&E's violations are considered the second most serious in the NRC's enforcement program. In calculating an appropriate fine, the NRC said it considered PG&E roles in identifying the violations and the improvements that the utility has made to avoid future problems. ***************************************************************** 40 Deseret News: Washington County law bans nuclear waste [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, December 21, 2005 Washington County law bans nuclear waste Ordinance is called pre-emptive action; goes into effect today By Nancy Perkins Deseret Morning News ST. GEORGE — High-level nuclear waste and certain levels of radioactive waste aren't welcome in Washington County. County commissioners recently passed an ordinance that rejects all proposals for a storage or transfer facility for high-level nuclear waste or greater than class-C radioactive waste within the county limits. "This is really a pre-emptive action," said Washington County Commissioner Jim Eardley, referring to the ordinance adopted unanimously and in effect starting today. "We don't know of any proposals and we're not anticipating anything, but we feel like it's the prudent thing to do." Washington County's proximity to a proposed nuclear waste storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada was a factor when it came to passing the ordinance, he said. Also playing a part in the county's timing, he said, is Utah's ongoing struggle to stop the temporary storage of such waste on the Goshute Indian reservation in Tooele County's Skull Valley. "It is a very sensitive issue down here," said Eardley, who grew up in Washington County and maintains a ranch here. "We want to be in harmony with the state when it comes to rejecting storage of nuclear waste." Above-ground nuclear tests conducted at the Nevada Test Site during the 1950s and early 1960s released plumes of radioactive fallout that drifted north to southern Utah and beyond. Children drank milk from contaminated cows and farmers tilled earth that later tested positive with radioactive dust. "We were never told what was going on over the hill, so we weren't afraid of that," said Michelle Thomas, a St. George native who beat back two forms of cancer and now struggles with a muscular disease. "It wasn't long after the tests began that people around here started noticing the effects. Those of you who've moved in here don't know; we're reading the obituaries of our friends everyday. People die prematurely in St. George." Hundreds of area "downwinders" have been tested at a free medical and health screening clinic called "The Radiation Exposure Screening and Education Program," or RESEP, at Dixie Regional Medical Center. Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Division of Primary Health Care and numerous local health-care agencies, RESEP opened its doors in March 2004. Funding for 2006 have also been renewed. "There are six clinics like ours in the western United States," said RESEP clinic director Becky Barlow. "Most of the downwinders we've seen are from Washington and Iron counties, but we have had people come here who now live in other states." Above-ground nuclear testing conducted at the Nevada Test Site during those years produced radioactive fallout that drifted over the region, exposing an estimated 22,000 people, Barlow said. E-mail: nperkins@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 41 Platts: Kazakhstan will store spent fuel from BN-350 in 2007 or 2008 Kiev (Platts)--20Dec2005 Spent nuclear fuel from the decommissioned BN-350 fast reactor at the Mangyshlak Atomic Energy Complex (MAEK) in the Mangystau region will be moved to a long-term storage site in 2007 or 2008, according to Kazakh authorities. Kazakhstan's ministry of energy and mineral resources plans to undertake 50-year storage of the fuel at Baikal-1, located on National Nuclear Center (the former Semipalatinsk nuclear test site, SNTA) property in eastern Kazakhstan. Timur Zhantikin, head of the ministry's atomic energy committee (AEC), said the spent fuel would be transported and stored in dual-purpose metal-concrete casks on a roofed concrete pad. Construction has not yet begun on the SNTA facility; the casks are still being tested. If the tests are successful, a prototype cask would be fabricated and undergo a quality control examination and certification before commercial production could begin. BN-350 was the world's first prototype fast reactor. It went critical in 1972 and began energy production in 1973. The plant also produced fresh water, thanks to an adjacent desalination plant. It was shut in 1999. The Kazakh government decided in April to decommission BN-350, which is part of the MAEK-Kazatomprom Co., Ltd.?a subsidiary of Kazatomprom, the national atomic energy company. The BN-350 fuel was earlier discharged and put into 2,744 containers that were placed in special ponds at the MAEK complex. The packaging process lasted two and a half years and was completed in summer 2001. Major mothballing work on the reactor is expected to be completed by 2015 and includes processing of the sodium coolant. In 2006, a plant capable of processing 1,300 tons of primary sodium into alkali is to be started up. MAEK must also choose a route for spent fuel shipments to the storage site. Two possible rail routes are under consideration, both of which partly cross into neighboring countries. The northern route is 2,800 kilometers, 300 of which extend into Russia. The route runs from Aktau to Kandagach, Aksu, and Deghelen (former Konechnaya). The southern route runs from Aktau to Kandagach, Kyzylorda, Alma-Ata, Semipalatinsk, and Deghelen. Only 19 of the total 4,000 km is outside Kazakhstan, in Kyrgyzstan. However, construction of a new rail spur in northern Kazakhstan is planned before 2006, a move seen as obviating the need to cross into Russian territory. Kazakhstan experts estimate that about 10 trips will be needed, lasting more than a year, to move all the fuel. From the Deghelen rail station, the fuel will be transported to the storage site by truck. Copyright © 2006 - Platts, All Rights Reserved [The McGraw-Hill Companies] ***************************************************************** 42 Salt Lake Tribune: Nuclear waste storage: Four companies hold a 68% interest in the project Article Last Updated: 12/21/2005 12:44:50 AM By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune WASHINGTON - A fourth partner in Private Fuel Storage said Tuesday it won't kick in any more money for the partnership, which seeks to store high-level nuclear waste on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah. Louisiana-based Entergy Corp. sent a letter to Sen. Orrin Hatch and the Utah congressional delegation Tuesday indicating that it would "hold in abeyance" future investments for construction of the PFS site. "We recognize the political obstacles to finding solutions to management of spent fuel from nuclear plants and believe the Utah facility is probably not the best solution to be pursued at this time," wrote Entergy Executive Vice President Curt L. Hebert Jr. Earlier this month, Southern Co. said it was withdrawing from the PFS partnership and XCel Energy and Florida Power and Light made commitments not to provide financing for the project beyond the licensing phase. The four companies combined hold a 67.8 percent interest in the PFS project, which had eight original partners. In September, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission authorized a license for PFS to store 44,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel on the Skull Valley reservation 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City until a permanent waste disposal site could be built at Yucca Mountain, Nev. The license has not been issued. "When a large majority of PFS shareholders are willing to admit that PFS isn't likely to happen, then we know our work has been paying off," Hatch said in a statement. PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin has said the members were not committed to supporting construction or storage at the site, which will be paid for with contracts to store waste. There are other companies that may be interested in storing their waste at the site, and if there are not, the facility won't be built, she has said. The Senate is expected this week to send President Bush a broad defense policy bill that includes the creation of a wilderness area near the Skull Valley site that would hinder construction of a rail line to the proposed PFS facility. The House on Monday passed the bill with the wilderness proposal, offered by Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah. The Bureau of Land Management, at Hatch's urging, also has decided to have another round of public comment on whether a rail line or station to transfer the waste casks from trains to trucks would be in the public interest. It's initial review in 2001 identified the rail line as the best option. Hatch has been leaning on the companies to withdraw from the PFS partnership, seeking to convince them of the obstacles remaining to the plan and committing to working toward alternative solutions and ensure the federal government "lives up to its commitment" to dispose of the waste. Hatch has said he supports a publicly financed initiative to develop a technology to reprocess the nuclear waste. "I have no doubt that the actions taken by the Bush administration, combined with our success in securing Congressman Bishop's wilderness language, have put Utah over the hump in our fight against the Skull Valley plan," Hatch said. © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 43 AFP: EU seeks to bolster rules on moving nuclear waste Wed Dec 21, 8:11 AM ET BRUSSELS (AFP) - The European Commission" /> European Commissionproposed new rules on the movement of radioactive waste, notably extending regulations on sometimes controversial cross-border shipments. The European Union" /> European Union's executive arm adopted a proposed directive -- or EU law -- to make the EU rules easier to apply and more consistent with other international guidelines. The EU commission noted that strict rules are already in place across the 25-nation bloc whenever nuclear waste has to be moved from one country to another. "These movements need to be expressly authorised and controlled, to ensure that the population and environment are adequately protected and to reduce the possibility that materials are lost or stolen," it said on Wednesday. The rules currently apply to radioactive waste such as that produced by hospitals and industry, as well as nuclear power plants. But the new regulations would specifically extend that to spent nuclear fuel. "By expressly covering shipments of spent nuclear fuel, it now makes clear that the same strict controls are required when moving such nuclear materials from one country to another," said EU energy commissioner Andris Piebalgs. Shipments of radioactive waste regularly attract protests from environmental campaigners -- such as in northern Germany last month when protestors delayed more than 170 tonnes of waste transported by train from France. "While the existing rules are satisfactory in practice, the commission considers that they need to be simplified and that they