***************************************************************** 10/02/05 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 13.228 ***************************************************************** 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 U.S. plans to invade Iran before Bush's term ends 2 US prepares to Launch War on Iran 3 IranMania.com: Iran, Lebanon call for eliminating Israeli WMDs 4 Boston Globe: Unsettled in Iran 5 AFP: Iran warns Israel against attacking nuclear sites 6 Korea Times: Unclear Text & Nuclear Mistrust 7 US: Las Vegas SUN: Judge nominee Sandoval has smooth hearing in D.C. 8 US: IndyStar.com: Sodrel joins weapons removal caucus 9 US: Courier-Journal: Sodrel concerned about unexploded ordnance 10 RIA Novosti: Russia's former atomic energy minister to go on hunger 11 RIA Novosti: Former nuclear power minister has not started hunger st 12 UK: Independent: BNG sale to cost 4,000 jobs 13 Reuters: EU-Russia summit targets visa deal, energy ties 14 OA Online: Energy experts come to the Basin 15 AU ABC: The ongoing legacy of weapons of mass destruction NUCLEAR REACTORS 16 UK: Observer: Labour readies ground for new wave of nuclear stations 17 BBC: Talks sought on UK nuclear future 18 Sunday Herald: Power firms remain coy over levels of nuclear energy 19 Sunday Herald: Blair adviser: attack LibDems by building a new nucle 20 ePolitix.com: Johnson calls for debate on nuclear power 21 Observer: Government must take up the reins of power 22 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point plant might shut down temporarily 23 US: JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point reactor in Buchanan closes 24 Observer: High time for an energy fix 25 US: SouthofBoston.com: Experts debate relicensing Pilgrim plant 26 US: decatur daily: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant accident sends 2 to ho 27 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power decision 'must be made soon' 28 Guardian Unlimited: Cabinet challenge to nuclear proposals 29 Guardian Unlimited Politics: Pre-empting debate NUCLEAR SECURITY 30 Sunday Herald: NHS court battle over freedom of information 31 US: SF Chronicle: America's lost disaster priority NUCLEAR SAFETY 32 US: Deseret News: Radiation payments improving 33 US: Las Vegas SUN: Study: Genetics, contaminants could be cause of F 34 US: Lahontan Valley News: Leading leukemia researcher probes cluster 35 US: adn.com: alaska: Radiation found under building in Kotzebue NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 36 US: AU ABC: WA Liberals to push for uranium mining 37 US: Deseret News: Hatch takes heat for not joining nuclear-waste foe 38 US: Deseret News: N-storage issue beyond Utah 39 RIA Novosti: U.S., Russia fulfill half of uranium processing commitm 40 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Nevada disaster would be unnatural 41 Las Vegas SUN: Long spans for radiation standards leave many cold 42 UK: Independent: Secret report reveals catalogue of blunders at Sell 43 US: Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Uranium mining revival needs review fi 44 US: Casper Star-Tribune: Rail cars back up with radioactive waste 45 Salt Lake Tribune: Yucca squabble aside, Huntsman backs Hatch as 46 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utah's desert radioactive waste dump grows 47 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Rolly: Old Hansen idea could keep waste out o 48 US: LA Daily News: standoff on groundwater tests 49 Guardian Unlimited: FAQ: British Nuclear Group 50 US: KUTV: Envirocare Having Trouble Keeping Up With Demand 51 US: PE.com: Bill aids Inland water cleanup 52 UK: News & Star: NEW BOSS FOR 15,000 WORKERS 53 US: The Signal: Officials Hit ‘Brick Wall’ in Bid to Investigate NTS 54 Guardian Unlimited: Unions warn BNFL over sell-off PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 55 Santa Fe New Mexican: New lab panel to manage hiring: LANL braces fo 56 Santa Fe New Mexican: Fairness key in choosing new LANL management ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 U.S. plans to invade Iran before Bush's term ends Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 05:53:44 +0100 Top-ranking Americans have told equally top-ranking Indians in recent weeks that the US has plans to invade Iran before Bush's term ends. In 2002, a year before the US invaded Iraq, high-ranking Americans had similarly shared their definitive vision of a post-Saddam Iraq, making it clear that they would change the regime in Baghdad. -------------------------------------------------------- http://www.telegraphindia.com/1050926/asp/nation/story_5284580.asp The Telegraph, Calcutta India Gulf factor key to PM's Iran vote decision K.P. NAYAR Washington, Sept. 25: New Delhi acquitted itself reasonably well in the first significant challenge to its global standing and diplomacy since the world acknowledged India as an emerging global power worthy of being in the big league in the 21st century. The handling of the challenge -- its vote on whether Iran's nuclear programme should be referred to the UN Security Council -- was all the more commendable because its outcome defied domestic political expediency. Prime Minister Manmohan Singh personally cleared the decision to vote with the US and the so-called EU-3, namely Germany, France and the UK, in favour of referring Iran at an unspecified date to the Security Council on suspicions of pursuing a programme to acquire nuclear weapons in the full knowledge that the vote would spark a furore among Left parties and to a lesser extent in the BJP. In deciding to vote with the West and not abstaining along with Russia, China, Brazil and South Africa, what weighed with the Prime Minister was the absolute imperative for India to secure its interests in the Gulf and not the desire to protect the July 18, 2005, Indo-US nuclear agreement, according to diplomats engaged in the negotiations that led to the IAEA resolution yesterday. Top-ranking Americans have told equally top-ranking Indians in recent weeks that the US has plans to invade Iran before Bush's term ends. In 2002, a year before the US invaded Iraq, high-ranking Americans had similarly shared their definitive vision of a post-Saddam Iraq, making it clear that they would change the regime in Baghdad. On the last day of his stay in New York this month, Singh made public his fears for the safety of nearly four million Indians in the Gulf in the event of diplomacy failing to persuade Iran away from a confrontation with the US and others on the nuclear issue. Singh knows that whatever he has done on the economic front in the last year and a half as Prime Minister and much of what he did as finance minister in the 1990s will be under threat if the Gulf was plunged into another war. In talks with leaders in the US, Russia and Europe, Singh has linked India's energy security and its comfortable balance of payments to stability in the Gulf. That squarely put India against Iran acquiring nuclear weapons in violation of its own international commitment under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). In his conversation with Singh on Friday, Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, made it clear that Iran would no longer be bound by the IAEA's "additional protocol" allowing its inspectors into the country if it was referred to the Security Council. Such an action would have been only a few steps away from an Iranian withdrawal from the NPT itself, which would have created a grave international crisis. Through other channels, the Iranians also told India that they would start uranium enrichment from a second nuclear facility if the Security Council was brought into the issue. In the light of these developments, foreign secretary Shyam Saran in New York and India's permanent representative to the UN in Vienna, Sheel Kant Sharma, engaged in marathon talks with the Americans and Europeans right upto the actual vote last night to ensure that Iran was dealt with in the IAEA and not hauled before the Security Council immediately. South Block's recommendation that India should vote for the resolution was put before the Prime Minister after the EU-3 approached India in New York on Friday night. French, German and British officials assured Saran then that India's insistence on dealing with Iran in the IAEA -- at least till the next meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors in November -- had been accommodated. The EU-3 also assured India that IAEA director-general Mohamed El Baradei would continue to have the whiphand on the issue. Iran is understood to have assured India privately after last night's vote that it would resume negotiations with the IAEA. But in Tehran's world of doublespeak, it is also expected to whip up popular sentiment by publicly railing against the IAEA resolution. -- http://cyberjournal.org "Apocalypse Now and the Brave New World" http://www.cyberjournal.org/cj/rkm/Apocalypse_and_NWO.html --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: cj-unsubscribe@cyberjournal.org For additional commands, e-mail: cj-help@cyberjournal.org ***************************************************************** 2 US prepares to Launch War on Iran Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 06:15:22 -0500 (CDT) October 1, 2005 The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) www.GlobalResearch.ca US prepares to Launch War on Iran In Solidarity with the People of Iran and Iraq by Prof. Niloufer Bhagwat The recent Resolution of the IAEA is preparation for War. The voting pattern on the Resolution against Iran is significant. But what is even more significant - that people all over the world including in the anti-war movement in the United States are against the sanctions and war against Iran, as it is no longer possible to camouflage the real reasons for the war against countries which possess significant oil and gas reserves. No words on the issue can be more authoritative than the declaration of the anti -war movement of the United States which has pronounced unequivocally that: " It is incumbent on us to reject the notion that small countries must disarm and leave themselves defenseless at the demand of the Pentagon. Such demands are not only hypocritical, irrational, and unjust, they amount to little more than a pretext for invasions and occupations." Contemporary history informs us that the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a decision taken by the military-industrial complex of the United States and that Depleted Uranium (DU) radioactive munitions - a war against the planet - has been used in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan by the very countries, which have Sponsored the IAEA resolution and WHICH HAVE done nothing to disarm Israel of nuclear weapons including DU [Israel] used in the region. Recently in a statement which was not true to the record, issued by the parties involved in the six party discussions in respect of the move to disarm North Korea, it was stated that the government of the United States does not have nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula or on bases in that region. Deliberately attempting to mislead world opinion now wholly aware that these nuclear weapons are based on submarines, and used in bombing sorties from aircraft carriers. It is indicated that the representative from India on the IAEA voted for the Resolution, however India has a coalition government as no party has a majority in Parliament. Yesterday there was an official announcement of a 62 member bloc of left parties which supports the government, that is - without the support of this bloc the government does not have a majority, that this political group does not support the government on this issue and is against the Resolution passed by the IAEA on Iran. This would render the vote a nullity. This is apart from the fact that the large majority of people in India are against the policy of using Resolutions of the IAEA and Security Council to impose sanctions which are a declaration of war, followed by actual invasion and military occupation. Eminent leaders of India like Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi and the Congress Party they led, opposed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty regime on principle as it stood for a discriminatory regime of some nations permitted to threaten the weak with nuclear weapons, not permissible by the Charter of the United Nations; it has now been converted into a criminalized regime of blackmail against developing countries. Historically it is time to remember the elimination of the Native Americans, the Red Indian Tribes of the Continent of North America, the aborigines of Australia, the Indian communities of Latin America, to prevent the decimation of people of various nations in this - another barbaric period of world history when decaying systems covet the resources of the world. The historical record shows that in the elimination of these peoples every single treaty was violated and every concept of humanity. I wish to communicate this to the people of Iran, traumatized for several decades of the last century for their petroleum resources, that this Resolution is a preparation for a brutal war with the distinct possibility of nuclear and other weapons - a direct cause of global warming destroying vast regions of the world. People all over the world who desire to protect the planet earth should be more than concerned about these developments, which indicate beyond doubt that systems in place are hurtling towards destruction no matter what the cost. In solidarity with the people of Iraq and Iran. Niloufer Bhagwat Professor Mumbai University ---------- http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BHA20051001& articleId=1029 ---------- ***************************************************************** 3 IranMania.com: Iran, Lebanon call for eliminating Israeli WMDs Sunday, October 02, 2005 - ©2005 IranMania.com [Archived Picture - Iran and Lebanon issued a joint statement calling for the elimination of Israeli weapons of mass destruction. The statement, issued by visiting Parliament Speaker of Iran Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel and his Lebanese counterpart, Nabih Berri, stressed the need and importance of ridding the volatile Middle East region of all WMDs, IRNA reported.] LONDON, October 2 (IranMania) - Iran and Lebanon issued a joint statement calling for the elimination of Israeli weapons of mass destruction. The statement, issued by visiting Parliament Speaker of Iran Gholam-Ali Haddad-Adel and his Lebanese counterpart, Nabih Berri, stressed the need and importance of ridding the volatile Middle East region of all WMDs, IRNA reported. It called on the international community to force the 'Zionist' regime to soon get rid of its banned weapons. The two speakers stressed the inalienable right of countries to have access to peaceful nuclear technology and the Lebanese side voiced support for Iran?s transparent stances and policies to that effect. The statement highlighted the importance of supporting the Lebanese nation?s resistance against Zionist aggression and occupation and its covert intentions regarding Lebanon?s water resources and territory. Need for further consolidation of Iran-Lebanon ties, the two sides? common stances vis-a-vis regional and international issues, particularly Palestine, condemnation of systematic Zionist crimes against the Palestinians, non-interference of foreign powers in the domestic affairs of regional states, return of all Palestinian refugees to their homeland, and establishment of an independent Palestine state were among other issues stressed in the statement. Meanwhile, Secretary-General of Hizbollah Hassan Nasrallah late Thursday called on the international community to support the Palestinian nation. ©1999-2005 IranMania.com. Terms & Conditions. ***************************************************************** 4 Boston Globe: Unsettled in Iran + Editorials October 2, 2005 THE RESOLUTION adopted late last month by the International Atomic Energy Agency on Iran's nuclear program signifies something less than a clear-cut victory for the Bush administration's tack of seeking to arraign Tehran before the UN Security Council. Instead, the resolution leaves the door open for Iran to avoid having its ''policy of concealment" brought before the Security Council. The resolution's interweaving of incentives and disincentives is aimed at preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, setting off a regional nuclear arms race, and unraveling the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The vote of the IAEA governing board -- 22 members in favor, with only Venezuela opposed and 12 countries abstaining -- did send a clear message to Iran that the UN's nuclear watchdog deplores the Islamic Republic's refusal to comply with the treaty's obligations. Nevertheless, the terms of the resolution do not require any immediate punitive action. Iran is merely warned that it could be referred to the Security Council if it does not ''suspend all enrichment-related activity" and ''implement transparency measures" requested by the IAEA's director general. Iran has at least until November, when the IAEA director, Mohamed ElBaradei, will report to the agency on the issue, to honor past agreements and provide the IAEA with ''access to individuals, documentation relating to procurement, dual-use equipment, certain military-owned workshops and research and development locations." Iran's ruling clerics have to provide this kind of transparency because their past deceptions have led to the suspicion that they are trying to conceal a program for the development of nuclear weapons. If they are willing to settle for a purely peaceful nuclear energy program, they can reap considerable rewards from their European negotiating partners: Britain, France, and Germany. All Iran needs to do is accept a deal that guarantees it a permanent supply of nuclear fuel at market prices from abroad. In return for yielding on its claimed right to be able to enrich uranium, Iran could gain entrance to the World Trade Organization and obtain desperately needed foreign investment and trade benefits from the European Union. At present, the hard-liners in Tehran are not being threatened even with UN sanctions but only with international pressure and isolation. This is the right approach at this stage, and because the clerical regime does seem sensitive to the prospect of being treated as a pariah, the IAEA's gradual ratcheting up of pressure has a chance to be successful -- unless the Iranian regime has decided that pursuing a nuclear weapons capability is worth the price of global condemnation and ostracism.[ /] © Copyright 2005 Globe Newspaper Company. More: ***************************************************************** 5 AFP: Iran warns Israel against attacking nuclear sites Sunday October 2, 06:51 PM '); DAMASCUS (AFP) - Iran's parliament speaker warned Israel against any attempt to attack its nuclear facilities, and promised to "teach it a lesson" if it did. "If Israel does something stupid and attacks our nuclear facilities like it did in Iraq, we promise to teach it a lesson it will never forget," Gholam Ali Hadad-Adel said after talks with his Syrian counterpart in Damascus. He was referring to a 1981 strike by Israel against the Osiraq nuclear reactor in Iraq, which the Jewish state suspected of developing atomic weapons. "We will not give in," Hadad Adel said, citing the "right" of all countries to use nuclear energy for civilian energy purposes under the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). In an escalating crisis over Iran's nuclear ambitions, Tehran has rejected proposals that it abandon fuel cycle technology in return for incentives and has resumed uranium conversion work in defiance of a suspension agreement with Britain, France and Germany. Iran insists its activities are peaceful but faces accusations it is developing nuclear energy as a cover for a weapons programme. The International Atomic Energy Agency last month adopted a resolution that found Iran in "non-compliance" with nuclear proliferation safeguards -- an automatic trigger for taking the matter to the Security Council. Iran threatened Tuesday to retaliate by blocking tough inspections of its nuclear sites and resuming uranium enrichment activities. Israel, which has long warned against Iran's nuclear ambitions, has not signed the NPT and is believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, though it neither confirms nor denies reports that it has about 200 nuclear warheads. Since Saddam Hussein's regime was ousted from Iraq in April 2003, Israel has viewed Iran as it prime enemy in the region. Copyright © 2005 Yahoo! UK Limited. All rights reserved. - - - AFP ***************************************************************** 6 Korea Times: Unclear Text & Nuclear Mistrust Hankooki.com > The Korea Times > Opinion By Rafael Abasolo Sept. 19, 2005, made history when six powerful nations signed an accord on the denuclearization of North Korea. They had agreed on a set of principles to ensure a peaceful and prosperous future for the North Asia Pacific Region. It was the perfect event to crown this yearˇŻs Harvest Moon Festival. Twenty hours later North Korea announced its official, controversial interpretation of the signed commitment. The Harvest Moon Festival was over. But we had a document. What had gone wrong? Ambiguity had been left in the document because of the existing ambiguity of trust in the whole nuclear affair. ˇ°Creative ambiguityˇ± is a known term used in diplomatic circles. The 6-way Statement of Principles used it in order to secure the signing of the agreement. Otherwise, too great a loss would have been inflicted on too many millions of people. An ambiguous document, signed, was better than a crystal-clear document thrown in the wastebasket. Yet ambiguity can go only so far. Ambiguity may be good for defusing momentary crises like signing a joint declaration, but it is not good for solving long-standing problems. In