should cover additional types of nuclear material," the commission said. Copyright © 2005 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 44 Deseret News: PFS backer backs off [deseretnews.com] Wednesday, December 21, 2005 N-waste plan dealt blow as Entergy puts future investments on hold By Suzanne Struglinski Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON — And then there were four. Entergy Corporation, one of the eight original investors in Private Fuel Storage, will hold future investments from the proposed nuclear waste storage site, Executive Vice President Curt Herbert Jr., told Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, in a letter sent Tuesday. Entergy becomes the fourth PFS investor this month to change its financial support, which on top of other recent legislative and administrative action, has "put Utah over the hump in our fight against the Skull Valley plan," Hatch said. Herbert wrote that Entergy will withhold future investments in Private Fuel Storage "as long as there is apparent and continuing progress toward federally sponsored away-from-reactor storage and disposal for the nation's spent nuclear fuel." Entergy owns the second-largest fleet of nuclear plants in the country. "We recognize the political obstacles to finding solutions to management of spent fuel from nuclear plants and believe the Utah facility is probably not the best solution to be pursued at this time," Herbert wrote. The letter is similar to those written by Xcel Energy, Southern Company and Florida Power and Light, all who have changed their financial backing of the proposed used fuel storage site at the Goshute's Skull Valley reservation in Tooele County. Xcel, which holds the largest percentage of the consortium, said it will put a hold on its funding while Southern and FPL have opted out completely. PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said not to read too much into the companies' decisions. The site was always going to be done in phases, and there are a lot of other companies out there who have storage needs that could sign on in the future to move the project to its next stage, she said. The companies seem to have a renewed faith in the government's plan to store nuclear waste in a permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. This is puzzling at first glance because the companies created the idea of PFS in the first place because Yucca was not going to open on time and the project still faces a variety of obstacles before it would open — which at the earliest could be 2012 to 2015. "When PFS was proposed, they looked at it as an insurance policy," said A. David Rossin, a former president of the American Nuclear Society and a former Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Energy at the Energy Department. "I don't think they expected as many political problems." Rossin said prospects for Yucca sometimes look better and sometimes looks worse. Those following nuclear waste issue in Washington say legislation expected to come down next year could put the prospect in the better category now and be the main reason for the PFS companies renewed hope. It has been reported for months that the administration is working on an "everything Yucca" bill, although the specifics are not known. The bill could include an effort to establish a radiation protection standard as well as change how Congress allocates money to the project, but no one can confirm details. A White House sponsored reprocessing plan is also an open secret on the Hill. Everyone from nuclear industry insiders to Senate staff hear the same rumor but specifics are not known. The 2006 energy and water spending included money for a recycling program that some say are a start to a bigger reprocessing debate. An on-site storage bill already introduced by Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., and supported by the entire Utah congressional delegation would allow nuclear companies to use federal money now earmarked for Yucca to build dry container storage on site and get nuclear waste out of storage pools. The industry opposes the bill, saying it does not solve the permanent storage solution. The matter of potential legislation did come up in Hatch's meetings with Xcel, according to his office. Hatch spokesman Peter Carr said the Energy Department has told the companies that something is coming up but did not offer specifics because the specifics are not there yet. The department listened to alternatives the companies offered but could not confirm what would be in their proposal. Hatch did not actually meet with Entergy personally, Carr said, but the other companies that have changed their minds went to Entergy themselves to get it to change its support for PFS. Entergy spokesman Carl Crawford would only confirm that the company sent a letter to Hatch. E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 45 Mos News: Ukraine to Halt Shipments of Spent Nuclear Fuel to Russia - - MOSNEWS.COM Photo: AFP Created: 21.12.2005 11:08 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 11:08 MSK As of 2009 the national atomic energy generating company Energoatom, which operates all Ukraine’s nuclear power plants, intends to stop shipments of spent nuclear fuel to Russia completely, the company’s president Yuri Nedashkivsky was quoted by Interfax as saying. On Dec. 26 Energoatom and the winner of an international tender, the U.S. firm Holtec International, will sign a contract for the design and construction of a centralized storage facility for spent nuclear fuel from three Ukrainian nuclear power plants — Rivne, Khmelnytsky and South-Ukrainian. The storage-facility will be built using the investors’ funds. “After that, in the second half of 2009 or at the end of 2009, we will stop shipping spent nuclear fuel from Ukrainian nuclear power plants to Russia completely,” Nedashkivsky said. Write us: info@mosnews.com Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM ***************************************************************** 46 ContraCostaTimes.com: Decision on lab to come today Posted on Wed, Dec. 21, 2005 By Betsy Mason CONTRA COSTA TIMES The much anticipated decision on who will manage the embattled Los Alamos National Laboratory is set to be announced today by the federal Secretary of Energy. The primary reaction from competitors and lab employees alike has been one of relief that a decision originally scheduled for Dec. 1 is finally at hand. The two main competitors for the new seven-year contract are the University of California, which has managed the New Mexico nuclear weapons lab for more than six decades, and Lockheed Martin, which currently runs Sandia National Laboratories. Today's announcement will mark the end of a long process that began with a series of accounting, safety and security lapses at the lab. In 2002, the problems prompted the Department of Energy to decide to hold a competition for the lab's management contract, which had been held uncontested by the University of California since the lab opened its doors in 1943. Both teams expressed confidence Tuesday as the decision loomed. "I am confident that we, with our teaming partners, have put forth an outstanding proposal for the Los Alamos management contract," UC President Bob Dynes said in a statement. Said Lockheed spokesman Don Carson, "We turned in an outstanding proposal and put together an outstanding team. We'll just hope for the best." For the past year, the two rivals have been busy assembling teams for the bid. UC landed three industry partners, led by Bechtel National, as well as an affiliation with three New Mexico schools. Lockheed joined with two additional industry partners, the University of Texas system and a network of 19 other schools. If UC wins the bid, taking the reins as director of the Los Alamos lab and its $2 billion plus annual budget will be Michael Anastasio, the current director of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Lockheed's point man would be former Sandia lab director Paul Robinson. The DOE also put UC's management contracts for Lawrence Berkeley and Lawrence Livermore laboratories up for bid. In April, UC won the Berkeley lab contract for another five years; the Livermore Lab operating contract is set to expire in 2007. After initially expressing disinterest in competing to continue what it considered a public service, UC eventually decided to bid, citing national security interests as the main reason. Lockheed threw its hat in the ring early on, and there were even whispers of a possible dream-team partnership with UC, but then Lockheed pulled out. When the DOE bumped the management fee from a maximum of $8.7 million to as much as $79 million and otherwise sweetened the contract -- including an end to UC's generous benefits packages for lab employees -- Lockheed promptly jumped back in and the race was on. Early on, employees at Los Alamos Lab seemed to be primarily in UC's corner and hoped to keep their affiliation with the prestigious university system. But that support for UC eroded. Employees' traditional benefits were coming off the table, and there was the perception UC chose a bad leader -- retired admiral Peter Nanos -- to fix security problems at the lab. Those factors, and UC's support of Nanos after he shut the lab down completely in response to the security problems, may have prompted many employees to switch allegiances. "The largest (number) of people is ready for Lockheed to come in and clean house," said Douglas Roberts, a former Los Alamos employee who hosts a blog called "LANL: The Real Story," where current lab employees often express their opinion on lab matters. Betsy Mason covers science and the national laboratories. Reach her at 925-847-2158 or bmason@cctimes.com. email this print ***************************************************************** 47 New Mexican: Los Alamos contract decision expected today Wed Dec 21, 2005 5:17 pm By Andy Lenderman The new management team for Los Alamos National Laboratory will be announced today, ending more than two years of speculation for thousands of workers employed by the nuclear facility. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman has scheduled a news conference for noon today, and lab officials planned to broadcast it to employees internally. (FreeNewMexican.com will cover the news conference live.) Lab Director Robert Kuckuck has scheduled an employee meeting for 3 p.m., spokesman Kevin Roark said. The announcement will mark a new chapter for the lab, which has been managed by the University of California since World War II. Now the university and its private partner , Bechtel National, are competing for the job with a team that includes the University of Texas and Lockheed Martin Corp. The head of the Los Alamos Realtors Association said town residents are split about predicting who will get the contract. People are very excited that its finally going to be announced, Realtor Tracy Langford said. Our community needs for this decision to be made so we can move forward. Congress in 2003 decided to put the labs management contract up for bid. A series of safety and security controversies fueled the debate, and the 1999 Wen Ho Lee espionage case placed the lab under greater national scrutiny. Lee was charged with espionage but later cleared of most charges, and pleaded guilty to one count of mishandling classified information. This has been a long process , and Im glad its finally coming to an end, U.S. Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N .M., said in a statement. Whoever is selected to manage LANL, I am confident that it will continue to be a world-class laboratory that will maintain the nations nuclear stockpile while performing leading edge scientific research. Langford said she and other Realtors and community members were trying to organize a way to watch or listen to the news conference live. She spent part of Monday trying to arrange that and was eventually invited to the labs community-relations office. We as a community just want to know whats happening , Langford said.  ... It shouldnt be an oversight that the community is excluded from this announcement. The head of a lab employee association, Manny Trujillo, said he hopes the new contractor will be a better guardian of taxpayer dollars. The lab was created in 1943 to develop the worlds first atomic bomb. With a budget of $2.2 billion and a 2005 average of 15,357 university employees, consultants and contractors, the lab is considered a major force in the states economy. Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@sfnewmexican . com. ***************************************************************** 48 Hanford News: Energy Department fines Hanford contractor $206,000 Ecology chief says state may use 'big hammer'; This story was published Saturday, December 17th, 2005 By Shannon Dininny, Associated Press Writer YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - The U.S. Department of Energy has fined Fluor Hanford Inc., the primary cleanup contractor at the Hanford nuclear reservation, $206,250 for violating the department's nuclear safety requirements. The Energy Department manages cleanup at the highly contaminated south-central Washington site, which was created in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project. Cleanup costs are expected to total $50 billion to $60 billion. In notifying Fluor Hanford of its intent to issue a fine, the department on Friday cited a series of violations that occurred at the Plutonium Finishing Plant over a two-year period between September 2003 and July 2005. The notice also cited several recent and more significant criticality safety issues, "which are representative of long-standing criticality safety deficiencies dating back to 1996," the department said in the statement. "We want our contractors to identify and address safety issues before they become more serious problems," John Shaw, the Energy Department's assistant secretary for environment, safety and health, said in a statement. "Our goal is to have work conducted in a manner that protects workers, the public and the environment." Beginning in 1949, the Plutonium Finishing Plant was the last step in converting plutonium nitrate solutions into pure plutonium "buttons" about the size of hockey pucks, which were sent to other Energy Department sites to make atomic bombs. The work stopped in 1989 at the end of the Cold War. Early last year, workers completed a project to stabilize and package the last remaining 4.4 tons of plutonium - a project that was considered one of three critical cleanup problems at Hanford. Other key cleanup targets are underground tanks containing highly radioactive waste and corroding spent fuel rods from the nuclear reactors. Work is now focused on dismantling and tearing apart the plutonium plant's contaminated equipment, which will be packaged and sent to a nuclear waste repository in New Mexico. The deadline for the plant to be demolished is 2016 under the Tri-Party Agreement, the cleanup pact signed by the state, Energy Department and the Environmental Protection Agency. The notice of intent to fine also cited an event at the K West Basin in November 2004, when several workers received low-level radiological exposure. The workers were conducting work outside the scope of the planned work activity and moved contaminated tools that had not had a radiological survey, the department said. The K East and K West basins are two pools of water designed to hold spent nuclear fuel. The pools have been prone to leaks, and cleaning them up has proven more difficult than originally thought. Fluor Hanford could have been fined $275,000 for the violations, but the Energy Department mitigated between 25 percent and 75 percent of three of the four violations in recognition of the steps Fluor Hanford had already taken to correct the problems. "We take the enforcement action very seriously and we are aggressively taking action to address the concerns," said Geoff Tyree, spokesman for Fluor Hanford. "Also, we're pleased to see the Office of Enforcement acknowledges the steps we have already taken to address some of these issues. Cleanup at the Hanford site is expected to continue until 2035. © 2005 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 49 Hanford News: Fluor Hanford may face fine from DOE; Safety problems have persisted at plant for nearly 10 years This story was published Saturday, December 17th, 2005 By Annette Cary, Herald staff writer The Department of Energy is proposing to fine Fluor Hanford $206,250 for safety problems, chiefly at Hanford's Plutonium Finishing Plant, that have recurred over nearly a decade. DOE found that Fluor has not fixed safety issues dating to 1996 to prevent a criticality, or an unplanned and runaway nuclear chain reaction, at the PFP. Although the fine covers some recent problems at the PFP and a single incident at the K Basins, more than half of the proposed penalty is based on Fluor's ineffectiveness in ending the longstanding criticality issues. "Over the past year this office has made it clear to the contractor community that recurring poor performance ... will be treated as a very serious problem, and that escalated enforcement action will be taken in such cases," according to a letter sent to Fluor Hanford on Friday from Stephen Sohinki, director of DOE's Office of Price-Anderson Enforcement. Beginning in 1949, the Plutonium Finishing Plant turned plutonium produced by Hanford's nuclear reactors into metal buttons the size of hockey pucks for shipment to the nation's weapons production facilities. Now work is under way to clean up the plant, which is contaminated with residual plutonium and is used to store some remaining weapons-grade plutonium. DOE is proposing a fine of $110,000, the maximum allowed, after finding Fluor had not corrected weaknesses in following criticality safety controls and requirements since problems were uncovered in a 1998 investigation. In 2003, DOE criticized Fluor for not understanding the underlying causes of the problems as the contractor continued to report problems adhering to criticality safety controls that include keeping a safe distance between containers of plutonium or glove boxes containing plutonium to prevent a criticality under some abnormal conditions. In October 2004, Fluor reported 20 more incidents and then more events occurred this summer, according to Sohinki's letter. Many, but not all, of the problems were minor, DOE found. Together, they indicated a significant weakness in the program of criticality safety controls, according to DOE. In addition to plutonium placed too near other plutonium, problems included placing plutonium with a fissionable mass greater than was safe in a glove box, fissionable material that lacked required labels and fissionable material that was not inventoried and tracked correctly. For the violations in 2004 and 2005, DOE plans a fine of $41,250. "We acknowledge there is room for improvement in criticality safety issues," said Geoff Tyree, spokesman for Fluor Hanford. "We are getting more aggressive." The more recent incidents have generally been less serious than those in the 1990s, Tyree said. The contractor has started a study of the cause of the problems and is checking every container with fissionable material to make sure it complies with criticality requirements, he said. Another $13,750 of the proposed fine is for violations of other technical safety requirements at PFP. Seven occurred in 2003 and 2004 and one in the summer of 2005. They included not restricting the movement of fissionable material while a criticality alarm panel was temporarily not operating and not establishing an alternate stack monitoring system within two hours of a system failure. The fine also included $41,250 for an incident in November 2004 that contaminated workers at the K West Basin, a huge indoor pool of contaminated water and radioactive sludge once used to store irradiated nuclear fuel. Workers were authorized to set up equipment to remove long-handled tools used to reach to the bottom of the pools, which did not require that respirators be used. But workers also began moving the tools, which allowed contaminants in the water to become airborne. A health physics technician asked why the area was not posted for required respiratory protection, and workers stopped moving the tools. However, they remained in the potentially contaminated basin without respirators for about 90 minutes. Tests later found that 12 of the 16 workers in the basin had breathed in or ingested at least small amounts of radioactively contaminated material. About 280 long-handled tools have been removed since the incident with no similar safety problems, according to Fluor. More worker training has been added to address problems at both the K Basins and the PFP that led to the planned fine. Some portions of the fine were reduced because Fluor identified and reported problems and made improvements. "We take this enforcement action very seriously, and we're aggressively taking action to address these concerns," Tyree said. Fluor was notified of the fine Friday and given 30 days to admit or deny the problems before DOE issues the fine. The fine comes under the Price-Anderson Amendments Act, which allows DOE to take regulatory action against contractors for nuclear safety violations in exchange for limiting a contractor's liability. © 2005 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 50 Hanford News: Congress elects not to make further cuts in Hanford plant funding This story was published Tuesday, December 20th, 2005 By Shannon Dininny, Associated Press Writer YAKIMA, Wash. (AP) - Congress has decided not to reduce funding by an additional $100 million for a waste-treatment plant at the Hanford nuclear reservation, according to Rep. Doc Hastings, whose district includes the south-central Washington site. The funding reduction, which had been proposed as part of a sweeping series of cuts to help pay for Hurricane Katrina relief, was widely criticized by officials in Washington state. Hastings, R-Wash., said in a statement Monday the proposal deserved the bipartisan opposition it received. "I'm pleased this is now ended. The administration should have never proposed this vit plant cut to Congress," Hastings said. "I hope our energies can now be dedicated to working with the department to set a path forward for the vit plant." The Hanford site was created in the 1940s as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Today, it is the nation's most