the long run, fostering ambiguity is counter-productive because it erodes the primary function of language which is to facilitate human communication. Breakdown in language communication causes _ and reveals _ deeper relational conflicts. Take trust, for instance. Ambiguity acts as a corrosive in documents meant to consolidate trust between parties. If left untouched, ambiguity will eat away at whatever trust there was in the beginning. The ambiguity of the September document must be dispelled at the November talks. Working out an implementation plan should do the job. North KoreaˇŻs Foreign Minister pointed out verbally if nothing else that implementing the declaration of principles hinges on trust. He singled out lack of trust as the ground for NKˇŻs demand for a Light Water Reactor, first. And US claim lack of trust as their reason to demand verification of NKˇŻs stated commitment to dismantle its nuclear programs. In a nutshell, the root of the conflict is lack of nuclear trust. North KoreaˇŻs nuclear bombs and nuclear reactors cannot be the real problem when we see that three member-nations at the 6-way talks ostensibly have nuclear weapons and yet have been working as good partners for a long time. Add to them Great Britain and France, and nowadays India and Pakistan. How is it so? They need to trust each other with ˇ°basic nuclear trust,ˇ± that is, they want to believe that they will not use their nuclear weapons against each other. If so, nuclear bombs are not the real spooks: ˇ°mistrust bombsˇ± are. I will explain. Which one of the six nations signing the new agreement had exploded the mistrust bomb first? North Korea, when it breached the 1994 Accord with the U.S.A. Therefore, in order to restore trust in the North Pacific Region, North Korea should apologize for its past wrongdoing and renew its commitment to comply with what it has promised and signed. Acting as if nothing had happened and boldly making demands, NK will continue to fan the mistrust of the other nations. NK must realize that it needs the nuclear trust of other nations, especially the U.S.A., far more than nuclear bombs or nuclear reactors. Opening its doors for inspection will earn NK a good measure of trust. (Will NK ask the U.S.A. to oblige them and open the doors for inspection in South Korea?) NK professes a deep mistrust for the U.S.A. After NK broke the 1994 agreement, there were sanctions, provocative fighting words, and ominous political and military threats. Furthermore, U.S.A. exploded its own mistrust bomb by its pre-emptive war in denuclearized Iraq. Obviously NK got the jitters wondering who would be bombed next. U.S.A. needed to do what it has done in the declaration of principles: to state that there are no nuclear weapons in South Korea and no intention of war and no intent to change regimes. If the root of the denuclearization problem is mistrust, the way to solve it will be to build mutual trust about their nukes. (NK is said to have some atomic bombs already). The big question is how do we build mutual trust? Perhaps we could learn something from the way we handle language. When speaking, we start by using feedback. We want to know whether we are understood and whether we understand the other. Paraphrasing is a good way to accomplish that. By speaking back what we have heard, we assure the other that we want to understand him or her. The otherˇŻs response tells us how we have fared. Progressively, our language will converge so that we will come to express ourselves in a similar way about the same subject. (The inclusion of NKˇŻs claim to ˇ°the right to peaceful uses of nuclear energyˇ± is a good example of feedback.) Thus, feedback exchange brings mutual understanding and the satisfaction thereat. Trust-building is a process. Reciprocity is its motor. Be it feedback, understanding, commitment or action, reciprocity has to be kept up, because it is the repetition of healthy reciprocity _ sustainable reciprocity _ that establishes dependability. Somewhere along the process a happy thought comes up: We can talk with each other, work together and enjoy it! Then and there, the assured reliance that we call ˇ®trustˇŻ flies in to stay. Thanks for the September harvest and best wishes for the November field plowing. The writer is a member of Our Lady of Peace Friary in Seoul. 10-02-2005 22:21 ***************************************************************** 7 Las Vegas SUN: Judge nominee Sandoval has smooth hearing in D.C. September 30, 2005 By Benjamin Grove SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU CHIEF WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Brian Sandoval flew into the nation's capital two days early for his hearing Thursday in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. That gave the U.S. District Judge nominee time for a brutal mock-hearing practice session with Justice Department officials on Wednesday. By the time he caught up with his wife and three children sight-seeing at Ford's Theater later that afternoon, Sandoval was charred by the grilling. "I'm still trying to get the singe marks off my suit," Sandoval said. He need not have worried. Sandoval and four other federal court nominees sailed through their hearing Thursday. The panel likely will approve their nominations in the next week or two, setting up expected approval by the full Senate. The intimidating panel of 18 senators that spent weeks probing the record of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts had little venom left for Sandoval and the other noncontroversial nominees. In fact, only one senator, Republican Orrin Hatch of Utah, showed up at the hearing. He said he wouldn't pester them with questions. "I know your reputation and I think each of you is qualified to serve in your respective positions," said Hatch, who introduced himself to the nominees before the hearing, and asked one, Harry Mattice, how to pronounce his name. Still, Senate rules require a hearing, so Hatch lobbed a softball at each. He asked Sandoval how his job experience would serve him as a judge. Sandoval responded that his varied experience as a private lawyer, state lawmaker, regulator (as a Nevada gaming commissioner) and attorney general had prepared him for the bench. "I will treat all litigants with dignity and respect," Sandoval noted. Hatch nodded and moved on. After 45 minutes of canned remarks and family introductions, the hearing was over. The White House nominated Sandoval to the Senate on the recommendation of Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, who along with Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., testified on the nominee's behalf (a "class act," Reid said; a "great Nevadan," Ensign said). The ranking senator of the president's party typically recommends judges to the White House, although Ensign allows Reid to recommend one of every four openings. Reid had asked Sandoval to take a judgeship several years ago, but Sandoval declined. To Sandoval's surprise, Reid asked him again last year. Some observers said it was shrewd for the Senate Democratic leader to take a rising GOP star out of politics. Sandoval's take on that was politician-like: "My response is I was honored that Senator Reid and Senator Ensign would consider me for this position." In an interview earlier this week, Sandoval said he wanted the job for a simple reason. "For me, public service is an honor, and I have the ultimate respect for the rule of law," Sandoval said. "I just saw this as an opportunity to serve the United States for life." Reid had praised Sandoval as a devoted family man and noted that Sandoval was also looking forward to a job that didn't involve campaigning away from his wife, Kathleen, and his children, James, 10, Madeline, 8, and Marisa, 14 months. Sandoval's mother said the judge-to-be had been an upstanding boy. "Since the age of 3 he has said, 'Mom, I just want to be my own person,' " Teri Sandoval, of Santa Fe, N.M., said. "Ethics and morals are the things that matter to him. He never wanted fortune or fame. With Brian, what you see is what you get." A beaming Ron Sandoval of Reno said he had burst with pride the day his son went to law school. He predicted Sandoval would be a "down-to-earth, honest, nonprejudicial" judge. "He puts his mind to something and he goes for it," Sandoval said. Sandoval, 42, of Reno, is one of the youngest U.S. District Court judges approved in recent memory, a panel spokesman said. The panel released a 44-page biographical sketch of Sandoval in which the nominee had ranked the top 10 cases of his career. Sandoval listed at No. 1 his experience as part of the state's legal team that challenged Yucca Mountain radiation standards issued by the Environmental Protection Agency. Sandoval's daughter Madeline gave her dad a good-luck peck on the cheek moments before the hearing. "Are you sweating?" she asked. She later dozed uncomfortably in her chair several rows behind where her father sat under eight white-hot spotlights mounted on the ornate room's wood-paneled walls. District judge would be Sandoval's 13th job, according to his resume. Was this his easiest job interview ever? Sandoval smiled. "I just appreciate the fact that we had a hearing." All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 8 IndyStar.com: Sodrel joins weapons removal caucus October 1, 2005 Associated Press MADISON, Ind. -- U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel has joined a small group of House members trying to focus Congress' attention on the unexploded weapons left behind at shuttered military bases.Sodrel, whose southern Indiana district includes the former Jefferson Proving Ground north of Madison, has joined 10 other representatives in a bipartisan caucus founded by fellow Republicans Don Manzullo of Illinois and George Miller of California and by Democrats Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Sam Farr of California. "By working with my colleagues who represent military sites that have been used for ordnance exercises, we hope to be able to solve some of the long-term challenges facing these communities," Sodrel said in a statement.He said safety, health and environmental issues continue to be a concern at the former Jefferson Proving Ground, as well as Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge and Camp Atterbury.The U.S. Army left tons of unexploded ordnance at Jefferson Proving Ground, where munitions were tested from 1941 to 1994. The testing ground closed 10 years ago in an earlier round of base closings much like those now transpiring across the country. Most of its unexploded ordnance remains on the 50,000 acres that now comprise the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge.Army reports indicate about 1.5 million munitions fired for testing and evaluation did not detonate, and about 7 million inert rounds that were fired to test live detonators, primers or fuzes also did not function as intended.Two thousand acres of the wildlife area also are contaminated with an estimated 77 tons of radioactive depleted uranium from weapons that were tested from 1983 to 1994. The Army has said it cannot remove the depleted uranium for safe disposal because of the danger posed by unexploded ordinance. Copyright 2005 IndyStar.com. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 9 Courier-Journal: Sodrel concerned about unexploded ordnance courier-journal.com Sunday, October 2, 2005 Bipartisan caucus focuses on cleanup Associated Press MADISON, Ind. -- U.S. Rep. Mike Sodrel has joined a small group of House members trying to focus Congress' attention on the unexploded weapons left behind at shuttered military bases. Sodrel, whose Southern Indiana district includes the former Jefferson Proving Ground north of Madison, has joined 10 other representatives in a bipartisan caucus founded by Don Manzullo of Illinois, George Miller of California, Earl Blumenauer of Oregon and Sam Farr of California. "By working with my colleagues who represent military sites that have been used for ordnance exercises, we hope to be able to solve some of the long-term challenges facing these communities," Sodrel said in a statement. He said safety, health and environmental issues continue to be a concern at the former Jefferson Proving Ground, as well as Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge and Camp Atterbury. The Army left tons of unexploded ordnance at Jefferson Proving Ground, where munitions were tested from 1941 to 1994. The testing ground closed 10 years ago in an earlier round of base closings much like those now transpiring across the country. Most of its unexploded ordnance remains on the 50,000 acres that now comprise the Big Oaks National Wildlife Refuge. Army reports indicate about 1.5 million munitions fired for testing and evaluation did not detonate, and about 7 million inert rounds that were fired to test live detonators, primers or fuses also did not function as intended. Two thousand acres of the wildlife area also are contaminated with an estimated 77 tons of radioactive depleted uranium from weapons that were tested from 1983 to 1994. The Army has said it cannot remove the depleted uranium for safe disposal because of the danger posed by unexploded ordnance. Copyright 2005 The Courier-Journal. ***************************************************************** 10 RIA Novosti: Russia's former atomic energy minister to go on hunger strike 01/ 10/ 2005 MOSCOW, October 1, (RIA Novosti) -- Former Atomic Energy Minister Yevgeny Adamov, 66, who on Sunday will have spent exactly five months in a Swiss jail, intends to go on a hunger strike, Deputy Spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry Boris Malakhov told Ekho Moskvy radio on Saturday. "Russia has repeatedly urged the Swiss authorities to extradite Adamov to Russia," Malakhov said. The Russian Prosecutor General's Office presented to the Swiss Federal Department of Justice and Police all the documents that the Swiss side had requested, while the ex-minister himself agrees to be extradited to Russia, Malakhov said. "We very much hope that the Swiss decision on Adamov's extradition will be legal, not politically motivated, and that an impartial and fair decision will be facilitated by the upcoming consultations between representatives of the Russian Prosecutor General's Office and the U.S. Department of Justice," the deputy spokesman for the Russian Foreign Ministry said. Adamov, who headed the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry in 1998 through 2001, was detained in the Swiss capital Bern on May 2, on a warrant from the U.S. Department of Justice. The U.S. authorities are accusing Adamov of stealing $9 million in U.S. government funds allocated to upgrade the safety of Russia's nuclear facilities. The U.S., however, did not send an official extradition request to Switzerland until June 24, 2005, whereas Russia sent a request for the ex-minister's extradition on May 17. Now the Swiss Federal Department of Justice is to decide whose extradition request -- Russian or American -- should have priority. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 11 RIA Novosti: Former nuclear power minister has not started hunger strike - lawyer 02/ 10/ 2005 GENEVA, October 2 (RIA Novosti, Yekaterina Andrianova) - The former Russian nuclear power minister who has been in a Swiss prison for five months has not started a hunger strike he promised on Saturday, his lawyer said Sunday. The lawyer said Yevgeny Adamov, 66, charged by the U.S. with embezzling U.S. government funds allocated to upgrade the safety of Russian nuclear facilities, intended to go on a hunger strike in protest against the Swiss authorities' being unable to decide on his extradition fast. Russian prosecutors accuse Adamov of fraud and abuse of office. Both Russia and the U.S. want him extradited, and it is up to Switzerland's Department of Justice to decide whose extradition request should be given priority. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 12 UK: Independent: BNG sale to cost 4,000 jobs By Katherine Griffiths and Tim Webb Published: 02 October 2005 Around half the 8,000 workers at British Nuclear Group (BNG) are expected to lose their jobs when the nuclear clean-up and operating company is sold. The board of state-owned British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), BNG's parent, agreed last week to put the subsidiary up for sale. US construction companies Fluor and Bechtel, as well as Amec and Serco of the UK, have expressed an interest in BNG, which is expected to be valued at Ł200m. It is thought that BNG insiders favour a sale to Fluor; they tried to award it preferred- bidder status without a proper contest, but this was blocked by the board of BNFL. UK bidders also want ministers to block a sale to Bechtel over a potential conflict of interest. Bechtel advises the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which owns the sites, and liabilities, that BNG is currently responsible for cleaning up. The planned sale also casts further doubt over the future of Thorp, the nuclear fuel reprocessing facility at Sellafield, which BNG operates. Thorp has been shut since May while inspectors investigate a major leak. BNG wants the facility to reopen, but a new owner of the company may not want to take on the potential liabilities that might arise from another accident. Separately, a row has erupted over the appointment of a new chairman for uranium producer Urenco, where BNFL has a big stake and which is also slated for sale. Tony Blair and his senior advisers are furious that Lord Birt, a Downing Street insider, did not get the job and are planning to hasten their move to take direct control of the company. Urenco, which has almost a fifth of the global uranium enrichment market, is jointly owned by the British, Dutch and German governments. However, sources said that suspicion is strong in Downing Street that BNFL's chief executive, Michael Parker, was strongly opposed to the appointment of Lord Birt. Former Rexam chairman Christopher Clark got the job. © 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 13 Reuters: EU-Russia summit targets visa deal, energy ties World Crises | Reuters.com Sun 2 Oct 2005 6:45 AM ET By Mark John BRUSSELS, Oct 2 (Reuters) - Russia and the European Union will aim to improve strained ties on Tuesday with a deal to free up visa regulations and efforts to secure energy links vital to both economies. British Prime Tony Blair will host President Vladimir Putin for a one-day summit in London aimed at building on a landmark pact reached in May to strengthen political and economic relations. Near the surface will be European concerns over Russia's human rights record in Chechnya and elsewhere, and Moscow's sense of grievance at last year's enlargement of the 25-member bloc to include former Soviet Baltic states. Diplomats hope to reach a "visa facilitation" accord making life easier for Russians, who currently face long queues for visas for EU member states, including Baltic countries. "I'm hopeful the summit will be able to say we have agreed on principle and it's just a matter of finalising the text," Vladimir Chizhov, Russia's permanent representative to the EU, told a news briefing in Brussels. "The whole situation has been aggravated (by enlargement) because we used to have a visa-free regime with many of the new EU members," he said. EU officials also sounded optimistic on the chances of a deal, saying only technical issues remained in negotiations. "Agreements on visa facilitation and readmission will be a very important example of the concrete benefits that the EU-Russia relationship can bring to our citizens," EU Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said in a statement. EU officials have said they want assurances from Russia that it will "readmit", or take back, illegal migrants to the bloc. IRAN, WTO AND MUTUAL GRIEVANCES With Russia an increasingly important exporter of the oil needed to power Europe's economies, the summit will also hear conclusions from a newly-formed EU-Russia forum on energy cooperation which is meeting in London the day before. "Russia is a huge and expanding energy exporter and western Europe is a large and expanding energy importer," British ambassador to Russia Anthony Brenton told journalists in Moscow. "There is a lot to be done to make sure that our systems for establishing the security of importations fit Russia's systems of production and the security of export," he said. Russian and EU officials will also discuss the dispute over Iran's nuclear programme. Russia has led opposition to European efforts to refer Tehran to the U.N. Security Council and its stance is seen as potentially decisive. Moscow's bid to join the World Trade Organisation (WTO) is due to come up. The EU has pledged backing for its efforts and a 2006 entry looks realistic, but Russian officials have expressed frustration at 11 years of inconclusive negotiations so far. Atmospherics of past encounters have been tested by mutual differences, with EU officials due to signal their concern for the human rights situation in Russia. Rights group Amnesty International said on Friday Pro-Moscow forces used abductions and murder to subdue separatists in Chechnya, sometimes securing false confessions under torture. While pro-Moscow forces have denied such allegations, Putin told a Chechen woman in a televised nationwide phone-in on Tuesday that his government would do all it could to find people who had been snatched during the ten-year war. Moscow has bugbears of its own, notably what it says is the treatment of Russian-speaking minorities as second-class citizens by authorities in Latvia and Lithuania. © Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 14 OA Online: Energy experts come to the Basin Sunday, 02 October 2005 American Online c /o Odessa American 222 E. 4th Street P.O. Box 2952 Odessa, TX 79760 By David J. Lee Odessa American A week ago, she was at an OPEC meeting in Vienna, Austria. This Thursday, Melissa Francis will be in Odessa moderating a panel of energy experts from throughout the world. The event, entitled “Whatcha Gonna