contaminated nuclear site, and the vitrification plant is the cornerstone of cleanup work being managed by the Energy Department. The plant, mired in delays and cost overruns for years, is being built to convert millions of gallons of highly radioactive waste stored in underground tanks into glasslike logs for permanent disposal in a nuclear waste repository. The department halted construction on large parts of the plant this year because of seismic concerns and skyrocketing costs. The Bush administration cited those concerns in its $626 million budget request for the plant for 2006, down from $690 million in previous years. A House-Senate budget committee reduced that amount by another $100 million last month to $526 million. In addition, the Bush administration had proposed tapping the 2005 budget for $100 million, money that was not spent but was intended to be banked for construction costs in later years. That proposal was part of a $2.3 billion package of cuts to help cover the costs of hurricane relief. Washington state officials and the state's congressional delegation denounced the administration for labeling the funding as unnecessary. Gov. Christine Gregoire threatened to sue if the additional reductions were approved, calling them a clear violation of the federal government's cleanup obligations. Gregoire, a Democrat, said in a telephone interview Monday that she was pleased with the news but still disappointed with the direction the project has taken. She also said she had not yet ruled out legal action, depending in part on future funding. "We are by no means whole," she said. "I think I'm in a wait-and-see mode. Let's see what they do in the 2007 budget, and let's see if they get back to work on the construction of the waste-treatment plant." Congress approved a series of hurricane-relief proposals Monday as part of a defense spending bill. Hanford cleanup is governed under the Tri-Party Agreement, signed by the state, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Energy Department in 1989. Under that agreement, the plant must be operating by 2011, a deadline been pushed back three times from the original of 1999. The Energy Department has warned of the possibility of a fourth delay. © 2005 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 51 Hanford News: Vit money not in hurricane package This story was published Tuesday, December 20th, 2005 By Annette Cary , Herald staff writer The U.S. House of Representatives rejected a White House proposal to use $100 million already budgeted for Hanford's vitrification plant for a package of hurricane relief money Monday morning. "Finally, we got some good news," Washington Gov. Christine Gregoire said in a telephone interview, after a year in which construction at the plant was hit by setback after setback. But the congressional action still leaves funding at the plant short, she pointed out. She continues to consider the possibility of suing the federal government to force a timely start of plant operations. The Department of Energy had developed a construction schedule based on $690 million for each of five years for the plant, which is central to Hanford cleanup. However, the Bush administration proposed cutting that to $626 million for fiscal year 2006. Worried about troubles at the plant, Congress reduced that to $526 million when the final version of the bill passed in November. To meet that budget, about 1,725 workers have been laid off over the past year or notified they will be laid off by early February. On top of those cuts, the White House proposed that $100 million unspent at the vitrification plant be returned to the federal treasury as part of $2.3 billion in budget rescissions proposed in late October for Gulf hurricane relief. The House approved $29 billion in disaster assistance as part of the Defense Appropriations Bill early Monday morning. That included a portion of the $2.3 billion rescission package, but no money from the vitrification plant budget. The Senate was expected to pass the same hurricane relief package. "I'm pleased this is now ended," said U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings in a prepared statement. "The administration should have never proposed this vit plant cut to Congress." Hastings and U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., have criticized the White House for labeling the $100 million as "unnecessary" in its description of items included in the rescissions package. The plant is planned to treat some of Hanford's worst waste from the past production of plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program. Now the waste is among the 53 million gallons of radioactive waste held in underground tanks, many of which have leaked. Over the past year construction has slowed at key parts of the plant because of several problems, including an earthquake study that showed the design standard might be inadequate for a severe earthquake. Congress began to lose faith in the project after those problems developed and a preliminary Army Corps of Engineers report concluded that the start of operations might be delayed four years past a legal deadline of 2011 and the price might increase from $5.8 billion to as much as $9.6 billion. In November, with Congress yet to decide on taking $100 million from the plant's budget for hurricane relief, Gregoire announced she was considering legal action to force a timely start to operations to the plant. Cutting the additional $100 million from the plant's construction money could delay the start of operation until at least 2018, she said then. "I'm not going to commence legal action (immediately)," Gregoire said Monday. Instead, she will wait to see how much money the administration proposes for the fiscal year 2007 budget, which is being developed now, and how quickly construction resumes on key parts of the vitrification plant. Bechtel National, the DOE contractor on the project, plans a temporary halt to construction for a few months to take stock of its resources and see how much construction can continue on those two buildings. For the first time on the project, Congress set funding levels for specific buildings for fiscal year 2006. Gregoire also will be considering a more complete cost and schedule report to be completed by the Army Corps this summer, she said. The $100 million carryover on the project had been set aside as part of a plan to maintain steady funding at the vitrification plant for five years, but spend less money in the early years and more as construction progressed. Last year about $725 million was spent on the vitrification plant, after some carryover funds were used to supplement the $690 million budgeted by Congress. Although technically there was $100 million unspent when the Bush administration announced its rescission plan in October, some of that money was needed to pay for construction and design activity through the first month of the fiscal year before the first 2006 payment was scheduled. In addition, extra costs in fiscal year 2006 will drop the money available for design and construction at the plant from the $526 million approved by Congress to about $490 million, according to Bechtel National. Costs include an independent review of technical solutions, an outside review of financial and schedule information before the Army Corps receives it and the drilling of new bore holes to confirm the findings of the last earthquake study. © 2005 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 52 ABQJOURNAL: Univ. of California Retains Contract To Manage LANL the Albuquerque Journal newspaper. Wednesday, December 21, 2005 Albuquerque Journal--> By Heather Clark/ Associated Press LOS ALAMOS — Despite a string of security lapses and allegations of fraud and mismanagement, the University of California was awarded the government contract Wednesday to continue managing the Los Alamos laboratory that built the atomic bomb. Because of the scandals at Los Alamos, the contract to run the nation's pre-eminent nuclear lab had been put out to bid this year for the first time in the lab's 63-year history. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced that a partnership of UC and the engineering giant Bechtel Corp. had prevailed over a rival team made up of the University of Texas and the defense contractor Lockheed Martin. The contract is for up to $512 million over seven years, with a provision to extend it to 20 years. It begins on June 1. "This is a new contract with a new team, marking a new approach to the management of Los Alamos. It is not a continuation of the previous contract,'' Bodman said at a news conference in Washington. UC President Robert C. Dynes said in a statement the decision signaled a new era. "All of us at the University of California look forward to being a part of the great science yet to come at Los Alamos,'' he said. A disappointed Mark Yudof, chancellor of the UT system, said he was told the scoring for the decision was "very close.'' But he said he had no immediate plans to appeal. "I wish them well. It's in the nation's interest that they do well,'' Yudof said. Bodman listed several goals of the new contract, among them to seek out best practices in government, industry and academia "to make laboratory performance better and cost less, thereby freeing up resources for research and development.'' "It is a good decision for the American taxpayers. This new contract will put in place concrete measures of accountability, ensuring that the tax dollars spent at Los Alamos are well spent,'' he said. But Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, a frequent critic of the lab who chairs the House Energy and Commerce Committee, wasn't convinced. He derided UC's "culture of mismanagement'' and called for the DOE to provide, by Jan. 6, more documents detailing how the selection was made. "I have minimal hope and no belief that UC can reverse its record of consistent failure,'' he said. DOE officials wouldn't go into details Wednesday about why the UC-Bechtel bid won, such as scoring or comparisons with the losing Lockheed bid, citing disclosure restrictions. But Tom D'Agostino, assistant deputy administrator for defense programs at the National Nuclear Security Administration, said UC's bid "described a unique approach.'' "It's an approach in integrating the nuclear weapons complex — currently eight separate complexes — to bring them together to operate in a tightly wound model of efficiency,'' D'Agostino said. DOE officials emphasized that accountability on security issues was a major part of the UC bid, and that the federal government wouldn't diminish its "robust oversight'' of the lab's nuclear operations, security and high-hazard operations. The new management team — formally named Los Alamos National Security LLC — also includes several New Mexico universities. It will be led by Michael Anastasio, who has served as head of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory since 2002. All current Los Alamos lab employees, except top managers, are guaranteed jobs at the same pay and with mostly equivalent benefits, Bodman said. UC has run the lab since it was created in the New Mexico desert in 1943 as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the A-bomb. But because of bitter complaints in Congress about security lapses and poor management, the contract was put up for competitive bidding. This time, the university teamed up with Bechtel to give itself more managerial expertise. The Los Alamos National Laboratory, with about 8,000 University of California employees and 3,000 contract workers, is one of the nation's three chief installations responsible for maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal and manufacturing weapons components. The lab also conducts research on a host of topics of national interest, including miniaturized technology, genetics, computing, the environment and health. In 1999, in a case that proved a major embarrassment for the government and the lab, Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee was jailed amid an investigation into possible Chinese espionage. The case proved to be weak, and Lee pleaded guilty to mishandling classified information and was released with an apology from a federal judge. The lab was rocked by other security lapses, as well as credit card abuses, theft of equipment and other instances of mismanagement. Former lab investigator Glenn Walp, who was fired in 2002 after alleging mismanagement, fraud and cover-up at the lab, said he was disappointed that UC-Bechtel won. "It's a blue Christmas for America,'' he said. Walp said UC deserves praise for the work it has done in the past, "but in the last 10 years, they're just incapable of running the lab that's so important to American security.'' Joe Ladish, a 29-year retired lab veteran, watched the announcement with about 30 people at the lab. There was little reaction, he said, since many had been briefed earlier Wednesday via e-mail. Ladish, who served with a group of retirees who worked with the evaluation board, said he was impressed with the UC-Bechtel bid, but noted, "For the people at the lab, the anxiety is going to be there for many months until they see in detail what it means to them particularly.'' Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., said in a call-in news conference that he's confident the DOE looked at UC's past management problems with the lab in making its decision. He said he believes Bechtel will be the primary manager, with the university having a strong role in the scientific work. "Getting another corporate entity involved was essential to restoring confidence on the part of many, and I think that's why they were teamed up as they were,'' he said. The governors of New Mexico and California also applauded the decision. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson said it "will allow the laboratory's great work to continue, under strong leadership, well into the future'' while California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger called the decision "terrific news for UC, for our state, and for research science in this country.'' ___ AP reporter Jennifer Talhelm in Washington contributed to this report. Copyright Albuquerque Journal ***************************************************************** 53 SF Chronicle: UC keeps control of Los Alamos Wednesday, December 21, 2005 (12-21) 12:16 PST WASHINGTON, D.C. -- The University of California will keep control of the nation's first nuclear weapons lab, which it has overseen for six decades, U.S. Department of Energy officials announced today. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman declared UC the winner of a seven-month competition for the New Mexico lab contract at a press conference in Washington, D.C. The competition was between two teams -- one led by UC and industrial giant Bechtel National and a few industrial partners; the other dominated by aerospace titan Lockheed Martin and the huge University of Texas system plus New Mexico universities and a few industrial partners. At the press conference, federal officials were vague about who would be responsible for security and safety. However, they implied that UC would continue to dominate scientific and technical research. The team led by Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas commented on the decision in a short statement: "The Department of Energy today notified us it has selected the University of California-Bechtel team -- Los Alamos National Security, LLC -- to become the M contractor for Los Alamos National Laboratory. We wish the University of California-Bechtel team every success with its new contract to manage one of the nation's most important scientific institutions. We are thankful that the employees of the lab and their families have a decision." The Energy Department originally planned to announce the selection on Dec. 1. But it was delayed after more time was requested by the chair of the decision-making panel at the National Nuclear Security Administration, a quasi-independent agency that manages the nuclear weapons complex under the aegis of the Energy Department. California's scientific and technical prestige was riding on the decision, which climaxed several years of intermittent scandals and shakeups at the lab, including a near-total shutdown of lab operations for several months in 2004. The decision means UC will be in charge of the lab for the next seven years -- and possibly 13 years if the new management does well enough to receive a six-year extension offered in the contract. In recent years, the Energy Department had typically given UC about $9 million in annual reimbursements for its Los Alamos work, which was peanuts considering the lab's size, prestige and overall budget. In the new contract, the maximum potential annual reimbursement is much higher, $79 million -- depending on the contractor's performance -- with a maximum payout of $512 million over the life of the contract. "We are going to insist on excellent performance (since we are) paying those kinds of fees. A contractor has to perform for us. That's one of the key points of this new approach," said Tom D'Agostino, acting deputy director for defense programs for the Department of Energy. UC had managed the lab without having to compete for its contract since overseeing the lab's invention of the atomic bomb in World War II. But in 2003, after a series of managerial, financial, safety and security scandals at the laboratory, the Energy Department and Congress ordered that all future lab contracts be open to outside bidders. Today's decision could inaugurate a new era of growing "privatization" of the nation's nuclear weapons establishment, as big corporations like Bechtel and Lockheed play more central roles in running the nation's nuclear weapons complex. In recent months, some nostalgic Los Alamos staffers and retirees have griped that whatever happened, the old, mythic Los Alamos is gone forever. The lab has suffered so many managerial spasms and rule changes -- especially regarding security regulations and employee pensions -- that it is no longer the kind of place where a researcher can play freely with big ideas, big budgets and hyper-fast computers unhindered by paperwork and petty regulations, they say. Los Alamos staffers had been on pins and needles awaiting the decision. Douglas Roberts, a former computer scientist at Los Alamos who retired after 20 years and started an online blog for current and previous lab employees, said Tuesday he was predicting a Lockheed-Texas victory. In its bid for the contract, Lockheed-Texas "presented a much better case than did their competitor," Roberts said. Theoretical physicist Daniel James was at Los Alamos for 11 years until July, when he quit to take a faculty position at the University of Toronto. "Leaving LANL felt like getting off the boat deck of the Titanic: I was one of the lucky ones with space in a lifeboat," James said by e-mail Tuesday. He too predicted that Lockheed-Texas would win. "Washington has always wanted to get rid of (the) University of California and the 'academic' attitude toward science," he said. Lockheed-Texas team spokesman Don Carson told The Chronicle on Tuesday that "this has been a long competition." "Everyone has been ready for an announcement," Carson said. UC President Robert Dynes expressed confidence Tuesday that the contract would go to UC and also invoked the well-being of the employees. "Foremost in my mind right now are the employees of the laboratory, who have been incredibly patient and focused during this time of uncertainty regarding their future," Dynes said in a statement. "For them, I am hopeful that the announcement brings clarity and a reaffirmation of their important mission." Controversies over UC's management of the lab have persisted since the contract came under fire in 2002-03 after revelations of alleged financial, safety and security improprieties, such as misplaced computer disks containing weapons information. At that time, key officials, including the former director, were pressured to quit. Among the persistent issues: Energy Department officials still haven't released an investigative report into how a Los Alamos staffer this summer accidentally spread a radioactive substance called americium to private homes and another lab in several states, in one case via a FedEx package. In 2003, a Los Alamos staffer suffered lung damage from chemical exposure after being ordered to re-enter a lab that he had fled because he feared injury from a gas leak. In November, an activist group in Washington, D.C., led by a UC Berkeley-trained scientist, issued a study claiming that 600 pounds of plutonium, the fissile material used in nuclear weapons, is missing from Los Alamos. To date, UC officials have not responded to the charge in detail, beyond insisting that the lab "does an annual inventory of special nuclear materials which is overseen by (the Energy Department). These inventories have been occurring for 20-plus years. Special nuclear materials are carefully tracked to a minute quantity." E-mail Keay Davidson at . The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 54 SF Chronicle: Los Alamos decision is expected today UC in jeopardy of losing longtime control of nuke weapons lab to University of Texas Los Alamos decision is expected today UC in jeopardy of losing longtime control of nuke weapons lab to University of Texas Wednesday, December 21, 2005 The decision over whether the University of California retains or loses its six-decade control of the nation's first nuclear weapons lab will be announced today after a three-week delay, U.S. Department of Energy officials said. Secretary of Energy Samuel Bodman is scheduled to declare the winner of a seven-month competition for the New Mexico lab contract at a press conference in Washington, D.C. The competition is between two teams -- one led by UC and industrial giant Bechtel National and a few industrial partners; the other dominated by aerospace titan Lockheed Martin and the huge University of Texas system plus New Mexico universities and a few industrial partners. The Energy Department originally planned to announce the selection on Dec. 1. But it was delayed after more time was requested by the chair of the decision-making panel at the National Nuclear Security Administration, a quasi-independent agency that manages the nuclear weapons complex under the aegis of the Energy Department. California's scientific and technical prestige is riding on the decision. It