Do When the Wells Run Dry?” is part of the John Ben Shepperd Public Leadership Institute’s Distinguished Lecture Series. Panelists will include a former CIA director, Ivy League professors and a U.S. Ambassador. “Of course, energy may be the No. 1 — if not No. 1, then in the top five — issues facing the country right now,” Jack Ladd, director of the leadership institute, said. Which is evidenced daily, he said. “We can turn on the TV on any given day or read the paper of magazines on any given day and see the coming shortage of natural gas this winter,” Ladd said. “We read constantly about China and India and their growing demand for petroleum products,” he said. “Someone said if China’s growth and rate of demand continues, in 20 years, they’ll demand more than we produce today.” Ladd said that growing demand highlights the need for more petroleumand more energy sources around the world. One of the panelists, Ambassador Thomas Graham Jr. is an expert in nuclear and other forms of energy. “He’s on the board of directors of Thorium Power Inc., which is doing research into nuclear power, particularly thorium, which is made from the material out of decommissioned warhead in the United States and Russia,” Ladd said. “He’s looking at the possibility of using those decommissioned nuclear products to fuel nuclear reactions in this country and elsewhere.” Ladd said Graham, who moderated the Lecture Series in March, is not the only highly qualified expert on the panel. “Dr. Kenneth Deffeyes, from Princeton, has been written and quoted extensively … Dr. Amos Nur, from Stanford, has written extensively about the global conflict over energy,” Ladd said. “Certainly James Woolsey, a former CIA head, is very familiar with the impact of energy on national security.” And, finally, this year’s moderator, Francis, is a Harvard graduate who is an energy reporter for CNBC. And that varied group of experts is expected to bring in more than 600 people Thursday to the University of Texas of the Permian Basin’s gymnasium. “We usually fill the gym,” Myra Salcedo, UTPB public information officer, said. Salcedo said people have come from El Paso and Austin and farther for the free roundtable discussion. “I think it’s the only one of this caliber that doesn’t charge admission,” she said. Ladd said the discussion, which has been planned since March, should be fascinating. “We’re in for a very good presentation,” he said. ***************************************************************** 15 AU ABC: The ongoing legacy of weapons of mass destruction Monday, 3 October 2005 Reporter: Jodie van de Wetering Presenter: Wayne Shearman [photo of gulf] Bundaberg Arts Centre's Andrew Gill examines the Children of the Gulf War exhibition. Think of weapons of mass destruction – may be you’re imagining bombs buried in the desert, or sinister people in white coats mixing up lethal chemical cocktails in a hidden laboratory. You’re probably not thinking of sick children. Children of the Gulf War, a travelling exhibition currently in Bundaberg, is highlighting the after-effects of weapons made with depleted uranium. The display showcases a series of images from Japanese photographer Takashi Morizumi, depicting the plight of children born since the use of such weapons in the Gulf conflict during the 1990s. Exhibitions co-ordinator with the Bundaberg Arts Centre Andrew Gill says the photos have been all over the world en route to the Wide Bay, and have been exhibited in America, the United Kingdom and across Europe. The exhibition is organised by the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, and includes images of children suffering from birth defects and cancer as a result of poisoning by depleted uranium. “Cancer rates are so high, both the children’s hospitals in Baghdad have put on whole new wings just to treat leukaemia patients,” Mr Gill says. “The Geneva Convention bans weapons that continue to kill or cause sickness after the conflict ends,” Mr Gill says. “Depleted uranium weapons aren’t specifically mentioned, but they would seem to be against the spirit of the agreement.” Children of the Gulf War is currently showing upstairs at the Bundaberg Arts Centre. Last Updated: 3/10/2005 9:34:38 AM AEST ***************************************************************** 16 UK: Observer: Labour readies ground for new wave of nuclear stations [Guardian Unlimited] /* for turning the MPU off */ [UP] Oliver Morgan, industrial editor Sunday October 2, 2005 The Observer The government is preparing to win the 'hearts and minds' of MPs and the public over new nuclear power stations, according the minister who is heading a cross-departmental review into energy policy. Malcolm Wicks, who was appointed energy minister after the election, believes the public and MPs have become more open-minded on the highly controversial question and may be open to persuasion. Last week, Tony Blair used his speech at Labour Party conference to announce an energy review to examine 'all options, including civil nuclear power'. Wicks will head the review, which will include officials from the Prime Minister's strategy unit, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Treasury. If the review decides in favour of a new generation of nuclear power stations, a white paper would be published by the end of next year. In an interview with The Observer, Wicks, who stresses he is a nuclear agnostic, said: 'I feel that the issue is much more open. There always seem to be those who will be dead opposed - the history, the linkages to nuclear weapons.' But asked whether political and public opinion had moved on the issue since the government's 2003 white paper - which questioned the economic case for nuclear and concluded it was an 'unattractive' option - he said: 'I do feel among many of my parliamentary colleagues and in public opinion there is more open-mindedness. There are hearts and minds to be won.' Wicks's view coincides with a Mori poll of MPs on business issues conducted over the summer, which included questions about nuclear power. Results from the poll released to the Nuclear Industry Association show that for the first time a majority of MPs have swung behind nuclear new-build, with 45 per cent saying they are now in favour and 41 per cent opposed. The poll also found that 53 per cent of MPs agree that nuclear should be a major contributor to energy supplies - up five percentage points since 2004 - with those disagreeing at 34 per cent, down from 43 per cent last year. Officials in the DTI are thought to be supportive of plans for new nuclear stations, as generation from current plants - 20 per cent of today's UK total - is projected to fall sharply from the end of the decade. They believe a decision early in this parliament is easier politically, and is also important given the 10-year lead time required for planning, building and commissioning new stations. The Treasury, however, is concerned about public finances, while Margaret Beckett at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is known to be opposed. Wicks says: 'There may have been a part of recent history where no one could mention the "N" word, but now the Prime Minister has mentioned it, next year we have to review this very urgently.' There were three or four 'crunchy' questions if the government were to press ahead with new plants, he said. 'We have to look at the legacy of waste. But we now have a strategy in place to tackle it.' The strategy was put in place earlier this year with the creation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which took ownership of and responsibility for decommissioning UK nuclear installations. The NDA contracts out work on the sites to British Nuclear Group, but plans to open the process to competition in 2008. The other key issue in dealing with waste is the siting of any repository. This is currently under consideration by the government's Committee on Radioactive Waste Management, which is due to report next year. Wicks points out that with the UK set to become a net importer of gas and oil as North Sea reserves run down, a decision on whether to fill the gap with nuclear is becoming more urgent. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 17 BBC: Talks sought on UK nuclear future Last Updated: Sunday, 2 October 2005 [Bradwell Nuclear Power Station] The UK's nuclear industry has a complicated structure Trade Secretary Alan Johnson has said he has not yet decided if the UK should be building a new generation of nuclear power stations. The minister said the government would bring forward proposals next year to allow a public debate on the issue. He also said he was not ruling out privatising the firm charged with dismantling the oldest nuclear plants. Tony Blair told his annual conference that all options for energy supply must be assessed, including nuclear power. British Nuclear Fuels Limited wants to sell off its subsidiary, British Nuclear Group. What do we do with the wast How do we afford it? And that's why I am certainly still agnostic on this Alan Johnson Trade and Industry Secretary Watch the interview Mr Johnson said he had yet to decide but "was not saying no" to the idea. Mr Johnson told the BBC Sunday AM programme: "You look at countries like Finland where environmentalists are to a large degree now supportive of nuclear energy, but the major question, and the point you make, it's still very controversial. "What do we do with the waste? How do we afford it? And that's why I am certainly still agnostic on this." The government would publish proposals next year and there would then be a public debate, he said. State sector led BNFL said on Friday that it was reviewing its options for the British Nuclear Group. It has previously announced plans to sell its US-based nuclear power station building unit Westinghouse. The UK's nuclear industry has a complicated structure. In April 2005 the government set up the state-run Nuclear Decommissioning Agency to take ownership of the majority of civil nuclear sites in the UK, and control their current or future decommissioning. These sites include the oldest Magnox reactors whose decommissioning is, or will be, carried out by British Nuclear Group, plus newer reactors and other nuclear facilities. A completely separate private company - British Energy - owns and operates a further eight UK nuclear power stations. British Nuclear Group is, or will be, carrying out the decommissioning at stations including Bradwell in Essex, Calder Hall in Cumbria, Chapelcross in Dumfries, Dungeness A in Kent, Hinkley Point A in Somerset, Oldbury in Gloucestershire, Sizewell A in Suffolk, Wylfa on Anglesey, and Trawsfynydd in Gwynedd. ***************************************************************** 18 Sunday Herald: Power firms remain coy over levels of nuclear energy use - By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor THE nuclear industry stands accused of being economical with the truth by downplaying the amount of electricity it provides to domestic consumers. An investigation by the Sunday Herald has revealed that power companies are systematically underestimating the proportion of nuclear electricity they supply to households. This is because they are worried about their customers switching to other suppliers, say energy and environmental groups. Under new regulations, which came into force yesterday, all power companies are obliged to tell their consumers how polluting their electricity is. They have to say how much pollution is generated by coal, gas, nuclear and renewables, and how much carbon dioxide and nuclear waste results. But none of the companies is admitting to how much nuclear electricity they really use. Although half of the electricity generated in Scotland is from nuclear power, and 21% throughout the UK as a whole, the highest proportion the industry says is supplied to domestic consumers is 16% by Scottish Gas. Scotlands other two major suppliers, ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro Electric, are telling their consumers that only 4% of their electricity is from nuclear power. In England, EDF Energy says 14% of its electricity is nuclear, Npower says 13% and Powergen says 8%. The fact that the levels of nuclear power the companies admit to supplying to customers fall well below the amounts being generated nationally suggests some are being a little economical with the truth, said Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland. This is hardly surprising since it is clearly easier to peddle unpopular nuclear power to industry and business rather than to the general public. Consumers wanting clean energy should stop propping up polluting power companies, vote with their purses and switch suppliers. Industry sources accept that the figures on the nuclear proportion are too low, but blame the nuclear company, British Energy, for failing to specify in contracts how much of its power is nuclear generated. The system set up by the government is, they claim, fundamentally flawed and in dire need of revision. British Energy points out that it sells half of its electricity direct to industrial and commercial customers and half to companies to supply to domestic consumers. The vast majority of its power 86% comes from its nuclear power stations, including Hunterston and Torness in Scotland. The main electricity suppliers are hiding the amount of nuclear sourced power that they actually supply by using clever accounting tricks, said Dr John Green, of energy consultants Green Electricity Marketplace. He also encouraged consumers who wanted to avoid nuclear power to switch to more environmentally friendly suppliers. Companies figures for the amounts of nuclear waste produced will also be underestimates. Scottish Gas says that for each unit of its electricity, 1870 micrograms of nuclear waste is produced. The comparable figure for both ScottishPower and Scottish Hydro Electric is 500. The Sunday Herald asked all the main power suppliers last week to say what they would be telling their customers under the Electricity (Fuel Mix Disclosure) Regulations 2005. With their answers, we have compiled the first full guide for consumers keen to know how polluting their power is. Aside from nuclear power, the figures reveal that ScottishPowers electricity is the least climate-friendly in Scotland. For each unit supplied to consumers, 590 grams of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas blamed for global warming, is released into the atmosphere. This compares to 483 from Scottish Hydro Electric and 368 from Scottish Gas. The only company that spews out more carbon dioxide than ScottishPower is the English electricity supplier Powergen, which manages 642 grams per unit. Just one company manages a completely clean bill of health, and that is Good Energy, a small new supplier that specialises in renewable power from wind farms. But unfortunately, according to prices from the consumers organisation, Energywatch Scotland, its electricity is the most expensive. Julie Davenport, the chief executive of Good Energy, warmly welcomed the compulsory introduction of fuel mix disclosure. Her company offered consumers a straightforward way to reduce their impact on climate change, she claimed. She added: As more and more people become concerned with their impact on the environment, it is vital that they are able to easily find out the effect of their purchasing decisions, and fuel-mix disclosure is a positive step in this direction. For Graham Kerr from Energywatch Scotland, knowledge is power. Energywatch wants consumers to take this information as an incentive to take action on energy efficiency, cut down on their consumption, reduce their carbon emissions and at the same time control their fuel bills, he said. The power companies all stressed that they were doing their best to cut pollution and to increase their use of renewable energy. Scottish Gas pointed out that it had been named as the countrys greenest energy supplier by the environmental group, WWF-UK, and that it was actively encouraging its consumers to use less power. A spokeswoman for Scottish Hydro Electric said: Were very happy to comply with the new rules and fully support the idea that customers have a greater awareness of where their electricity comes from. Npower, however, argued that the figures can be confusing because electricity is bought and sold so often. It is very difficult to be precise about any fuel element unless this is carefully tracked. Currently only fuel from renewable sources has a robust system in place to achieve this, said an Npower spokesman. He claimed that Npower was the largest operator of wind-powered generation in the UK. In a scheme developed with the environmental group, Greenpeace, consumers could choose Npower juice from a wind farm at North Hoyle off the coast of North Wales at no extra charge. Powergen pointed out that it was the only company to offer residential customers micro combined heat and power systems, new boilers which generate electricity, cut pollution and offer savings of Ł120 a year. 02 October 2005 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 19 Sunday Herald: Blair adviser: attack LibDems by building a new nuclear power station at Dounreay By Paul Hutcheon, Scottish Political Editor A SENIOR adviser to the Prime Minister told Labour officials at a secret meeting at the Scottish Executive headquarters that building a new nuclear power station at Dounreay would be the ideal way of undermining their Liberal Democrat coalition colleagues. John McTernan Tony Blairs director of political operations suggested the move as part of an orchestrated Labour attack on the LibDems in the run-up to the 2007 Holyrood elections. He said the plan would boost the chances of First Minister Jack McConnells party winning Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, the seat that is home to Dounreay and which is held by the LibDems. The proposal is part of a Labour strategy personally approved by Blair to attack the LibDems in the run up to the poll. It was aired at a gathering of Labour special advisers in August at St Andrews House in Edinburgh. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways the government could use powers reserved to Westminster to help Labour win seats in the Scottish parliament and aid Labour ministers. McTernan suggested that a nuclear station could be built at Dounreay, the troubled nuclear complex on the north coast now being decommissioned. He reasoned that the issue would divide the LibDems and unite local support behind Labour. The Sunday Herald understands that the Edinburgh meeting was part of a series of similar discussions . Blair chaired a meeting of Scottish MPs in the Cabinet room during the summer on the same subject. It was agreed that Scottish MPs would be let off their leash in the next two years, during which time they would dispute LibDem achievements in the Executive and attack their policies. The Dounreay episode also confirms that nuclear power is back on the political agenda. Blair told the Labour conference in Brighton last week that all options including civil nuclear power should be assessed for tackling climate change. Labour is now set to publish proposals on energy policy next year, and Blair has instructed his strategy unit to examine whether nuclear power is a solution to global warming. It is understood any proposals for a new generation of nuclear power stations would be strongly opposed by ministers within the Cabinet, who will seek Treasury help to block them. Jack McConnell, and many of his Executive colleagues, is also opposed to greater emphasis on nuclear power. The LibDems say they will not agree to more nuclear power stations until the issue of radioactive waste is "resolved", while a number of Labour Ministers believe the UK Government should press ahead regardless. The suggestion that a new power station should be built at Dounreay will come as a surprise to its operator, the UK Atomic Energy Authority, which has been marketing the site as a centre for nuclear decommissioning, not power generating. Dounreay was chosen as the site for an experimental reactor in 1954 because of its remoteness. Scientists at the time were seriously worried that the reactor might explode. Now it is viewed by many as a symbol of the dangerous legacy governments can leave for future generations. It has embarked on a thirty year clean-up programme that will cost the taxpayer at least Ł2.7 billion. Plans for new reactors there would be bound to ignite widespread controversy. This crazy plan just shows that the Labour Government cant be trusted, said SNP leader Alex Salmond. On Trident and energy, it seems that Scotland is the home of the Prime Ministers nuclear ambitions.] Duncan McLaren, the chief executive of Friends of the Earth Scotland, described the idea of siting a new nuclear station at Dounreay as the "the height of environmental and political stupidity". He said: The idea smacks of a London-centric politics wed all hopedhad long been confined to the history books. We would hope that Scotland's political elite treats the idea with the contempt it deserves." McTernan downplayed his remarks by saying that he was joking about Dounreay, but that his comment was part of a general discussion on winning votes off the LibDems. "I did not say it as a policy proposal," he said. "I met with the special advisers in mid-August about ways the Labour Government could help win seats in Scotland by using reserved powers to support Labour Ministers, not the LibDems." A spokesman for the Scottish Liberal Democrats said McTernans comments proved Labour was running scared: After the Liberal Democrats very strong performance in the general election, it is clear that Labour now regard us as a major threat. If the Labour Party thinks that imposing foundation hospitals and nuclear power stations on Scotland is the way to counter our progress, then good luck to them. 02 October 2005 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 20 ePolitix.com: Johnson calls for debate on nuclear power [Alan Johnson] Johnson: Calling for debate The decision on whether to build a new generation of nuclear power stations will have to be made "pretty soon", trade secretary Alan Johnson has said. Johnson said that he intended to publish proposals next year with a view to starting a "mature" public debate before the government makes a final decision on whether to go ahead. In an interview with BBC1's Sunday AM programme, he described himself as "still agnostic" on the issue despite Tony Blair's apparent enthusiasm for the new plants. However, he emphasised many environmentalists were now coming round to the idea that nuclear power could provide an alternative to fossil fuels responsible for the "greenhouse" gases which cause global warming. "What I am absolutely sure about is that we have to make a decision pretty soon if we are going to have nuclear new-build," he said. "Because all of our nuclear power stations will be retired over the next 20, 25 years, we have to make a decision now whether to replace them as part of that general policy to concentrate on the effect on the climate, concentrate on security of supply and affordability for the customer. "What we really need is to have a proper mature debate about this issue. "Many environmentalists now accept that the more we increase renewables, we are just running to catch up because as nuclear energy diminishes we are losing a form of CO2-free emissions." Johnson said that he had not ruled out a possible sell-off of the British Nuclear Group, the nuclear reprocessing business by its parent company, BNFL, to a foreign buyer. He also acknowledged that, as the CBI has warned, some companies could face power black-outs if there was a very harsh winter this year, although he stressed that domestic consumers would not be affected. "If we have a one-in-fifty winter, a very, very bad winter some of the most energy-intensive companies may need to decide whether to switch off their power for some time," he said. Published: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:12:10 GMT+01 Author: Edward Davie "Many environmentalists now accept that the more we increase renewables, we are just running to catch up because as nuclear energy diminishes we are losing a form of CO2-free emissions" Alan Johnson ©2005 ePolitix.com ***************************************************************** 21 Observer: Government must take up the reins of power The Guardian [UP] Brian Wilson calls for a new Department of Energy to make vital policy decisions in the interests of national security Sunday October 2, 2005 The Observer Tony Blair's decision to put new nuclear power stations back on the political agenda during his Brighton speech was as welcome as it was overdue. Just as significant, however, was the context in which he placed his nod to nuclear. 