will climax several years of intermittent scandals and shakeups at the lab, including a near-total shutdown of lab operations for several months in 2004. Whoever gets the contract will be in charge of the lab for the next seven years -- and possibly 13 years if the new management does well enough to receive a six-year extension offered in the contract. In recent years, the Energy Department has typically given UC about $9 million in annual reimbursements for its Los Alamos work, which was peanuts considering the lab's size, prestige and overall budget. In the next contract, the maximum potential annual reimbursement is much higher, $79 million, depending on the contractor's performance. UC has managed the lab without having to compete for its contract since overseeing the lab's invention of the atomic bomb in World War II. But in 2003, after a series of managerial, financial, safety and security scandals at the laboratory, the Energy Department and Congress ordered that all future lab contracts be open to outside bidders. No matter which team wins, the decision could inaugurate a new era of growing "privatization" of the nation's nuclear weapons establishment, as big corporations like Bechtel and Lockheed play more central roles in running the nation's nuclear weapons complex. In recent months, some nostalgic Los Alamos staffers and retirees have griped that whatever happens today, the old, mythic Los Alamos is gone forever. The lab has suffered so many managerial spasms and rules changes -- especially regarding security regulations and employee pensions -- that it is no longer the kind of place where a researcher can play freely with big ideas, big budgets and hyper-fast computers unhindered by paperwork and petty regulations, they say. Los Alamos staffers have been on pins and needles as they await the decision. Douglas Roberts, a former computer scientist at Los Alamos who retired after 20 years and started an online blog for current and previous lab employees, said Tuesday he was predicting a Lockheed-Texas victory. In its bid for the contract, Lockheed-Texas "presented a much better case than did their competitor," Roberts said. Theoretical physicist Daniel James was at Los Alamos for 11 years until July, when he quit to take a faculty position at the University of Toronto. "Leaving LANL felt like getting off the boat deck of the Titanic: I was one of the lucky ones with space in a lifeboat," James said by e-mail Tuesday. He too predicted that Lockheed-Texas will win. "Washington has always wanted to get rid of (the) University of California and the 'academic' attitude toward science," he said. Lockheed-Texas team spokesman Don Carson told The Chronicle on Tuesday that "this has been a long competition." "Everyone has been ready for an announcement," Carson said. "We don't know if we won or lost. ... We've heard there's a lot of apprehension, concern (by) the employees (of Los Alamos), and having this resolved is good for the employees." UC President Robert Dynes expressed confidence Tuesday that the contract would go to UC and also invoked the well-being of the employees. "Foremost in my mind right now are the employees of the laboratory, who have been incredibly patient and focused during this time of uncertainty regarding their future," Dynes said in a statement. "For them, I am hopeful that the announcement brings clarity and a reaffirmation of their important mission." Controversies over UC's management of the lab have persisted since the contract came under fire in 2002-03 after revelations of alleged financial, safety and security improprieties, such as misplaced computer disks containing weapons information. At that time, key officials, including the former director, were pressured to quit. Among the persistent issues: Energy Department officials still haven't released an investigative report into how a Los Alamos staffer this summer accidentally spread a radioactive substance called americium to private homes and another lab in several states, in one case via a FedEx package. In 2003, a Los Alamos staffer suffered lung damage from chemical exposure after being ordered to re-enter a lab that he had fled because he feared injury from a gas leak. In November, an activist group in Washington, D.C., led by a UC Berkeley-trained scientist, issued a study claiming that 600 pounds of plutonium, the fissile material used in nuclear weapons, is missing from Los Alamos. To date, UC officials have not responded to the charge in detail, beyond insisting that the lab "does an annual inventory of special nuclear materials which is overseen by (the Energy Department). These inventories have been occurring for 20-plus years. Special nuclear materials are carefully tracked to a minute quantity." E-mail Keay Davidson at . Page A - 4 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 55 Inside Bay Area: UC retains contract to manage Los Alamos Article Last Updated: 12/21/2005 02:54:00 PM By Ian Hoffman - STAFF WRITER The University of California, sole designer and maintainer of U.S. nuclear explosives since the Manhattan Project, will keep that job - aided by corporate partners - for seven more years and possibly the next two decades, beating back a challenge by the nation's largest defense contractor. Federal weapons officials named a UC/Bechtel-led team Wednesday as manager of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, the winner of a contract worth a half billion dollars. In the end, the university's scientific strengths and an A-team of new executives drawn from corporate nuclear and engineering giants overcame the 20-year string of UC management failings at Los Alamos that prompted the Energy Department to open the lab's operating contract to competitors. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman stressed that the University of California won't be running the birthplace of the bomb as it has for 62 years, but rather a private consortium known as Los Alamos National Security that put the university on roughly equal footing with Bechtel National and other companies. ``This is a new contract, with a new team, marking a new approach to management of Los Alamos,'' Bodman said. ``It is a good decision for the future of science in this country.'' The award preserves the university's historic monopoly on U.S. nuclear explosive design as well as influence over matters ranging from the resumption of nuclear testing to intelligence assessments of foreign weapons of mass destruction. On word of the award, Lawrence Livermore lab director Michael Anastasio was to board a plane for New Mexico, where he takes over the transition to Los Alamos' new management and becomes the lab director. Two Livermore veterans, former weapons designer George Miller and lab operations deputy Wayne Shotts, are mentioned as likely interim directors until the university finds a permanent replacement. The competing team - the Los Alamos Alliance, led by defense contractor Lockheed Martin and the University of Texas - made a brief statement wishing well to the UC-Bechtel team. In light of the statement, a contract protest appeared unlikely. Even as the award was announced, an outside watchdog group reported an accidental release of plutonium powder inside a Los Alamos lab room that resulted in contamination of a handful of workers. It was the latest in a series of security, safety and financial problems that have plagued the university's management, from credit-card fraud to accidental fatalities and maiming to lost nuclear-weapons secrets. But federal officials said the UC-Bechtel team emerged on top judging by likely future performance. ``What we had in front of us is not the University of California. What we had in from of us is Los Alamos National Security,'' said Tom D'Agostino, a senior federal weapons executive who made the award decision. The team offered ``outstanding credentials'' on science and technology, the functional heart of the laboratory and the dominant criterion for judging the teams, he said. The UC-Bechtel team, with partners representing six of the eight contractors running U.S. nuclear weapons sites, also offered unique ideas for getting Los Alamos to work more closely with weapons factories and the Nevada Test Site. ``They had performed well,'' D'Agostino said, ``And when you look at the key (executive) personnel, one can get to the point where the you can say that the University of California will concentrate on what they do best, Bechtel will do what they do best, BWXT will do what they do best and the Washington Group will do what they do best What we really have here is a fantastic selection.'' The UC-Bechtel team can earn up to $512 million over the seven-year contract in fees, more than six times what the university gets for running Los Alamos alone now. Federal officials boosted the fees twice to attract competitors, and they came swarming. It was a titanic political contest: Western lawmakers in California and to some degree New Mexico lined up behind the University of California, while some lawmakers from Texas and elsewhere rooted for the Lockheed-University of Texas team or frankly anyone but the university. Partisans of both camps acted as if the contract would be won or lost in a backroom deal. ``No matter who wins, one thing is for sure,'' a federal official said this week, ``Half of the people will say, `I told you so.''' So far however there's little evidence that politics swayed the choice of Los Alamos National Security, and Bodman said he was satisfied the selection was insulated from outside influence. ``There can be no hint of politics in a decision of such significance,'' he said. ``I am confident that we have done this properly.'' Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, rallied California lawmakers behind the UC-Bechtel team and said the announcement had her ``dancing in the streets.'' ``I thought on the merits, they delivered a knockout punch, but the politics of this have always been trending away from us, to put it mildly,'' she said. ``This is a great day for Claifornia but it's also good news for the American people, who not only have the best science and national security but also the best management for Los Alamos.'' The Los Alamos award is mixed news for its sister lab, Lawrence Livermore, also operated by the university and open for competition in two years. Los Alamos now has Livermore's director, one of its top operations chiefs, a top weapons-physics managers and a top weapons engineering leader. Federal officials are inclined to run the Livermore competition in much the same way as the Los Alamos competition, with an emphasis on higher fees, heavy corporate involvement and a stand-alone pension plan - all factors that handicapped the university in the Los Alamos competition. But now there's one more: Can the government justify keeping the University of California installed at Livermore after awarding the school contracts for managing both Los Alamos and Lawrence Berkeley national labs? © 2005 ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 56 Bizjournal: UT loses bid for Los Alamos lab - 2005-12-21 Austin Business Journal Jenny RobertsonAustin Business Journal The University of Texas Systemlost its bid to run the Los Alamos National Laboratory, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said Wednesday. Recent Company News » Bechtel Corp.» Lockheed Martin Corp.» Los Alamos National Laboratory» University of Texas System Latest News » CarMax to build second Austin store » AG throws more allegations at Sony BMG » Shareholders OK $3.3B Prentiss-Brandywine merger » IBM to buy Web software firm for $865M » The contract, potentially worth $512 million, went to the University of California, which has run the nuclear science lab since it was created in 1943. Earlier this year, for the first time in the lab's history, the government allowed bidding for the chance to operate New Mexico-based Los Alamos. Austin-based UT teamed up with Bethesda, Md.