'For how much longer,' he asked, 'can countries like ours allow the security of our energy supply to be dependent on some of the most unstable parts of the world?' The choice of the word 'allow' was a trifle disingenuous, portraying gross overdependence on imported gas as a prospect that has crept up on us by stealth. In truth, current UK energy policy will not merely 'allow' 70 per cent of our electricity to come from gas by 2020 (with 90 per cent of that gas imported) - it positively relies on it. Much against my own advice, that was the cornerstone assumption to emerge from the 2003 Energy White Paper. Since then, the world may have become more unstable and the price of gas even more volatile. But it has taken this rhetorical question from the Prime Minister to cut through the foolish assumption that we should become so overwhelmingly reliant on imported gas as the major source of UK electricity generation. That approach, the antithesis of Britain's history of energy self-sufficiency, was driven by a desperate need to make the figures add up. Quite simply, if your starting point is that our nuclear capacity is going to be virtually wiped out over the next 20 years, and that coal-fired generation has to go, something big is needed to fill the gap. Renewables targets were set as high as was plausible - and the remaining chasm was filled with heroic assumptions about the willingness of the world, for decades to come, to supply us with unlimited gas at affordable prices. For how much longer, indeed, as Blair implied, can this exercise in wishful thinking be allowed to pass for energy policy? Already, reality is starting to close in. Carbon emissions are rising, largely because the Magnox nuclear power stations are coming offline earlier than expected, and the slack is being taken up by dirty old coal. Meanwhile, serious people are deeply worried about security of supply this winter because of the shortage of storage capacity. And, of course, prices to the consumer are soaring. There are three imperatives that should govern energy policy - security of supply, affordability and carbon reduction. Yet current pressures are threatening the market's ability to guarantee any of them. In these circumstances - and particularly for those of us who actually believe the rhetoric about climate change and the need to counter it - it is fatuous to maintain that government does not have a substantial role to play in determining our energy strategy. If Blair's speech is an implicit recognition of this, it will start to reverse a 20-year trend towards disengagement. When the Tories set about privatising the gas and electricity industries, they felt the need to send out a triumphalist political signal: abolition of the Department of Energy. The message of the Eighties could not have been clearer. Energy generation, distribution and supply are no longer the business of government; therefore, let us dismantle a Whitehall bureaucracy that no longer has a significant role to play. But times have changed once again, and there is now an urgent need for some government to give energy policy its proper place. As Blair's words suggest, government can no longer be indifferent to the rundown of our only significant source of carbon-free electricity at precisely the time when we should be doing everything in our power to clean up. The reality is that whatever we do on renewables over the next 20 years will - in carbon reduction terms - at best cancel out what we are throwing away through the failure to maintain the nuclear component in the mix. How can this make any kind of sense? Yet Blair had scarcely spoken when the inter-departmental bickering broke out, with the anti-nukes expressing their opposition to any move towards nuclear new-build. At least half a dozen government departments will regard themselves as having a stake in that debate, not to mention a clutch of quangos and committees. The one thing lacking is a single Secretary of State who has a clear mandate to promote an agreed policy: so the odds are on further years of procrastination and fiddling while the icebergs melt. The structure of government needs to change in order to keep pace with the emphasis that must be placed on reducing carbon emissions. Government pays a lot of lip-service to this, and a lot of good work is being done. However, nobody who knows Whitehall could claim that it is an imperative that runs through policymaking. Responsibilities are scattered around departments, each of which has its own priorities. Cross-departmental committees are ritualistic, rather than decisive, contributors to policy. We need a new Department of Energy and Carbon Reduction. That is the only way for the Prime Minister to send the message that this is an area of policy to which he attaches the highest priority. The department's responsibility would be to deliver in a cohesive way on the government's obligations to the three imperatives of security, affordability and emissions. And its first task, in the interests of all three, should be to take forward the nuclear new-build programme. · Brian Wilson was Energy Minister from 2001-03 [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 22 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point plant might shut down temporarily By GREG CLARY Closing reactor • What: Entergy may close Indian Point 3 to fix control rod. • When: Over the weekend or not at all. Officials are undecided. • Effect: State power grid would lose 1,000 megawatts, which would be replaced on energy markets. Price of electricity would rise. • Risk: None seen for either workers or the public. (Original publication: October 1, 2005) BUCHANAN — Entergy Nuclear Northeast was considering last night shutting down Indian Point 3 to allow the company to diagnose a problem with the fueling assemblies that create heat to produce electricity. Jim Steets, an Entergy spokesman, said yesterday the shutdown might not take place until well into the weekend, or might not happen at all, but the company was leaning toward taking the 1,000-megawatt plant offline. "I think we may have to shut down to fix the control rod," Steets said, referring to one of 53 rods used to slow down the nuclear reactor. "At this point, we're just not sure when." Indian Point 3 workers had to slow down the nuclear reactor by 35 percent Thursday after a control rod from the fuel assemblies dropped into place on its own and without warning. The control rods act as a braking mechanism on the nuclear reaction by absorbing neutrons when they are lowered. When deployed en masse, the control rods can shut the reactor down in a matter of minutes, though it takes hours for the heat to dissipate. Entergy officials think the electromagnetic force used to keep the control rods suspended might have had an electrical problem that cut off power to the site where the rod was held in place. Federal regulators and company officials said there was no danger to the public or Entergy workers. Shutting down Indian Point 3 would take about 1,000 megawatts off the state's power grid, about 5 percent of the total supply. A spokesman for the New York Independent System Operator said yesterday that it should not affect supplies, but might affect the wholesale price of energy. "As a scheduled outage, this would mean that more generation would be bid into the markets that we run, to make up for the void," said Ken Klapp, a spokesman for NYISO. "The reserves would remain in place, in case something else happened." When the plant reduced power Thursday by 350 megawatts, NYISO said it could tap into its 1,800-megawatt reserve to maintain stable supply levels in the short term. Once the plant is shut down, it will be a matter of days until it can be brought back online, even if the rod problem can be fixed immediately, a Nuclear Regulatory Commission official said yesterday. NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan said Entergy was not required to shut down the plant, but it was the logical move. "They could continue to plug along at the reduced rate," Sheehan said. "But nuclear plants are designed to operate at 100 percent 24 hours a day, so it makes the most sense to shut it down, fix the problem and get it back up." Sheehan said some conditions at nuclear plants required problems to be solved by specific deadlines or they'd be forced to shut down. He said a broken pump, for instance, would need to be fixed within 12 hours. That is not the case with a dropped rod. Westchester and Rockland county officials, as well as the NRC, said they would continue to monitor the situation. "Obviously, it's better to err on the side of caution and shut the plant down temporarily until Entergy can determine what the problem is," said Rockland County Executive C. Scott Vanderhoef. "But questions about Indian Point's operation remain." Sheehan said the NRC's records would note this event as an unplanned interruption in service, which would be included in the plant's annual operational evaluation. Copyright 2005 The Journal News,. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. Use of this site signifies your agreement to the and , updated June 7, 2005. ***************************************************************** 23 JOURNAL NEWS: Indian Point reactor in Buchanan closes By REBECCA BAKER ERWIN rerwin@thejournalnews.com (Original publication: October 2, 2005) Buchanan — Indian Point 3 was shut down yesterday so workers could fix a faulty control rod and check for other problems. Employees began shutting down the reactor at 3 p.m. yesterday and had the plant completely offline by about 6 p.m., said Jim Steets, a spokesman for Entergy Nuclear Northeast. Steets said the shutdown would last about a week and would allow employees to repair the control rod's electrical circuit and inspect the 52 other rods in the reactor. He said that could lead to additional repairs if problems were found. "You can't get access to that equipment while it's in operation," he said. Control rods are used as brakes to slow the nuclear reactor by absorbing neutrons when they are lowered. When used all at once, the rods can shut down the reactor in a few minutes. Indian Point 3 workers had to slow down the nuclear reactor by 35 percent on Thursday after a control rod dropped into place on its own without warning. The fallen rod posed no danger to workers or the public, federal regulators and company officials have said. Shutting down Indian Point 3 will take about 1,000 megawatts off the state's power grid, or about 5 percent of the total supply. A spokesman for the New York Independent System Operator has said the shutdown might affect the wholesale price of energy but should not affect supply. Copyright 2005 The Journal News, a Gannett Co. Inc. newspaper serving Westchester, Rockland and Putnam Counties in New York. ***************************************************************** 24 Observer: High time for an energy fix [Guardian Unlimited] [UP] Katrina and Rita are the latest crises to show us that we need new sources of energy - soon. Oliver Morgan reports Sunday October 2, 2005 The Observer From the Prime Minister's lips in Brighton to the howls of pain from motorists; and from the Gulf of Mexico to the polar icecap, the signs are converging: decisions on what the world does for energy are overdue. Last week several events brought the problem into sharp focus. In the UK, Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks warned there may be power cuts this winter due to a shortage of gas. Then Tony Blair announced a policy review that would look at all-new nuclear power stations. All this in a week that started with the London oil market remaining open at the weekend to deal with the impact of Hurricane Rita, while petrol prices edged up once again. Meanwhile, figures from the US National Snow and Data Centre showed arctic sea ice coverage 20 per cent below the annual average, the latest evidence that we are reaching a 'tipping point' in global warming. Plus, of course, Katrina and Rita brought the effects of warming into the oil and gas backyard of the US. Tom Burke, environmental consultant and a former government adviser, says: 'We are beginning to see people understand that this is a real problem but I don't think governments have a clue about the speed or urgency of the issue.' On the face of it, there appears little prospect of change. According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), up until 2030: 'Oil will face little competition from other fuels in road sea and air transportation.' Opec's supply dominance will increase to some 50 per cent, adding to reliance on unstable parts of the world for global economic growth. Demand for gas will grow, Russia will dominate supply. Neither Government policies nor levels of private investment in alternatives give much indication of a concerted effort to reverse this trend. That is not to say nothing is being done. But there is no single solution. On the one hand energy demand can be moderated by including all its costs - including pollution via carbon trading such as the EU Emissions Trading Scheme; on the other, there are technical advances towards finding an alternative. But alternatives do not derive from a single source as with fossil fuel; each involves its own start-up costs, which, compared with fossil fuels, can be very expensive. So, in a UK context, the short-term solution to supplying sufficient power is to build more pipelines to import more gas. Energy regulator Ofgem believes that after this 'bottleneck' winter, increased import capacity from Europe along with more liquified natural gas facilities will increase supply and help to moderate prices. Longer term, the question is what will provide us with accessible energy. Nuclear power, which currently gives us 20 per cent of our power, falls to six per cent by 2020. Will wind, biomass, wave and solar power manage to fill the gap, providing some 20 per cent by then, as the government aims? It hopes the EU Emissions Trading Scheme, where industrial users must pay for permits to pollute over a set cap, and its own renewables obligation - which penalises companies that do not get a certain amount of electricity from non-fossil sources - will do the trick. But falling gas prices could also reduce the incentive to invest. If renewables do not manage, there are other options. Nuclear, for example.The industry is lobbying for new reactors. We will know how persuasive it has been by the end of next year. Automotive companies, for their part, are investing - either through hybrid petrol/electric cars or, longer term, through hydrogen. Major companies do not release investment figures for these projects, though they are thought to be a fraction of total development spending. BMW, for example, is thought to have put Ł1 billion into its E38 and E67 hydrogen vehicles - equivalent to the cost of developing a single standard new model. But hydrogen power will need huge investment from retailers to provide new special pumps in petrol stations. Prices may alter consumer behaviour, but experts say a switchover from fossil fuels is vital now to combat problem two: climate change. The IEA says: 'If government policies do not change, energy-related emissions of carbon dioxide will grow marginally faster than energy use. This would mean CO2 emissions would be more than 60 per cent higher than now.' This will be due to a massive increase in generation in developing countries - mostly coal. On current trends fossil fuels will account for 85 per cent of the increase in demand. China, for example, plans to build 500 coal stations in the next 25 years, India close to 200. This will be offset to some degree by an increase in renewables, which the IEA says will triple - but the increase will be from 2 per cent to 6 per cent. Dave Hawkins, of the Washingon-based National Resource Defence Council, says: 'The problem is that even though renewables are growing at such a rate, the gap between them and fossil fuels still gets wider every year.' Nuclear may increase too - around the world, as well as possibly in the UK - but at the same time three-quarters of existing plants will be retired by 2030. IEA predictions rest on current trends, but it insists a different future is possible. Demand measures can help - there is evidence that carbon trading is at least sending price signals. But Mike Childs of Friends of the Earth says that industry has lobbied successfully for a high number of permits, making the system too loose. In the UK, the scheme is combined with the renewables obligation - penalising suppliers that do not use renewable sources.There is evidence of change, but it is slow - in 2004, nearly 3.1 per cent of electricity sold was from renewable sources - up from 2.2 per cent in 2003. Powergen, the German-owned integrated utility, said it would invest Ł1bn this decade in renewables - a 'sizeable' proportion of its total investment. But government figures show the UK is emitting more CO2 now than in 1997, and that it will reduce the total over 1990 levels by 14 per cent by 2010, compared with a target of 20 per cent. Powergen, for its part, has seen CO2 emissions fall and then rise again since 2000. Other technologies are being explored. Clean coal - capturing and storing CO2 emitted by power stations - has received Ł40 million in UK government funding, for example. Oil company BP is investing in a project in Scotland that could lead to a $600m clean power station. Executives and ministers agree that it is essential to make this work in the west and to export it to the developing world to contain global emissions. But although BP, among the more 'enlightened' oil companies, may have put $500m into renewables between 2000 and 2005, it invests close to $15bn a year in its oil infrastructure. Technology must also spread from the developed world to control soaring transport emissions. Aviation is currently outside the remit of carbon trading schemes. The EU last week indicated it should be brought inside. Globally, there is no political consensus. Moves towards emissions trading in the US by the north eastern states are not matched by the White House, which has ignored the Kyoto protocol. Instead, it has urged focus on technological innovation. But experts believe the governments must act through policy to level the global playing field and push innovation forward. The consequences of no change are becoming clear. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 25 SouthofBoston.com: Experts debate relicensing Pilgrim plant By Daniel Axelrod MPG Newspapers 9 Long Pond Rd. Plymouth, MA 02360 (508) 746-5555 CONTACT US MPG Newspapers PLYMOUTH (Oct 1) - Two experts at Thursday night's Plymouth Area League of Women Voters nuclear safety issues forum described how a well-executed terrorist attack upon the Pilgrim Nuclear power plant's spent-fuel supply could release 10 times the radiation of the Chernobyl disaster. The other two experts touted nuclear power as a safe, secure way of ensuring the American way of life. More than 100 residents from various local towns gathered at Plymouth Community Intermediate School to hear Dr. Gordon Thompson of Clark University, Dr. Gilbert Brown of UMASS Lowell, the Union of Concerned Scientists' Dr. Ed Lyman and New York security guru Richard Sheirer discuss whether the Pilgrim nuclear power plant can safely operate 20 years beyond 2012. The two-and-a-half-hour forum came just a month after officials for Pilgrim's owner Entergy reiterated plans to begin in January the roughly three-year process of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) considering extending the plant's operating license when it expires in 2012. Each speaker gave a 15-minute opening presentation before answering live and presubmitted questions from the public through moderator Risa Nyman. Thompson highlighted how information is readily available on the Internet about how to build a special warhead into the nose of a plane or a missile, which could breach the plant's thick concrete walls and cause a catastrophic disaster. He also outlined safer methods for Entergy to store its spent fuel to prevent a disaster in the event of a terrorist attack. Lyman focused on the limited ways the public can participate in the relicensing process and described what he considers the flaws of the relicensing process. He depicted the relicensing process and NRC's methods of testing whether plants are secure as woefully inadequate and over-influenced by the powerful industry-lobbying group the Nuclear Energy Institute. Brown said the 104 U.S. commercial nuclear reactors supply 20 percent of the nation's power without creating harmful greenhouse gases or other types of global warming inducing pollution. He characterized nuclear power as a safe, efficient and vital way to maintain our prosperous American way of life. Sheirer, a former high-ranking New York City fire official and current senior vice president with Giuliani Associates, cited his experiences helping plan and observe security and safety measures for New Yorkers living near the Entergy-owned Indian Point Power plant. Sheirer portrayed the current communications system among government and local authorities during emergencies as much improved since 9/11 and said the "robust security" at nuclear plants like Pilgrim make them unlikely sites for terrorism compared to more vulnerable targets like subways. The stakes are high Several stories above the ground, in a five-foot deep pool of water encased by concrete, sits every bit of spent uranium fuel the Pilgrim reactor produced since 1972; 2,600 assemblies, each containing 60 fuel rods full of decayed uranium pellets, lie there. The water cools the still-decaying uranium and shields workers from the bulk of the spent fuel's continuing radioactivity. It takes about five years for the fuel rods to cool enough to be removed from the spent-fuel pool. And though the federal government is responsible for disposing of the nation's spent nuclear fuel, Pilgrim's spent fuel rods will remain at the site pending department of energy's attempts to resolve safety issues raised in a lawsuit over the proposed nuclear waste repository site at Yucca Mountain, Nev. By 2012 that pool will be completely full and Pilgrim officials would have to begin burying the spent fuel rods in giant concrete casks on site. Meanwhile, some scientists and security experts like Thompson and Lyman argue terrorists could crash a plane through the Pilgrim plant, hit the spent fuel pool or break into the plant and blow the water out of the spent-fuel pool, setting off an unstoppable fire and a devastating radiation release. "Two-and-half million curies of mostly localized radiation were released in the Chernobyl accident," Thompson said. "There are five million curies in Pilgrim's reactor and 25 to 30 million curies of radiation in the spent-fuel pool. Most of that spent-fuel pool's radioactivity would be released into atmosphere if there was a fire, or 10 times the amount released in Chernobyl." Thompson said some of the best ways to make nuclear plants safer would be to remove all the old spent-fuel assemblies, put them in dry-cask storage and spread the newest spent fuel assemblies out in the pool like logs in a fire, so if the spent fuel ever was targeted, the odds of a disastrous, raging inferno would be reduced. Lyman said the Union of Concerned Scientists isn't anti-nuclear, but the group is concerned the NRC doesn't review whether nuclear power plants are secure during the relicensing process. NRC officials claim such security reviews are part of an ongoing security review process featuring mock attacks and inspections. "Fact: a well-planned terrorist attack on nuclear plant with ground, air or water forces can result in a core meltdown containment failure or large Chernobyl-type radioactive release, and anyone who says otherwise is either misinformed or lying," Lyman said. "If Indian Point were hit, up to 44,000 fatalities within 50 miles from the place of exposure would occur, along with up to 500,000 cancer fatalities in the long-term and economic damages exceeding two trillion." Lyman said the existing security-testing process needs to be stricter, hinting nuclear power plants may only have to defend against four or five mock attackers with the help of only one nonviolent person on the inside helping the attackers. And the security drills don't factor in potential plane attacks. From 1991 to 2001, 81 security tests were conducted. At 37 nuclear plants, the NRC team identified significant vulnerabilities, which means the adversary team successfully simulated a sabotage leading to core damage and a probable radioactive release. Protecting American life Brown holds an M.I.T. Nuclear Engineering doctorate. He dismissed claims of a plane hitting a nuclear plant and setting off a disaster as far-fetched. Brown said the debate about whether nuclear plants are secure and whether radiation from fuel pellets could pollute the earth is really more about the broader questions of American society and our standard of living. "In my reality space, nuclear energy is not only a safe way, but an environmentally safe, sound and economical way to make electricity," Brown said. "Most people don't have a quality of life a tenth of what we have." Brown compared the likelihood of a plane slamming through the Pilgrim plant's walls and layers of thick concrete and metal and then hitting the spent fuel pool to a missile hitting a postage stamp. Brown criticized Lyman's assertion the NRC doesn't hold nuclear plants to a high enough security standard. Sheirer, former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani's disaster boss, touted his 35 years of public safety experience working with nuclear medical accidents and academic and research nuclear materials to support his claim nuclear plants are secure. "When people make a presentation, I believe the glass is half empty and you have to show me otherwise," Sheirer said. "That's the nature of planning for an emergency." Sheirer said he came away impressed from watching security drills at Entergy's Pilgrim plant and the Indian Point plant. "When Entergy came to help us plan with emergencies, I said 'show me,' " he said. "Working with Entergy, I've seen an organization that not only meets, but exceeds expectations. "For people to say the people who work at Pilgrim aren't prepared is preposterous. These people are prepared and they understand clearly what their responsibility is to the plant and the people the plant serves." Sheirer found talk of a core meltdown sensationalist. "Giuliani visited Indian Point and said, 'It's a reverse of Marion' high-security prison in upstate New York," Sheirer said. "It's as secure as Marion, but not in keeping people in but keeping people out." Sheirer echoed Brown while explaining just how safe and secure nuclear plants' reactor vessels, spent-fuel pools and dry-cask storage are. "The World Trade Center is an enormous target; no one anticipated planes would be used as bombs to fly into the building," Sheirer said. "But the footprint for that is different, and it's not as simple to direct a bomb into nuclear facilities as some would make you believe." MPG Newspapers, 9 Long Pond Rd., Plymouth, MA 02360 Telephone: (508) 746-5555 ***************************************************************** 26 decatur daily: Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant accident sends 2 to hospital : One contract worker sent home, the other critical, manager says www.decaturdaily.com SUNDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2005 By Ronnie Thomas DAILY Staff Writer rthomas@decaturdaily.com · 340-2438 ATHENS  Two contract workers were injured, one critically, while moving heavy equipment at about 11 a.m. Saturday at Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant, according to authorities. Craig Beasley, a spokesman for the Tennessee Valley Authority, said an ambulance and medical helicopter transported them to Huntsville Hospital. The L.E. Meyers Co., one of the nation's oldest electrical contractors with headquarters in Chicago, employs them. Darrell Widner, an L.E. Meyers district manager from Chattanooga, who oversees the company's work for TVA, spoke from the hospital Saturday night. He said both families requested that the men's names not be released. "One of them has already returned to his home in Middle Tennessee," said Widner. "He had a hairline leg fracture, and doctors put a splint on the leg." Widner said the other worker is from the Killen area of Lauderdale County. "He is still in surgery," Widner said Saturday night. "My understanding is that he has internal bleeding and is critical." Beasley said that if the families need help or support, TVA will be there for them. He said an investigation is under way to determine what happened. Widner said his company also will investigate. "The men were moving in one of the monitors, where you clock over into the radiological control areas, when the accident occurred," Beasley said. "We are making some modifications and improvements in that portion of the plant. There are no radiological concerns because of the accident, inside or outside the plant." Widner said, "We'll find out what happened, but apparently something gave loose, something broke and the load got away from them." Copyright 2005 THE DECATUR DAILY. All rights reserved. THE DECATUR DAILY 201 1st Ave. SE P.O. Box 2213 Decatur, Ala. 35609 (256) 353-4612 webmaster@decaturdaily.com ***************************************************************** 27 Guardian Unlimited: Nuclear power decision 'must be made soon' Mark Milner Monday October 3, 2005 The Guardian Britain will have to decide "pretty soon" if it is to build a new generation of nuclear power stations, the trade and industry secretary, Alan Johnson, said yesterday. Mr Johnson said he was "agnostic" on the question of nuclear energy but indicated that the government would make a decision on the issue next year and put its proposals out to public debate. "We have to make decision pretty soon if we are going to have nuclear new-build," he told BBC1's Sunday AM programme. "Because all of our nuclear power stations will be retired over the next 20-25 years, we have to make a decision now whether to replace them as part of that general policy to concentrate on the effect on the climate, concentrate on security of supply and affordability for the customer." Tony Blair put the nuclear issue back on the agenda last week when he told the Labour party conference the government would review all of the energy options - a move seen by some as a signal of approval. Mr Johnson said yesterday: "What we really need is to have a proper, mature debate about this issue. Many environmentalists now accept that the more we increase renewables, we are just running to catch up because as nuclear energy diminishes we are losing a form of CO2-free emissions." Sizewell B in Suffolk was the last nuclear power plant to be built in Britain, with the two-year public inquiry into whether it should go ahead opening in 1983. Since then no nuclear plants have been built or ordered in the UK. Mr Johnson did not rule out giving the go-ahead to plans by state-owned British Nuclear Fuels Ltd to sell off its decommissioning arm, British Nuclear Group. The BNFL board decided last week that was its preferred option. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 28 Guardian Unlimited: Cabinet challenge to nuclear proposals Patrick Wintour and Mark Milner Saturday October 1, 2005 The Guardian Tony Blair will have to face down opposition within the cabinet if he goes ahead with plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations as the best way of meeting the country's climate change targets. Cabinet ministers hope to enlist the support of the Treasury in opposing the prime minister. They argue that the achilles heel of nuclear power is the cost of decommissioning sites and storing radioactive waste, which they put as high as Ł90bn, substantially higher than the Ł48bn cited for Britain in April 2003. Opposition is likely to be most forceful from Margaret Beckett, the environment secretary, and Peter Hain, the Northern Ireland secretary and a former energy minister. The current energy minister, Malcolm Wicks, has insisted he is nuclear neutral and has said any new nuclear plants must operate without a subsidy. News of the cabinet division on nuclear policy came amid unease about the future of the UK's existing stations. British Nuclear Fuels Ltd confirmed yesterday that it would like to sell British Nuclear Group (BNG), a subsidiary which is deeply involved in cleaning up Britain's nuclear legacy. BNFL's plans, revealed by the Guardian, drew a warning from the Prospect trade union that selling BNG, probably to an overseas buyer, could affect the British nuclear industry's ability to build new reactors. Mr Blair is chairing the relevant cabinet committee and believes his commitment to combat global warming will help him overcome the opposition. He is increasingly convinced that Britain must build new stations because he believes the industry is more efficient than a massive investment in renewables, such as wind and wave power. The new stations would be privately built, without subsidy, mainly on existing civil nuclear sites. At party conference Mr Blair announced an energy white paper for publication next year, three years after a previous white paper in 2003 put the emphasis on renewables. The announcement, the subject of lengthy prior discussion and nervousness in Downing Street, is a clear sign that Mr Blair has decided to follow the French, and the Americans in leaning on nuclear. At present, Britain's 12 nuclear power stations provide 22% of the UK's electricity. Unless they are replaced, there will only be three nuclear power stations in operation by 2020, producing just 7% of the UK's requirements. A new generation of nuclear plants would only add around 10% to the UK's volume of existing radioactive waste over a 60-year operating lifetime, the nuclear industry claims. Green groups say nuclear would only cut British carbon emissions by 8%. They also question the methodolgy behind claims that nuclear energy will be cheap. They claim the planned sell-off of BNG, is another sign of the special treatment given to nuclear industry. The Labour manifesto recommitted the government to cuts its carbon dioxide emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2010, but on current projections emissions will only be cut by 14% by 2010. A climate change programme review is due out at the end of the year explaining how Britain can get back on course. Nuclear sceptics within the cabinet are also pinning their hopes on EU carbon trading schemes. In the EU more than 12,000 plants across Europe take the cost of carbon into account in their operations. But the nuclear industry feels the political tide is heading in its direction after an effective lobbying operation at the Labour conference. The industry has the support of many of the big unions due to the number of jobs at stake. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 29 Guardian Unlimited Politics: Pre-empting debate Comment | Leader Saturday October 1, 2005 At the Labour conference this week Tony Blair called for a much-needed debate on the future of nuclear power. But a couple of days later, as we reported yesterday, it emerged that there are plans to privatise British Nuclear Group, which handles nuclear reprocessing, clean-up and some generation with the likelihood that it would be bought by a big US corporation. BNG is a subsidiary of British Nuclear Fuels which has already announced plans to sell Westinghouse, its US based nuclear construction company. There are increasing signals that key cabinet ministers are determined to go ahead with a nuclear power station construction programme without a serious debate that might affect the outcome of the decision. Behind these moves lies a problem in Britain's nuclear industry whose management appears to lack the confidence to manage its own assets or build new power stations at a time when the challenge of global warming has ushered in a new lease of life for the world's hitherto beleaguered nuclear industry. Article continues There are two crucial questions that must be debated before any decisions are taken. The first is whether the costs and dangers attached to building new nuclear stations (terrorism, catastrophic accidents and decommissioning), though daunting, are less than the danger of not building them. The big advantage of nuclear generation is that it does not produce environmentally degrading emissions in the way that fossil fuel generation does. This is a calculation that needs detailed multi-disciplinary research which must allow for the fact that Britain's nuclear industry in the past consistently underestimated the true cost of nuclear energy. Moreover, the huge multi-billion costs of a new nuclear programme must be compared with what would happen if the same amount of money were spent on promising new technologies such as harnessing wave power. Comparisons such as these were never done in the past. The second crucial question is if, and it is a very big if, the nuclear road is found to be the right one to take whether Britain should develop its own considerable expertise or privatise the operation. The second option would mean that big US corporations such as GE, Fluor and Halliburton or even nationalised energy concerns in France or Germany would do it instead (they already own most of the UK's conventional power stations). Sceptics might argue that as so many other industries including computers, motor manufacturing and the City are now controlled from abroad - without any adverse effect so far on overall employment - that one more industry, in which the UK frittered away an early technical lead decades ago, won't make any difference. There is some truth in that but other factors must also be taken into account. Strategically, do we want an industry as important as nuclear power to be controlled from another country at a time when our own reserves of oil and gas are starting to run down and when supplies of gas will increasingly come from from Siberia and oil from the Middle East? The recent crisis at Gate Gourmet shows how ruthlessly important decisions can be taken by foreign companies not steeped in local culture. Can the safety of nuclear power stations be safely entrusted to overseas companies with short profit horizons? In terms of safety the recent experience of Railtrack illustrates how this could prove disastrous, though the safety record of leading airlines has been impressive in recent years despite the fact that the industry is losing money. No one pretends that a decision about the future of nuclear power will be easy. What is vital is that the government does not say it is consulting when it has already made up its mind and that it does not allow a piecemeal privatisation to happen before that consultation is complete. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 30 Sunday Herald: NHS court battle over freedom of information By Rob Edwards, Environment Editor THE Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion, is being taken to court by the National Health Service in an attempt to keep controversial cancer statistics secret. This is the first legal challenge to Dunion, who has been overseeing the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act since it came into force at the beginning of the year. The NHS says it has taken the action to protect patient confidentiality. The case, to be heard at the Court of Session in Edinburgh, is unprecedented it is the first time that the Scottish Executives ground-breaking FOI legislation will be tested in court. In January, Chris Ballance, the Green MSP for the South of Scotland, asked the NHS Common Services Agency (CSA) to provide the annual incidence of childhood leukaemia in every Census ward in Dumfries and Galloway from 1990 to 2003. There have long been suspicions that clusters of the potentially fatal blood cancer could have been caused by radioactive pollution. Plutonium from the Sellafield nuclear plant washes up on the Solway coast, and depleted uranium shells have been tested at the Dundrennan military range near Kirkcudbright. Scotlands oldest nuclear station, which is now being decommissioned, is at Chapelcross, near Annan. But the CSA refused to provide Ballance with the information on the grounds that the small number of cases in some areas might enable individual patients still alive to be individually identified. As a result, Ballance lodged Scotlands first FOI appeal with Dunion on January 27. After a six-month investigation, Dunion upheld Ballances appeal on August 15 and ordered the CSA to supply the information within 42 days. The statistics could be presented in a way that prevented the potential identification of individuals, Dunion argued. In making my decision in this case, I have sought to achieve a balance, which provides reassurance to individual patients about their right to privacy and respects the wider public right to information on health issues, he said. But Dunions decision has now been rejected by the CSA, which lodged an appeal at the Court of Session on Friday. The CSA, now known as National Services Scotland, did not announce its move. But a spokeswoman said: Having considered the Scottish Information Commissioners decision in relation to this request and its implication for NHS Scotlands ability to protect patient confidentiality, National Services Scotland has decided to appeal against the decision. Dunion said: I can confirm that I have been notified that the Common Services Agency has appealed one of my decisions to the Court of Session. I am taking legal advice on the appeal. Both the CSA and Dunion declined to comment further. Chris Ballance, however, was angered by the CSAs move. I am very surprised that the CSA has decided to appeal the Information Commissioners decision, said Ballance. I am also rather angry. This is information which should be in the public domain and the Commissioners decision was fair. People have a right to detailed health statistics. Ballance accused the CSA of having something to hide. Is there some political reason why they are determined to be so secretive? The people of Dumfries and Galloway have a right to know. Since January, Dunions office at Kinburn Castle in St Andrews has been flooded with more than 400 appeals against public organisations which have refused to provide information. He has issued 27 decisions, closed a further 79 cases and is still investigating more than 300 others. As well as formal applications under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act and the Environmental Information Regulations, Dunions staff also handle inquiries about the legislation. To date they have dealt with 2262 inquiries. The Information Commissioner in England, Richard Thomas, has been swamped with more than 1600 appeals over the past six months. Final judgments have been reached in fewer than 50 cases and only another 380 have been withdrawn or resolved. A Whitehall unit called the Central Clearing House is blamed for blocking as many FOI requests to government departments as it can. It has recently advised civil servants that they could chose to neither confirm nor deny whether their departments even hold the information requested by the public. Tim Ellis, head of the Freedom of Information Unit at the Scottish Executive, told a recent conference that the Executive had handled 1400 FOI requests since the start of the year. About 60% of the inquiries have come from the media, with 54 journalists from 30 different newspapers putting in requests. In July, the Scottish Executive said that it had refused to provide some information to more than a third of those who had asked. This includes information on public subsidies paid to farmers and details of instances in which the Executive is accused of breaching European law, requested by the Sunday Herald. 