-based Lockheed Martin Corp.(NYSE: LMT) to vie for the contract. The University of California led its bid in conjunction with San Francisco-based Bechtel Corp., as well as BWX Technologies Inc. and Washington Group International Inc. The team will operate the lab under a corporation named Los Alamos National Security LLC. The contract's term initially will last for seven years, with the possibility to be extended up to 20 years based on performance. "We have set Los Alamos on a course for continued excellence for the next generation," Bodman says. Researchers at the lab study issues relating to national security and the environment, as well as health and supercomputing. The lab employs more than 13,000 people, including more than 8,000 from the University of California and nearly 3,000 contractors. Its budget in fiscal 2004 was $2.2 billion. Representatives from the UT team issued a joint statement saying they "wish the University of California-Bechtel team every success with its new contract to manage one of the nation's most important scientific institutions. We are thankful that the employees of the lab and their families have a decision." Officials who helped the Department of Energy in its selection say they are limited by several laws and regulations from giving details about why the University of California team was chosen. However, they stress that the winning bidders brought a unique approach that would bring "operational excellence" to all areas of the lab. jarobertson@bizjournals.com | (512) 494-2523 © 2005 American City Business Journals Inc. Add RSS Headlines ***************************************************************** 57 lamonitor.com: UC/Bechtel take the prize The Online News Source for Los Alamos ROGER SNODGRASS, roger@lamonitor.com, Monitor Assistant Editor A long haul of uncertainty for thousands of employees at Los Alamos National Laboratory ended today with the announcement that a partnership headed by the University of California and Bechtel will be their new manager. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman.announced today in Washington, D.C., that the contract has been awarded to Los Alamos National Security, the UC-Bechtel entity, rather than the competing group headed by Lockheed Martin with the University of Texas. Bodman said one of his first actions as secretary was to visit Los Alamos, where he had promised that the choice of a contractor would be done right "Nearly a year later, I am confident that it has," he said, noting that the decision had been carried out by career civil servants rather than poitical appointees. "There can't be any hint of politics," he said. The two officials most responsible for the decision, Tyler Przybylek, the chair of the board that evaluated the proposals, and Tom D'Agostino, the assistant deputy administrator for defense programs, the selecting official who made the final decision, said they were unable to disclose details of the selection information, but they gave general answers about the decision. D'Agostino said the strength of the LANS proposal included ideas for driving efficiencies and cooperation among the laboratories in the nuclear complex. He said a lot of thought had gone into the winning bidder's governance process and how best to bring together the strengths of UC, Bechtel, and the two other partners, BWX Technologies Inc. and the Washington Group, International. He also said the leadership roster for LANS was "quite startling and quite impressive." The value of the contract, was valued at nearly $80 million a year, or $53,364,816 over the first seven years, assuming that it is duly extended and not counting an additional extension that could be as much as another 13 years. In selecting UC DOE achieved a goal of imposing an extra dimension of management rigor at LANL. The lab's management has been publicly criticized about problems for which UC has been held responsible. Although the new manager, Los Alamos National Security, LLC, and the new laboratory director, Michael Anastasio will be different, they will also be familiar. An academic-industrial partnership may seem more familiar than an industrial manager with an academic partner. Bill Priedhorsky, a Laboratory Fellow and Chief Scientist in the International Space and Response Divisoion said he was very pleased. "The door is now open for the lab to focus on what it's about, its science and technology product. With the UC we have the strongest University system in the country to assist in the science and technological leadership at the laboratory." New Mexico's two senators expressed satisfaction that the long process had concluded. "I particularly hope the new management team will clarify lines of authority and minimize bureaucracies so our scientists can focus on science," said Sen. Pete Domenici, R-NM, in his announcement. "Los Alamos National Laboratory has benefited tremendously from its six-decade association with the University of California," said Sen. Jeff Bingaman, D-NM, in an announcement. "I am confident that the new management team will ensure that LANL remains one of our nation's most important research laboratories." © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 58 lamonitor.com: Reaction to contract announcement positive The Online News Source for Los Alamos DARRYL NEWMANand CAROL A. CLARK, lareporter@lamonitor.com, Monitor Staff Writers As word came today that the University of California and Bechtel Corp. - who joined forces and made a bid for the contract to run Los Alamos National Laboratory - secured the deal, politicos and other leaders shared their comments on the announcement. The contract to run the lab went out to bid earlier this year for the first time in the lab's 63-year history. UC and Bechtel will jointly manage the seven-year contract for the lab, which has more than 8,300 employees and 3,000 contract workers. LANL maintains an annual budget of more than $2 billion. Among the county leaders who took time this morning to comment on the award were County Administrator Max Baker, who congratulated both teams on their "good proposals." "Both proposals sought to partner with the county and the region for the mutual success of both Los Alamos National Laboratory and the public," he said. "Congratulations to the LANS (Los Alamos National Security) team on being awarded the contract and we pledge our support and assistance as they work on the transition and eventual take over." Council Chair Fran Berting similarly expressed a spirit of solidarity and open communication in UC/Bechtel being named the operators of LANL. "It's certainly good to know that it's been decided," she said. "Considering the communication that we've had with UC when we were awaiting the announcement, we can anticipate more good communication with them. We also anticipate some healthy cooperation and it is good to know that we still have our long-time friends with us. This is a very merry Christmas announcement and hopefully we can all move forward." Kevin Holsapple, executive director of the Los Alamos Commerce and Development Corporation and the Chamber of Commerce, said either way the contract was awarded, a win-win situation was in the future. "It was a great choice either way," he said. "We were looking forward to working with UC/Bechtel and hope it will be a very successful endeavor and good for the community. We're aiming to keep our communications to the things that are important to our county and keep our perspectives in mind as we move ahead. We're pleased that it's been decided and we can get on with working with a team that has expressed interest in the best possible future for the lab and the county." Rep. Jeannette Wallace commented on the contract decision while on travel in Texas. "I am very pleased the process is over," Wallace said. "The choice is one I approve of and I am very pleased." Local law enforcement and emergency response officials expressed their opinions about the contract award. "I'm just happy that this has reached at least this milestone in the process and the citizens and the employees at the laboratory have some direction where the lab is concerned," Police Chief Wayne Torpy said. "I'd like to congratulate the University of California. We look forward to working with them as they work through the transition process." Fire Chief Doug MacDonald said he is glad the decision has been made. "I congratulate UC and Bechtel for receiving the contract to manage the lab," MacDonald said. "I think that for the citizens of the community and the employees of the lab that perhaps the transition will a little easier now." Los Alamos County Emergency Management Coordinator Philmont Taylor was pleased to hear the news and said his department will continue to work diligently with UC to ensure the county and laboratory remain as prepared as possible for any potential emergencies. Los Alamos Schools Superintendent Jim Anderson said the indecision and not knowing was hard on the community. "It's just past time for the uncertainty to be over," Anderson said. "I speculate that most people are happy with UC getting the contract. I hope the commitment made for more communicating and partnership with the community will be followed up on." Anderson congratulated UC and said he knows they worked hard and that now it is time to move forward and make the community stronger than ever. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 59 lamonitor.com: Udall, Richardson: Good decision The Online News Source for Los Alamos CAROL A. CLARK, lanews@lamonitor.com, Monitor Staff Writer Rep. Tom Udall was at the NNSA Site Office in Los Alamos for the announcement. "This is a good decision and I think the community is going to be happy that this is over," Udall said. "The level of anxiety will probably be a little lower with UC because of their long tradition in the community." Udall said that from the outset, his main concern in the long process has been two-fold: + To ensure LANL continues to produce world-class science. + To prevent an exodus of employees from the lab by ensuring their benefits are protected in the new contract. "Now that Los Alamos National Security has been granted the contract, the entire Los Alamos community can move forward as the transition in management begins," Udall said. "My hope is that under their guidance, LANL's workforce will be spared from a turbulent transition." He added he looks forward to working with LANS to ensure strong working relationships in Los Alamos and northern New Mexico to promote economic development and job growth. Gov. Richardson issued the following statement regarding the Department of Energy's decision to award the future management of Los Alamos National Laboratory to Los Alamos National Security LLC. "I am very pleased that the U.S. Department of Energy has chosen Los Alamos National Security LLC (LANS) as the future manager of Los Alamos National Laboratory," Richardson said. "I believe that this team, which includes the current contractor, the University of California, and a consortium of New Mexico higher education institutions, will be best for the lab, the country and my State of New Mexico. I am particularly pleased that New Mexico higher education institutions, including the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, will have an integral role in the scientific work of Los Alamos." Richardson met in 2004 with the University of California Board of Regents to urge U.C. to continue its long history of public service to our country by competing for continued management of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. Richardson urged the University of California to compete for the contract because it offers the Department of Energy the unique ability to create a scientific environment that allows Los Alamos to recruit and keep the best possible staff while allowing them to flourish as they work to meet the nation and the department's missions. "As the team moves through the transition process, it is critical that LANS continues to pay close attention to the needs and concerns of my constituents at the laboratory and throughout northern New Mexico," Richardson said. "I urge them to meet with the employees regarding the development of their new pension and benefit programs. I also urge them to meet with the community members and their leaders to receive their input and to better understand how the laboratory can contribute to the economic and social well being of northern New Mexico." © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 60 UPI: Operator of Los Alamos nuke site picked United Press International - NewsTrack - 12/21/2005 4:20:00 PM -0500 Newstrack: Nevada, which saw its population grow BOISE, Idaho, Dec. 21 (UPI) -- Washington has awarded a $14 billion, seven-year contract to a consortium for operation of the Los Alamos National Laboratory. The Energy Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration gave the job, which begins June 1, to Los Alamos National Security LLC, a team that includes Washington Group International Inc., BWX Technologies, Bechtel and several schools. Those schools are the University of California and the Advanced Studies Institute at LANL, a consortium of the University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University and the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology. Washington Group's primary role in the contract will be as a fee-sharing participant with responsibility for managing LANL's nuclear and other technically complex operations. The terms of the contract provide for a base fee with additional incentives based on performance, and the contract includes an option for extensions up to 13 years. © Copyright 2005 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 61 Guardian Unlimited: U. of Calif. Wins Los Alamos Lab Contract From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday December 21, 2005 9:46 PM By HEATHER CLARK Associated Press Writer LOS ALAMOS, N.M. (AP) - Despite a string of security lapses and allegations of fraud and mismanagement, the University of California was awarded the government contract Wednesday to continue managing the Los Alamos laboratory that built the atom bomb. Because of the scandals at Los Alamos, the government contract to run the nation's pre-eminent nuclear lab had been put out to bid this year for the first time in the lab's 63-year history. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced that a partnership of UC and the engineering giant Bechtel Corp. had prevailed over a rival team made up of the University of Texas and the defense contractor Lockheed Martin. The contract is for up to $512 million over seven years, with a provision to extend it to 20 years. ``This is a new contract with a new team, marking a new approach to the management of Los Alamos. It is not a continuation of the previous contract,'' Bodman said at a news conference in Washington. He said the goals under the new contract include seeking out the best practices in government, industry and academia to make the laboratory operate more efficiently. ``It is a good decision for the American taxpayers. This new contract will put in place concrete measures of accountability, ensuring that the tax dollars spent at Los Alamos are well spent,'' Bodman said. The university has run the lab since it was created in the New Mexico desert in 1943 as part of the top-secret Manhattan Project to build the A-bomb. To win the new contract, the university teamed up with Bechtel to add more managerial expertise. The Los Alamos National Laboratory, with about 8,000 University of California employees and 3,000 contract workers, is one of the nation's three chief installations responsible for maintaining the U.S. nuclear arsenal and manufacturing weapons components. The lab also conducts research on a host of topics of national interest, including miniaturized technology, genetics, computing, the environment and health. The new management team includes several New Mexico universities and will be directed by Michael Anastasio, head of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory since 2002. All current Los Alamos lab employees, except top managers, are guaranteed jobs, Bodman said. ``All of us at the University of California look forward to being a part of the great science yet to come at Los Alamos,'' UC President Robert C. Dynes said. The lab has drawn criticism in recent years for security lapses, credit card abuses, theft of equipment, and mismanagement. In 1999, in a case that proved a major embarrassment for the government and the lab, Los Alamos scientist Wen Ho Lee was jailed amid an investigation into possible Chinese espionage. The case proved to be weak, and Lee pleaded guilty to mishandling classified information and was released with an apology from a federal judge. Former lab investigator Glenn Walp, who was fired in 2002 after alleging mismanagement, fraud and cover-up at the lab, said he was disappointed that UC-Bechtel won. ``It's a blue Christmas for America,'' he said. Walp said UC deserves praise for the work it has done in the past, ``but in the last 10 years, they're just incapable of running the lab that's so important to American security.'' --- AP reporter Jennifer Talhelm in Washington contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 62 Rocky Mountain News: Adams landfill likely to get radioactive waste December 21, 2005 Colorado health regulators are expected as early as today to approve a controversial plan allowing a landfill in eastern Adams County to accept low-level radioactive waste. The executive director of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, Doug Benevento, said Tuesday that acceptance of the proposal was "imminent" and would give the state a safe and "cost-effective" site for disposal of lightly contaminated radioactive wastes. The approval means an existing landfill near Last Chance, just north of U.S. 36, will be allowed to accept radium wastes from underneath Denver streets and leftover sludge from drinking water treatment contaminated with radioactive elements such as uranium. State backing of the plan comes over the objections of Adams County commissioners, local ranchers and the Sierra Club. They've argued, among other things, that it could open the door to more dangerous radioactive wastes in the future, a concern state regulators say is unfounded. "First thing, it's not a surprise. The health department can't say no," said Pam Whelden, a rancher who lives near the site and has fought the landfill for more than a decade. "As far as a bunch of us are concerned, this decision was made before we even knew this thing was going to happen." The site, known simply as the Deer Trail landfill, has accepted a variety of hazardous wastes since 1991. Owned and operated by Massachusetts-based Clean Harbors Environmental Services Inc., the site covers more than 300 acres, with plenty of room to grow. Benevento said radioactive wastes that the site will be allowed to accept are more benign than much of the industrial waste already there. And, he said, having a site 70 miles from the metro area will save both the state and local governments the expense of shipping the low-level radioactive waste to licensed sites out of state, most notably in Idaho. As an example, he cited a project in which Denver is removing radium-laced soil and debris from underneath some city streets, a job paid for out of a state hazardous waste fund. By shipping the material to the Last Chance site, the city will save the state nearly $1 million, Benevento said. Other local governments, saddled with large loads of contaminated sludge left over after treatment of drinking water, will also save money shipping the material to Last Chance instead of out-of-state sites. "This is a decision that's good for the state," Benevento said. "(The site has) gone through the regulatory process and it's been demonstrated that this is environmentally sound." But opponents have never been sold on the idea. They fear the site may become a magnet for low-level radioactive wastes from other states. They also say the health department ignored an earlier agreement with Adams County that it wouldn't allow such wastes and disregarded numerous objections raised by county authorities. "The health department is very arrogant in ignoring Adams County. It's very disheartening," Whelden said. "I don't know what in the world it would take for them to realize this is the wrong decision." State officials say there will be clear limits on the level of radioactivity allowed at the site, including a limit of 2,000 picocuries per gram for many wastes. A state fact sheet describes such levels as "similar in radioactivity to the uranium tailings that have been cleaned up around homes and businesses in Grand Junction and other Western communities for the past 25 years." State officials say the waste will be limited to "naturally occurring" radioactive materials, or a similar class of materials known as "technologically enhanced" naturally occurring radioactive materials. These are distinct, regulators say, from waste that has been artificially altered, such as those associated with research, medicine, weapons or nuclear power plants. Howard Roitman, director of environmental programs for the state health department, said concerns that the site will become a full-blown radioactive waste dump are misplaced. "I really don't see how it can (happen)," he said. "We both limit the (radioactivity) level and the quantity (of materials) . . . . We have to go through an additional permitting process to allow (other wastes) and that's not the intention." hartmant@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-892-5048 site more » MOST VIEWED STORIES Buy a Link » Site Map| Photo Reprints| Corrections 2005 © The E.W. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************