02 October 2005 © newsquest (sunday herald) limited. all rights reserved ***************************************************************** 31 SF Chronicle: America's lost disaster priority U.S. slow to take steps to prevent urban nuclear terrorism Wolfgang K.H. Panofsky Sunday, October 2, 2005 The United States has experienced Sept. 11, Katrina and lesser disasters both manmade and natural. Sept. 11 killed about 3,000 people, and Katrina caused fatalities of about half that number. Yet, when two "small" nuclear bombs were detonated over two Japanese cities 60 years ago, one-quarter of a million people died. It is estimated that if a nuclear device were detonated in a populous American city, it would kill hundreds of thousands of people, and the economic impact would approach $1 trillion. In contrast to other disasters, advance preparation could do little to reduce this toll. Experts' estimates of the imminence of such a horrific event are spread between a few years to many decades, But President Bush has acknowledged eloquently the extremity of the danger when modern technology and terrorism are combined. The president agreed with his Democratic challenger in the 2004 presidential debates that terrorist possession of a nuclear bomb would be the "single most serious threat to U.S. national security." Yet, there is an enormous gap between Bush's acknowledgment of the gravity of the threat of nuclear terrorism and the priority given to preventive actions. Fortunately, remedial actions are possible. In the words of Graham Allison of Harvard University, nuclear terrorism is "a preventable threat." There is no single "silver bullet," but a series of barriers can be erected that, in combination, would drastically reduce the likelihood of a nuclear catastrophe. All nuclear explosives depend on the availability of either highly enriched uranium or plutonium. Manufacture of such materials is a large industrial enterprise well beyond the capability of terrorist groups. So, for nuclear terrorism to become a reality, either a nuclear weapon would have to be stolen from national arsenals or nuclear weapons-usable materials would have to be diverted and fabricated into a deliverable bomb. The latter is a job of moderate difficulty, and the methods to produce a weapon sufficient to cause havoc are well known. Weapons-usable materials have been produced in large quantities by the nuclear weapons states, in particular the United States and Russia, and today, these states combined still possess arsenals of about 30,000 nuclear weapons. Highly enriched uranium and plutonium exist in quantities worldwide to make easily more than 100,000 nuclear weapons. These numbers are excessive to any national security need, and they feed the clear and present danger of nuclear terrorism. Feasible multiple barriers to prevent a nuclear catastrophe include the following: -- Major reductions of the enormous stockpiles of nuclear weapons and weapons-usable material. -- Greatly improved guarding and security of these stockpiles against theft. -- Improved and widespread use of methods of detecting weapons materials, followed by interception of the introduction of these materials, whether by shipping containers, trucks, cars or airplanes crossing national boundaries, or as far as that goes, by mules crossing the Rio Grande. -- Improved intelligence collection covering the relevant moves of weapons-usable material. Each of these steps is being implemented but in a manner hardly commensurate with the threat. Priorities of funding and other support to interdict the delivery of nuclear explosives onto American soil, are inexcusably distorted. Funding for the above measures is between $1 billion and $2 billion a year. In contrast, we spend more than $10 billion a year on ballistic missile defense, yet no terrorist could possibly acquire ballistic missiles, and any country having ballistic missiles should remain deterred from launching these against the United States, as they have for many decades. Consider that five years ago, President Bush and President Vladimir Putin signed an agreement to destroy 34 tons of excess weapons-usable plutonium sufficient to make about 10,000 new nuclear weapons, with the United States assisting the Russian disposal effort. This effort has been stalled for all these years because of disputes over the liability under Russian law of U.S. personnel assisting the Russians. The nuclear weapons stockpiles of Russia and the United States remain huge. Only about a quarter of Russian nuclear weapons-usable materials are protected sufficiently to meet the standards set by the U.S.-Russian agreement. Nuclear detection devices are being introduced at a few overseas shipping points on a demonstration basis, but the effort is far from comprehensive. Pilot installations exist at ports of entry into the United States, but U.S. borders beyond the ports remain porous to the introduction of nuclear weapons or material. Nuclear terrorism exceeds any catastrophe that the United States has experienced. Yet the priority and thoroughness dedicated to avoid this "preventable catastrophe" remain inadequate. Must we wait for such a disaster before revising our priorities? Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, a physicist, is the retired director of the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center. Contact us at . Page C - 3 The San Francisco Chronicle] ***************************************************************** 32 Deseret News: Radiation payments improving [deseretnews.com] Sunday, October 2, 2005 By Jerry Spangler Deseret Morning News WASHINGTON — An investigation by the General Accounting Office into the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act — the program to compensate downwinders and uranium workers sickened by above-ground nuclear testing — found that the Department of Justice is doing a much better job administering the program than it was when a similar study was done in 2003. According to the report, not only is the program now funded "for life," only 8 percent of 22,206 claims filed since 1992 remain unresolved — compared to 18 percent of the 14,987 claims that had been filed as of the 2003 report. The Department of Justice also is processing the claims faster. The GAO found that improvements could be attributed to changes in the law that improved efficiencies and greater financial stability for the program. "This is wonderful news," said Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. "That's a 180-degree difference from the last report, and it wasn't easy to turn it around in such a short time." Hatch authored the Radiation Exposure Control Act Amendments of 2000 that require the GAO to report to Congress every 18 months on the status of the act. This is the GAO's third report on the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. Hatch's amendments also expanded the list of eligible diseases and made it easier to apply for money. Under current law, uranium millers, miners and ore transporters who contracted radiation-caused diseases are entitled to $100,000 in compensation, whereas compensation for on-site participants is $75,000. "Downwinders" — those living in most of Nevada, the southern half of Utah and northern half of Arizona who have suffered the deadly effects of the atomic testing — are eligible for $50,000 compensation. As of June 19, the Justice Department had approved $926.4 million in compensation. The GAO's earlier review found that the Department of Justice generally was living within guidelines and deadlines set by Congress, but it highlighted high rates of denials and sometimes long delays for victims seeking money. Through the end of fiscal 2000, it said 46 percent of those who had applied were denied; another 46 percent were approved; and 8 percent still had their applications pending. Approval rates have now improved to 60 percent, the latest GAO study found. Program funding has been a problem over the years. The trust fund ran out of money once before, prompting the government to send claimants IOUs until money was available months later. To help ensure that would not happen again, Congress in 2002 passed legislation to automatically appropriate each year what it thought would be adequate amounts of money for the program through 2011. But last year, Hatch and the Bush administration warned Congress that it would again have to start issuing IOUs if lawmakers did not act quickly. During a rare weekend session last October, Congress approved language that shifted compensation payments to uranium miners, millers and transporters to the Department of Labor under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA). Downwinders and on-site participants remained under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, but now there were fewer claimants drawing from the same pool of money. The GAO now says those changes should eliminate future shortfalls. "We've been fighting to make sure the program is solvent and RECA claimants do not receive IOUs," Hatch said. "I'm encouraged by the report that RECA appears to be fully funded for the life of the program." Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, also called the GAO report "welcome news, given the frustrations of the past few years." "Many downwinders — sick and dying from cancer — received IOUs instead of compensation from the government, adding insult to injury. I'm relieved that they'll now see the benefit of these improvements in RECA," said Matheson, whose father, the late Gov. Scott Matheson, was a downwinder. E-mail: spang@desnews.com © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 33 Las Vegas SUN: Study: Genetics, contaminants could be cause of Fallon cluster October 01, 2005 ASSOCIATED PRESS FALLON, Nev. (AP) - Children in Fallon's leukemia cluster may be genetically and metabolically predisposed to an increased risk of damage from environmental contaminants in the small town 60 miles east of Reno, according to preliminary results of a study by a cancer researcher. S. Jill James, a professor at the Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute, said results are based on blood samples collected from six cluster children and their families. Since 1997, 17 children with ties to Fallon have been diagnosed with childhood acute lymphocytic leukemia, or ALL, and three of those children died. James said her study shows that a well-established protective genetic factor was lacking in all of the case children tested, suggesting they may lack an important protective factor against development of ALL. "Our hypothesis is that many of the environmental contaminants in Fallon interact to cause chronic oxidative stress in genetically susceptible children," James told the Lahontan Valley News and Fallon Eagle Standard newspaper. Oxidative stress occurs when the body's antioxidant defense capacity is inadequate or depleted by environmental exposures. The imbalance can lead to oxidative DNA damage, a known risk factor for leukemia, she said. But James said the six cluster children and their families represent a very small test group, making it difficult to obtain conclusive answers. She's hoping to test additional case families, including those more recently diagnosed with ALL and some leukemia cases not included in the cluster. "We need to increase the sample size to get statistical significance with the genetic results," James said. She acknowledged she's far from uncovering the cause of the cluster, but her evidence suggests case children may be more vulnerable to oxidative damage by contaminants in Fallon. "It's like any research," James said. "You present the results you have, but it's really contingent upon repetition of other laboratories." James was awarded $224,000 by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2004 to study genetic and metabolic factors that could increase the risk of leukemia among children in the Fallon cluster. Her preliminary results were presented in a recent progress report to the agency. She and her team also evaluated how the metabolism of cluster children could be affected by chronic exposures to arsenic, tungsten, uranium, mercury and JP-8 jet fuel. The substances have been shown to deplete glutathione, the body's major antioxidant and detoxification mechanism that protects cells from oxidative DNA damage. Her research shows that cluster children had low levels of free glutathione and a highly significant increase in the oxidized, inactive form of the antioxidant. That's a strong indication that case children are under chronic oxidative stress and would be less able to detoxify environmental contaminants in Fallon, James said. Arsenic and heavy metals such as tungsten have been mentioned as possible causes of Fallon's ALL cluster in the past. University of Arizona scientists Paul Sheppard and Mark Witten have said their tests show that Fallon has up to 13 times more tungsten in its dust than other Nevada cities. Tests also have found elevated levels of tungsten in tree rings in Fallon and three other towns with leukemia clusters, they said. But other studies turned up no link to the tungsten levels or to high levels of arsenic in Fallon's water supply, a pipeline carrying jet fuel to the Fallon Naval Air Station where the Navy's Top Gun training program is located, local pesticide spraying or an underground nuclear test conducted 30 miles away about 40 years ago. --- Information from: Lahontan Valley News, http://www.lahontanvalleynews.com All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 34 Lahontan Valley News: Leading leukemia researcher probes cluster cases Preliminary results show genetic, metabolic similarities in Fallon cluster children JOSH JOHNSON, jjohnson@lahontanvalleynews.com October 1, 2005 A leading Arkansas cancer researcher has uncovered preliminary data indicating children of Fallon's leukemia cluster may be genetically and metabolically predisposed to an increased risk of damage from environmental contaminants found in the area. S. Jill James, a professor in the department of pediatrics at the Arkansas Children's Hospital Research Institute, was awarded $224,000 from the Environmental Protection Agency in 2004 to study genetic and metabolic factors that could increase the risk of leukemia among children of the Fallon cluster. Her preliminary results were presented in a progress report to the EPA this summer. Since 1997, 17 children in Churchill County have been diagnosed with acute lymphocytic leukemia and three have died. The latest case surfaced in December 2004 after more than two years without an addition to the cluster. James and a medical team arrived in Fallon in October 2004 and visited the homes of six remaining cluster families to collect blood samples. Twenty samples were collected from six cluster children and their families. Families from Fallon were recruited for a total of 28 control samples. DNA samples from 205 subjects in Arkansas were used as a population control. An important result of the genetic analysis was that a well-established protective genetic factor was lacking in all of the case children tested, suggesting they may lack an important protective factor against the development of ALL, James said. "Our hypothesis is that many of the environmental contaminants in Fallon interact to cause chronic oxidative stress in genetically susceptible children," James said. Oxidative stress occurs when the body's antioxidant defense capacity is inadequate or depleted by environmental exposures. This imbalance can lead to oxidative DNA damage, a known risk factor for leukemia, she said. James said the cluster children and families represent a very small test group, making it difficult to obtain conclusive answers. She's hoping to test additional case families, including those more recently diagnosed with ALL, and some leukemia cases that were not included in the cluster. "We need to increase the sample size to get statistical significance with the genetic results," she said. In addition to genetic analysis, James and her team evaluated how the metabolism of cluster children could be affected by chronic exposures to arsenic, tungsten/cobalt, uranium, mercury and JP-8 jet fuel. Each of the substances has been shown to deplete glutathione, the body's major antioxidant and detoxification mechanism which protects cells from oxidative DNA damage, James said. Elevated levels of arsenic and tungsten were reported in biological samples taken from Fallon residents by the Centers for Disease Control in 2002. When the results were presented at a town hall meeting, CDC officials said little was known about the health effects from exposure to tungsten. The metabolic results in James' research showed that cluster children had low levels of free glutathione and a highly significant increase in the oxidized, inactive form of the antioxidant. This is a strong indication that case children are under chronic oxidative stress and would be less able to de-toxify the environmental contaminants in Fallon, she said. The decrease in free glutathione and increase in oxidized glutathione among cluster children compared to age-matched control children was statistically significant in James' study. She would also like to take a second blood sample this year and continue research to determine whether interaction between the multiple environmental contaminants in Fallon would increase oxidative stress and promote glutathione depletion in cells from case children compared to control children. James says she far from uncovering the cause of the cluster, but her evidence suggests that cluster children may be uniquely more vulnerable to oxidative damage by the contaminants in Fallon. "It's like any research," James said. "You present the results that you have, but it's really contingent upon repetition of other laboratories." James and her team returned March 29-31, 2005 and presented findings to the parents of cluster children and invited guests. "We were just welcomed into their homes," she said. "They had breakfast for us. They were just exceptionally nice and wonderful, wonderful people. It meant a lot to us to come to their homes and spend time with them to get their feedback. The families are extremely well informed and we learned from them." Fallon resident Brenda Gross, whose son Dustin was diagnosed with leukemia at age 3 in 1999, said any research done on the cluster helps narrow down the causes and could lead to an explanation. "What she showed me prior to doing the research was very exciting," Gross said. "It definitely is going to be beneficial." Josh Johnson can be contacted at jjohnson@lahontanvalleynews.com All contents © Copyright 2005 lahontanvalleynews.com Lahontan Valley News and Fallon Eagle Standard - 562 North Maine Street - Fallon, NV 89406 ***************************************************************** 35 adn.com: alaska: Radiation found under building in Kotzebue Anchorage Daily News: Alaska's Newspaper EMISSIONS: Park Service evacuates house after containers draw reading. By DAN JOLING The Associated Press Published: October 1, 2005 Lead containers emitting radiation were found beneath a house owned by the National Park Service in Kotzebue. The state Department of Environmental Conservation is treating the home as a spill site. "We don't know if we have a problem or not," said George Helfrich, park superintendent for Western Arctic National Parklands, which oversees Kobuk Valley National Park, Noatak National Preserve, Cape Krusenstern National Monument, all near Kotzebue, and Bering Land Bridge National Monument near Nome. The house was slated for demolition and since May has been used for transient worker housing. One person living in the house was moved. DEC environmental program specialist Toivo Luick said the containers were spotted in a crawl space by two employees of a Fairbanks-based environmental consulting firm looking for hazards such as leaked fuel or lead paint in walls. A Park Service facilities manager borrowed a Geiger counter from the Kotzebue Fire Department, took it into the crawl space and got a reading from the containers. That was enough for the Park Service to alert state authorities. The Park Service employee is not trained to use the Geiger counter and the machine may not be properly calibrated, Luick said. Readings can be taken from rocks and unless readings are taken by skilled operators, they can be ambiguous, Luick said. However, once the reading was taken, precautions were necessary. "It certainly has all the hallmarks of a potential risk," he said. The building was locked and access prohibited. Workers counted 32 lead containers. Some containers were labeled as once having contained radioactive isotopes routinely used for medical purposes. The containers are 5 to 6 inches in diameter and 9 inches long with walls 1.5 to 3 inches thick. They have chambers in the middle that probably held another container holding the radioactive material, Luick said. "This appears to be a secondary container for shipping radioactive materials," he said. Some containers had labels indicating they had contained short-lived isotopes iodine-131 and gold-198. "We haven't been able to determine what was in every single one of them," Luick said. The Park Service bought the two-story, two-bedroom home in 1986. It once belonged to a dentist, said Park Service spokeswoman Jan Maslen. The home is attached to a three-bedroom apartment and together they cover 3,045 square feet. Clyde Pearce, the chief of the radiological health program for the state Department of Health and Social Services, will travel to the site Tuesday to make an assessment. "He's got all the equipment and expertise to go up and assess it and see if it's dangerous to go in the crawl space," Luick said. Besides the state, the Park Service contacted nuclear waste specialists at Los Alamos National Laboratory about the spill. © Copyright 2005, The Anchorage Daily News, a subsidiary of The McClatchy Company ***************************************************************** 36 AU ABC: WA Liberals to push for uranium mining 13:28 (ACST)Sunday, 2 October 2005. 14:28 (AEDT)Sunday, 2 The Western Australia Liberal Party has unanimously agreed at its annual state conference to pursue uranium mining in Western Australia. Nuclear power and the storage of nuclear waste are also on the agenda. The parliamentary Liberal Party is almost certain to adopt a resolution in favour of uranium mining. It sets up a major point of difference between the WA Labor Government and the Liberal Opposition ahead of the next election. Former Liberal leader Bill Hassell told the conference Labor's anti-uranium policy was driving investment and jobs out of Western Australia. The Liberals have also overwhelmingly voted to investigate the use of nuclear power, to generate electricity and provide fresh water to Perth. They have recommended the parliamentary party consider the Mount Walton facility in the Goldfields as a repository for nuclear waste from Sydney's Lucas Heights and any other future Australian reactors. ***************************************************************** 37 Deseret News: Hatch takes heat for not joining nuclear-waste foes [deseretnews.com] Saturday, October 1, 2005 Hatch takes heat for not joining nuclear-waste foes Utah Democratic Party chairman Wayne Holland criticized Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, Friday for not joining "a unified front" in opposing both temporary storage of high-level nuclear waste in Utah and long-term storage in Nevada. Several weeks ago, Sen. Bob Bennett, R-Utah, switched positions and said he now opposes long-term storage of spent nuclear power plant rods and other wastes in Nevada. Previously, both Hatch and Bennett have voted in favor of the Yucca Mountain federal repository in that state. Of the five members of Utah's congressional delegation, only Hatch has not come out against the permanent repository at Yucca Mountain, Nev. All members oppose the temporary storage facility at the Goshute Indian reservation in Utah's west desert. Hatch recently said he did not want to "kick the administration in the teeth right now when they're for Yucca Mountain." Holland says the waste ought to be stored at the plants that make it. "Sen. Hatch needs to do the right thing. He needs to start protecting Utahns and stop protecting his friends in the White House. President Bush can take care of himself, but we need a senator that takes his responsibility to protect the people of Utah far more seriously," said Holland. © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 38 Deseret News: N-storage issue beyond Utah [deseretnews.com] Sunday, October 2, 2005 With environmental protection a non-reality with the current Bush administration and corporate lobbyists having a major influence in setting environmental policy, the issue of Utah being the site for the storage of high-level nuclear waste on the Goshute Reservation has become a major concern. However, as with all things political, there is a lot of money to be made here. The question of what is "right" and "in the people's interest" is not even on the table. This is an issue beyond Utah and the environmental concerns of its residents as corporate interests appeal for less regulatory oversight and the right to do business however they see fit. Eugene Trousdale Salt Lake City © 2005 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 39 RIA Novosti: U.S., Russia fulfill half of uranium processing commitments 01/ 10/ 2005 WASHINGTON, October 1 (RIA Novosti, Arkady Orlov) - The United States and Russia announced Saturday that they had fulfilled half of their commitment to liquidate 500 metric tons of highly enriched uranium (HEU) by 2013. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said this stage testified to the success of bilateral cooperation. The Russian Foreign Ministry, the Federal Agency for Nuclear Power, the U.S. State Department and the Energy Department released a joint statement saying that 250 metric tons of HEU, the equivalent of 10,000 nuclear warheads, had been processed into low enriched uranium (LEU). The statement said Russia turned HEU from nuclear warheads into LEU, in turn taken over by the U.S. to account for 10% of the energy generated at American nuclear power plants. © 2005 "RIA Novosti" ***************************************************************** 40 Las Vegas SUN: Letter: Nevada disaster would be unnatural October 01, 2005 Letter: Nevada disaster would be unnatural It is heartbreaking to see the devastation in the Southern states from Hurricane Katrina. It looks like a Third World country, where the lives of thousands of people may never again be the same. Now imagine that you are forced to leave your home. Your neighborhood is deserted. You are separated from family members and may be suffering from the loss of loved ones. Imagine fleeing in your car (if you have enough gas) on clogged highways, or having to rely on mass transportation, if it even exists. There are fires and explosions and the air is full of toxins. There is no infrastructure left -- no running water, plumbing, gasoline, electricity, phones or police. Imagine having to fight off others intent on stealing your meager supply of food, water or gasoline. Maybe one of your family members needs medical attention and there are no doctors or nurses available. You might have a parent in a nursing home and you are unable to get there. Providing that President Bush is successful in ramming a nuclear-waste dump at Yucca Mountain down our throats, it is not a matter of "if" the above scenario will happen in Nevada, it is a matter of "when." There will be hundreds and hundreds of trucks carrying deadly nuclear waste through our streets and cities every day for decades. It will only be a matter of time until there is a wreck, overturned truck or some other accident that could turn our beloved Nevada into a wasteland. There would be no homes, jobs or schools to go back to. Don't kid yourself. The odds are that this will happen if Bush gets his way. A. Maria Brown Henderson All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 41 Las Vegas SUN: Long spans for radiation standards leave many cold Photo: Yucca Mountain entrance Today: October 02, 2005 at 7:25:49 PDT Government's formulas trouble dump critics By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU Public meetings The Environmental Protection Agency will hold four public meetings on its new radiation standard this week: one in Amargosa Valley and three at Cashman Center in Las Vegas. AMARGOSA VALLEY Monday, Oct. 3 Amargosa Valley Community Center 821 E. Farm Road Information session 4 p.m.-5:30 p.m. Roundtable dialogue 5:30 p.m.-6:30 p.m. Public hearing 7 p.m.-9 p.m. LAS VEGAS Tuesday, Oct 4 Cashman Center 850 Las Vegas Blvd. North Information session 4 p.m.-5:30 p.m. Roundtable dialogue 5:30 p.m.- 6:30 p.m. Public hearing 7 p.m.-9 p.m. Wednesday, Oct. 5 Cashman Center Information session 10 a.m.-11 a.m. Public hearing 11 a.m.-noon Thursday, Oct. 6 Cashman Center Information session 10 a.m.-11 a.m. Public hearing 11 a.m.-noon Radiation all around us Learn about the type of radiation around you: http://www.lasvegassun.com/pdf/rad.pdf WASHINGTON -- The way Yucca Mountain critics see it, the Environmental Protection Agency's proposed radiation standard for the nuclear waste dump is weak -- and will be even weaker 1 million years from now. And therein lies their problem. Because while critics see this as a life-or-death issue, they are finding it difficult to arouse the public, in part because some of what is at stake will not become an issue for more than 10,000 years. As the EPA comes to Las Vegas this week to gather public comment on the proposed standard regulating radiation levels at nuclear waste repository, critics hope the fact that a part of the rule would not take effect until at least the year 12,310 does not prompt public disinterest. "A lot of people just don't get it -- they look at 10,000 years and 1 million years and their eyes glaze over," said Peggy Maze Johnson of Citizen Alert, an anti-repository group. "This is about future generations." In advance of the hearings, Yucca critics have complained that the EPA, told by a federal appellate court to rewrite its rule, simply presented a warmed-over version of the one the court threw out. "We won a lawsuit, but there is no change" to the rule, Johnson said. Yucca critics are not optimistic that this week's hearings will change that. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has already proposed an identical rule for its regulations, and Johnson fears critical voices will fall on deaf ears. When she met with EPA officials while the standard was being written, "they didn't seem to take any of our suggestions to heart," Johnson said. Elizabeth Cotsworth, EPA's Office of Radiation and Indoor Air director, told a National Academy of Sciences panel earlier this month that the proposed rule, which limits the amount of radiation someone living near Yucca Mountain can be exposed to in a single year, was appropriate for protection. She said it allowed for no more radiation exposure than that of the natural landscape in Denver. Like the old standard, the new one allows 15 millirem of radiation a year -- about the same level of annual exposure as a person would receive in an X-ray -- starting after the repository closes and lasting for 10,000 years. But the new standard adds a regulation for 10,001 years to 1 million years that increases the allowable dose 2,300 percent to 350 millirem. The Energy Department will use computer models to prove to the commission that it can meet the standard, and the EPA will set up monitors around Yucca Mountain. Judy Treichel of the Nevada Nuclear Waste Task Force, another anti-Yucca group, argues that the standard has nothing to do with protection, but rather was designed merely to allow the dump to be approved. The previous rule did not account for radiation beyond 10,000 years. Treichel contends the new standard will leave future Nevadans more susceptible to cancer. Critics also are troubled by the formula that the EPA used to create the dose recommendations. The formula calls for using an average to calculate the dosage during the repository's first 10,000 years; after that, the dosage is calculated using a median. Writing in the publication Science and Engineering Ethics, University of Notre Dame professor Kristin Shrader-Frechette said such a standard shows that "even serious harms caused by negligence or unfairness could be sanctioned if the rate of harm was below" the average. She used, as an example, a hypothetical release that affected 715 people in a nearby town. She said if a "baby received a fatal dose of 10,000 millirems but all other residents each received 1 millirem, the mean dose would be under 15 millirems." While such a scenario is unlikely, it shows the folly of the rule, she said. Under the EPA standard, after 10,000 years the dosage would be calculated using the median, meaning "limits would allow nearly half of exposures to exceed any standard," Shrader-Frechette said. That means in her theoretical town, 357 people could receive fatal doses of radiation if everyone else received 350 millirems or less. Shrader-Frechette said the EPA's rule would allow radiation at 350 millirems a year -- slightly higher than the level that naturally exists in Denver -- an amount, she said, that causes about 3 percent of fatal cancers in the United States. She said if the EPA permitted air polluters to follow similar logic, they could save money and "increase profits at the expense of the public, but claim that victims' health risks were acceptable merely because they were no worse than what some natural event had caused." And that, critics say, is as much of a concern in 2005 as it perhaps will be in 12,310. All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 42 UK: Independent: Secret report reveals catalogue of blunders at Sellafield By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor Published: 02 October 2005 A devastating "catalogue of dubious practices", including sabotage and safety measures based on "guesswork", at the Sellafield plant treating Britain's most dangerous nuclear waste is revealed in an internal report seen by The Independent on Sunday. The whistleblowing document says that the plant - hitherto thought to be one of the better-run ones at the controversial Cumbrian complex - is "potentially dangerous" and is "becoming difficult to operate properly". One of its section headings reads: "Homer Simpson works at Sellafield". The revelations could not come at a worse time for the Government and the nuclear industry. Tony Blair is pressing for the building of new reactors in Britain, against stiff cabinet opposition, after announcing a review of the issue in his Labour Party conference speech on Tuesday. And on Thursday British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), which runs Sellafield, decided to try to sell off almost all its remaining business, including the treatment plant. The document is a shocking indictment of the Ł250m waste vitrification plant (WVP), which binds the most highly radioactive and dangerous waste produced by the nuclear industry in glass so it can be stored and disposed of easily. The whistleblowing, meticulously referenced report, recently compiled by a manager, says the problems at the plant are so great that the Government forced BNFL to call in its major competitor, the French firm Cogema, "to help address serious concerns about how WVP is run". It adds: "BNFL claims its research into the vitrification process proves that the plant is safe and will allow the foreign waste to be returned to its country of origin. Yet BNFL's own research papers and audits show these claims are false." It adds: "The scientific basis for control of the plant relies at best on interpretation and at worst on guesswork" and that "reports from employees on the site reveal a catalogue of dubious practices". It goes on: "The low morale is endemic ... Control cables to vital robotic arms in the WVP have been cut, waste drums that should hold solid glass have been accidentally filled with highly active liquid waste, faults in safety mechanisms are not reported properly, the plant has become driven by production targets so much that it is becoming difficult to operate properly. "Concerns raised at formal quality review committees are referred to secret 'black file' meetings, where no minutes or records are ever made, and no one is held to account. When pushed the senior managers have appeared to rely on arrogance or ... technical jargon to baffle non-experts, including government watchdogs." It reports that over 20 crucibles used to make the highly radioactive glass have split while in use, and that an inspection of drums filled with the radioactive waste three years ago found up to a third were not safe to be returned to customers for disposal. Yesterday the independent nuclear expert John Large said that until now he had thought the plant one of the better run ones at the complex, but that it now appeared to be "yet another management failure". BNFL said last night: "Safety is our number-one priority and all our activities on site are not only monitored by plant management, but overseen by our regulators." It said that though it was "desirable" to avoid its crucibles splitting this presented "no safety concerns", and that over the past two years all but one of its containers had been certified as "returnable". It denied that "secret black-file meetings" took place. © 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd. ***************************************************************** 43 Sioux Falls Argus Leader: Uranium mining revival needs review first "ArgusLeader.com" border="0" hspace="10" Article Published: 10/1/05 Rising uranium prices have prompted new interest in potential mines in Fall River and Custer counties, where two companies have leased mineral rights to 2,600 acres. That’s good. Maybe. After all, West River uranium mines have been closed for 30 years. They shut down when the prices dropped dramatically. They’ve now gone from about $9 a pound for ore to about $30 a pound. But let’s not forget Harding County. The U.S. Forest Service estimates it will cost about $20 million to clean up abandoned mines there, where hazardous materials contaminate 12 bluffs. And there’s cleanup envisioned for the Black Hills, too. Companies say uranium mining is safer now than it used to be. And the state has tightened its environmental laws since the old days. But enough? The state Department of Environment and Natural Resources is reviewing our laws and regulations, and that’s good. But let’s make sure it’s a thorough review that considers all the factors – including cleanup costs. It would be nice to see a dead industry return to South Dakota. But not if we face the problems left the last time uranium mining was a going concern. Copyright ©2005 ArgusLeader.com All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 Casper Star-Tribune: Rail cars back up with radioactive waste Casper, Wyoming - Sunday, October 02, 2005 SALT LAKE CITY (AP) -- Envirocare of Utah, the radioactive-waste disposal firm in Utah's west desert that has permission to double the size of its landfill, is having trouble keeping up with demand for its services. Long lines of rail cars are waiting at rail yards in Ogden and Wendover to deliver waste that in many cases is contaminated soil. More cars from big government cleanups at Oak Ridge, Tenn.; Rocky Flats, Colo.; and Fernald, Ohio, rest on rails along Interstate 80. Still more wait on the mile-square Tooele County site to be unloaded, cleaned and returned to their owners. In the first six months of 2005, the Tooele County landfill took in 74 percent as much waste as it accepted in all of last year, most of it from Superfund and U.S. Energy Department cleanups. Envirocare can't bury it fast enough. State regulators took the company to task earlier this year for leaving in the open about 18,000 cubic yards of waste contaminated with hazardous PCBs and "dry active waste." The Utah Division of Radiation Control ordered the company to clean up the pile in a couple of months and it complied, according to the agency's John Hultquist. Also, in the spring of 2004, the Division of Radiation Control issued a "notice of violation" when the company had too much waste backed up. Under its state license, the company keeps a surety bond to cover the cost of burying all the waste on its property in the event its owners walked away. But during a springtime visit, inspectors noticed thousands more cubic yards than allowed under the bond. The Division of Radiation Control has since doubled the amount of disposed waste allowed on site and has increased the amount of the required bond. The growth in Envirocare's waste volume is documented in reports the company files periodically to the state radiation regulators. Envirocare this summer won the division's approval to double in size onto property just north of its current site about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. Construction cannot begin until the expansion plans get the approval of Gov. Jon Huntsman and the Legislature. Company officials plan to make that request during the legislative session that opens in January. Envirocare Senior Vice President Tim Barney said the company is expecting lower volumes of waste next year and beyond after big government cleanups at Rocky Flats, Colo., and Fernald, Ohio, wrap up. Rocky Flats has sent more than 6 million cubic feet of contaminated waste to Utah in recent years as part of its $7 billion cleanup of a plant that used to make plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons. The contractor, Kaiser-Hill, has stepped up the shipments this year in hopes of landing a $20 million schedule bonus and a $500 million incentive bonus. Copyright © 19952005 Lee Enterprises a subsidiary of Lee Enterprises, Incorporated ***************************************************************** 45 Salt Lake Tribune: Yucca squabble aside, Huntsman backs Hatch as senator Article Last Updated: 10/01/2005 01:07:38 AM Windfall? The governor sees a possible boon for Utah if he becomes the Finance Committee chair By Matt Canham The Salt Lake Tribune Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. wants Orrin Hatch to remain a U.S. senator, despite their public disagreement on how to combat efforts to ship nuclear waste to Utah. Huntsman endorsed Hatch's 2006 re-election bid during a phone call Friday morning. Huntsman agreed to serve as Hatch's campaign co-chairman with Sen. Bob Bennett, normally a ceremonial post. But campaign manager Dave Hansen expects more than just an endorsement. "We want their advice and their input to tell us what they need to do to run a winning campaign," Hansen said. The governor supports Hatch because he is expected to become the chairman of the powerful Senate Finance Committee if he wins re-election, a position that could bring financial benefits to Utah, said Huntsman spokeswoman Tammy Kikuchi. "He is definitely delighted to throw his support behind Senator Hatch," Kikuchi said. But that doesn't mean they agree on all issues. Huntsman criticized Hatch last week for being the only member of Utah's congressional delegation to support shipping nuclear waste to Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Hatch believes supporting the Bush administration on Yucca Mountain is the best way to keep the waste out of Utah. A group of electric utilities known as Private Fuel Storage is seeking federal approval to store 44,000 tons of waste in above ground steel casks on the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation in Utah. Huntsman called Hatch's position "ill-advised." Along with the rest of the congressional delegation, Huntsman believes the waste should stay put. They believe the reactors that create the waste should keep it on-site and find a way to reprocess it, instead of shipping the spent nuclear fuel to Utah or Nevada. Hansen said this disagreement has not caused a rift between Huntsman and Hatch. "Of course not. they have been good friends for a long time," he said. "They are political compatriots." Huntsman and Hatch also have been split over their support for State Republican Party Chairman Joe Cannon. Hatch asked Cannon to run for a third term as party chairman, which he subsequently won. Huntsman has publicly blamed party leaders for negative campaign tactics last year, though he and Cannon have since patched their relationship. "There will be issues, of course, that they may not see eye to eye on," Kikuchi said. "But on many they will and they will work together." She cited Legacy Highway as one issues that Hatch and Huntsman have both supported. Hatch, who is seeking a sixth term, must defeat state Rep. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, so the far his only declared Republican opposition, to win the party's nomination. Pete Ashdown, the CEO of Internet service provider XMission, is the only Democrat who has announced his candidacy. mcanham@sltrib.com © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 46 Salt Lake Tribune: Utah's desert radioactive waste dump grows bigger and bigger Article Last Updated: 10/01/2005 01:07:38 AM By Judy Fahys The Salt Lake Tribune An assortment of waste items wait to be disposed of in one of the cells at Envirocare, 80 miles west of Salt Lake City, in this photo taken last month. (Steve Griffin/The Salt Lake Tribune ) CLIVE - Envirocare of Utah is bursting at the seams. Long lines of rail cars cool their wheels at rail yards in Ogden and Wendover. More cars from big government cleanups at Oak Ridge, Tenn.; Rocky Flats, Colo.; and Fernald, Ohio, rest on the rails along Interstate 80. Still more wait on the mile-square Tooele County site to be unloaded, cleaned and returned to their owners This year's waste volume is shaping up to handily beat last year's record: In the first six months of 2005, the Tooele County landfill took in 74 percent as much waste as it accepted in all of last year, most of it from Superfund and U.S. Energy Department cleanups. And all of this is adding up. By the end of June, Envirocare had brought in enough waste in its 17 years to fill the Delta Center eight times over. Or to give every Utahn 61.5 cubic feet of the stuff. Not to worry, says Tim Barney, senior vice president for the company. While people may worry about the containers labeled with radiation symbols and Business at the radioactive waste facility has been booming, with rail shipments backing up. Utah's Division of Radiation Control does not keep a running tally of the amount of waste received at Envirocare and how much radiation those shipments contain. (Steve Griffin/The Salt Lake Tribune ) "Class A unstable" labels, the rail cars are no cause to worry, Barney said. "It's not a problem. " In fact, he added, waiting next to a gas tanker at a traffic light would be a lot more worrisome. "You should also point out the overwhelming majority of that [waste] is dirt, dirt slightly contaminated with radioactive material," he added, "You make it sound scary [but] it's low-level radioactive material." Envirocare has run into some snags because of its runaway success. This year, state regulators took the company to task for leaving in the open air about 18,000 cubic yards of waste contaminated with hazardous PCBs and "dry active waste." The Utah Division of Radiation Control ordered the company to clean up the pile in a couple of months and it did, according to the agency's John Hultquist. Also, in the spring of 2004, the Division of Radiation Control issued a "notice of violation" when the company had too much waste backed up. Under its state license, the company keeps a surety bond to cover the cost of burying all the waste on its property in the event the owners walked away. But during a springtime visit, inspectors noticed thousands more cubic yards than allowed under the bond. The Division of Radiation Control has since doubled the amount of disposed waste allowed on site and has increased the amount of the required bond. Dane Finerfrock, division director, noted that his agency only has authority over the waste once it comes into Envirocare's boundaries. State and federal transportation authorities are responsible for making sure the shipping containers meet safety standards. On site, the Division of Radiation Control's two inspectors have been able to keep up, said Finerfrock. "With more shipments, more inspections are necessary," he said. The growth in Envirocare's waste volume is documented in reports the company files periodically to the state radiation regulators. Envirocare this summer won the division's approval to double in size onto property just north of its current location about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. The company has said its current site has capacity enough for another 20 years, but the new site is needed now to update its administration building and waste handling equipment. Construction cannot begin until the expansion plans - including added disposal pits or "cells" - get the approval of Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and the Legislature. Company officials have said they plan to make that request during the upcoming legislative session. The group Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah, HEAL, has opposed the expansion. "The gluttons at Envirocare have been sitting at the all-you-can-eat nuclear buffet for far too long," said HEAL Director Jason Groenewold. Lawmakers and the governor "should encourage them to go on a diet rather than double in size." He noted that, by signing off on the expansion, the governor and lawmakers would open the door for Envirocare to accept three times as much waste as already disposed of. Groenewold also said that the radiation content of waste Envirocare gets now is at least nine times as great as what was allowed only three years ago. He challenged Barney's suggestion that the waste is the same "dirty dirt" Envirocare began accepting in 1988, when it opened its doors as the nation's only privately owned and operated radioactive and hazardous waste landfill. "Some of the waste Envirocare now receives has to be handled remotely because it is so dangerously radioactive," he said. "That's not something I'd want to walk around or plant a garden in." Barney said Envirocare is expecting lower volumes of waste next year and beyond. This year, big government cleanups at Rocky Flats, Colo., and Fernald, Ohio, are wrapping up. Rocky Flats has sent more than 6 million cubic feet of contaminated waste to Utah in recent years as part of its $7 billion cleanup of a plant that used to make plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons. The contractor, Kaiser-Hill, has stepped up the shipments this year in hopes of landing a $20 million schedule bonus and a $500 million incentive bonus. The last shipment is expected to come to Utah sometime next week. Many of the rail cars on the Envirocare site are empty, Barney said. Envirocare can dump waste out of 40 to 50 rail cars a day but only clean about four or five. The empty cars are awaiting a final cleaning before returning to Rocky Flats for the last time. "It's a good business," he said. "But we don't see [receiving] the same volumes next year as we did this year." fahys@sltrib.com © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 47 Salt Lake Tribune: Rolly: Old Hansen idea could keep waste out of Skull Valley Opinion Last Updated: 10/01/2005 08:58:48 PM By Paul Rolly There haven't been too many issues that have divided politicians and government leaders in Utah - even among those in the same party - as the federal government's proposal to put a permanent nuclear waste dump in Yucca Mountain, Nev. For the Utahns, of course, the matter is significant because Yucca won't be built for many years as it still faces numerous political, legal and economic obstacles. So the alternative plan is to store about 44,000 tons of the radioactive waste temporarily in above-ground containers on the Goshute Indian Reservation in western Utah's Skull Valley, a proposition that most Utahns oppose and many have vigorously fought. And while nearly all Utah office holders want to block the Nuclear Regulatory Commission-approved radioactive storage facility at Skull Valley, they have different ways of achieving that goal. After siding for years with Sen. Orrin Hatch and the Bush administration to approve the storage site at Yucca Mountain, Sen. Bob Bennett recently changed direction and now sides with other Utah officials and Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada in opposing the storage at Yucca Mountain and pushing instead the idea of keeping the waste at the sites where it was produced and looking at ways to reprocess it. Utah's Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. and Reps. Rob Bishop and Jim Matheson also take that position, while Rep. Chris Cannon has said he is warming to the idea. Keeping the waste on site with the idea of eventually reprocessing it presents all sorts of political hurdles to clear, because most of the plants are in highly populated states in the East with lots of electoral votes whose leaders want to rid themselves of the waste as much as Westerners want to keep it there. Hatch has argued that supporting Yucca is supporting Bush and will make it easier to win presidential support for putting up roadblocks to the temporary Skull Valley location. His Utah colleagues have argued that Yucca likely never will be built because of all the problems it still faces and Utah could be stuck with the waste indefinitely. But one solution that is beginning to make more and more sense and could fly politically is an old one - first proposed by veteran Utah Congressman Jim Hansen, since retired. The idea that Hansen offered was to designate as wilderness certain areas within the U.S. Air Forces Test and Training Range in western Utah, which would effectively block transportation of the nuclear waste to the Skull Valley site. Hansen's plan would have made exceptions for Jeep and helicopter travel to rescue any pilot forced to parachute out of a plane over the test range. The 22-year veteran lawmaker offered the plan as an amendment to the Defense Authorization Bill. It passed in the House but was taken out in the Senate due to strong opposition from environmental groups and representatives of many of the states that produce the waste that would be shipped to Utah. Hansen's successor, Rep. Rob Bishop, tried a scaled-down version of the Hansen wilderness designation plan, but that failed as well. One problem for Bishop was that he was a freshman congressman when he took on the challenge. Hansen's efforts were more formidable because he had 22 years in the House to develop a persona and build coalitions. There were all sorts of ironies about the original plan to keep the waste out of Skull Valley. The wily Hansen, chairman of the House Resources Committee, had long fought environmental groups trying to expand wilderness areas that are off-limits to development. And here he was trying to designate more wilderness in western Utah. Environmental groups, meanwhile, were trying to block the designation of wilderness in western Utah. But Hansen's craftiness is finally being appreciated and some of his past opponents are warming to the idea. In order to succeed, it would need bipartisan support and unity among the Western states. Hansen has already proved, though, that such support can be achieved, as he was able to move it through the House and into the Senate. One Hansen initiative that did make it into law prevents construction at the Skull Valley site until the Defense Department completes a study on the impact of the waste storage on the Utah Test and Training Range, the largest such range in the continental United States. Before that study can be done, it must be funded by Congress, which has not yet occurred. That requirement provides an added chip for those seeking to block Skull Valley and provides yet another barrier to construction while negotiations are under way. It could provide another argument for changing plans and keeping the waste at its original sites. The approval of the old Hansen legislation to designate wilderness areas on the range would strengthen that possibility even more. © Copyright 2005, The Salt Lake Tribune. ***************************************************************** 48 LA Daily News: standoff on groundwater tests NWSSantaClarita Article Launched: 10/01/2005 12:00:00 AM Standoff over water tests Firm, EPA at By Judy O'Rourke, Special to the Daily News SANTA CLARITA - A Saugus defense contractor canceled a plan this week allowing the Environmental Protection Agency access to begin drilling wells Monday to determine if perchlorate and other contaminants have seeped from the site into the groundwater below, an EPA official said. Citing the confidential nature of its work, this was the second time National Technical Systems reneged on an agreement to allow the federal agency access to the property to drill test wells to check for contamination of groundwater beneath the property, said Matt Mitguard, project manager for the EPA's Superfund. "They refused access to site pending further negotiation on the access agreement they want us to sign after months of working this through and explicitly getting three days established for sampling," Mitguard said. The cancellation was announced the same day the Daily News reported the EPA's plan to begin drilling the test wells. NTS tests products and components for telecommunications, aerospace and military applications. The company performs testing that is involved in national security, a spokesman said. In what could be a test of semantics, a lawyer for NTS disputed Mitguard's account, saying instead the agency called off the testing. "That (account) is absolutely false," said attorney Bob Snyder. "We had agreed to it a month ago at least. Our efforts have been in preparation for that visit." He said the parties are in the process of exchanging dates for the proposed round of sampling. Mitguard said the agency cannot set foot on NTS' premises because the necessary access agreement has not been signed. "They came up with a complex convoluted agreement, something no one would sign," he said. "I've never gone through so many machinations to get on site." He said NTS has not signed the agreement. Preliminary tests done by a state regulatory agency in 2003 found perchlorate in the soil, and the EPA wants to determine the extent of the pollution. Water agencies have said their test results show the chemicals have not contaminated public water sources. Thursday, Mitguard said he plans to work with local water purveyors to ascertain whether the pollution has reached any of their wells. Perchlorate is believed to have leached into the groundwater from the defunct Whittaker Bermite munitions testing facility in Saugus, prompting officials to cap five municipal wells in Saugus and Valencia. NTS property abutted the Bermite property until last year when Golden Valley Road was built between the two. The EPA gained access to the NTS site in 2004, but because of protracted negotiations with the company did not test the groundwater, Mitguard said. The federal agency gave NTS officials a look at the sampling plan and strategy and agreed to tailor the testing around the company's schedule. "We spent a good portion of last year in negotiations for a sampling event to occur, only to have it embroiled in controversy and abandoning it," Mitguard said. "This time we had worked more painstakingly with NTS to work out the logistics to accommodate the situation." EPA representatives planned to visit NTS on Monday to begin drilling seven test wells to a depth of 80 to 100 feet to check for perchlorate, a byproduct of rocket fuel that has been associated with thyroid disorders. Members of the sampling team were identified to NTS, their citizenship was confirmed and the subcontractor-driller was lined up. Mitguard vowed the delay would be only temporary, saying the testing must be done this year. The EPA will attempt to secure another date. If that fails, the agency could turn to the courts for help, he said. -- Judy O'Rourke, (661) 257-5255 judy.orourke@dailynews.com Los Angeles Newspaper Group ***************************************************************** 49 Guardian Unlimited: FAQ: British Nuclear Group Saturday October 1, 2005 The Guardian What does British Nuclear Group do? Decommissions and cleans up redundant nuclear facilities such as power stations. It has operations in the UK, US and continental Europe. How extensive are its UK operations? It operates at 18 sites. It is decommissioning the Magnox nuclear reactors, which have already been shut down, and runs those still in operation ahead of their closure in the next few years. It is also manages and operates the Sellafield engineering centre. It is a unit of state owned BNFL. What is its history? It was set up in 2005 as part of the government's strategy of cleaning up Britain's nuclear legacy. Does it own the sites where it operates? No. They belong to the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which was set up at the same time. That means BNG decommissions on a contract basis leaving the costs of the clean-up to the government and, ultimately, the UK taxpayer. So what is there to sell? The contracts BNG already has from the NDA and overseas and its skills and expertise in decommissioning nuclear facilities at a time when demand around the world is growing. Does it make money? Yes, last year it made a profit before tax and interest of Ł100m on a turnover of Ł2bn. Has the question of its sale just arisen? No. Back in 2001 the Labour party manifesto said it was "examining the scope" for turning its parent, BNFL, into a public private partnership. Since then BNFL has looked at other options. It has put its Westinghouse business, which builds and maintains nuclear reactors, up for sale and would prefer a straight sale of BNG. The two together account for the vast bulk of BNFL. Will a sale of BNG attract much interest? More than likely. Two years ago the Department of Trade and Industry estimated the cost of cleaning up Britain's nuclear legacy would be Ł48bn. Buying BNG would give its owner a strong position in the UK market. Some US firms are tipped as potential buyers and the sale would be likely to attract interest from Europe. So would all the clean-up work in the UK automatically go to BNG or - if the government approves the sale - to a future buyer? No. Part of the work has already gone elsewhere and the NDA is making plans to put the contracts that BNG currently operates out to competitive tender. How much is it worth? Some industry estimates put the price as high as Ł10bn Others say it should be priced as low as Ł1bn. Is the sale a good idea? Depends who you ask. Supporters of a sale say it would give BNG a commercial boost, which would enhance its ability to take on rivals for the NDA work. Critics say it would allow the private sector to make profits from the nuclear clean-up while still leaving the taxpayer with the bill and reduce the government's influence over the nuclear industry. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 ***************************************************************** 50 KUTV: Envirocare Having Trouble Keeping Up With Demand Oct 1, 2005 4:55 pm US/Mountain SALT LAKE CITY, Utah Envirocare of Utah, the radioactive-waste disposal firm in Utah's west desert that has permission to double the size of its landfill, is having trouble keeping up with demand for its services. Long lines of rail cars are waiting at rail yards in Ogden and Wendover to deliver waste that in many cases is contaminated soil. More cars from big government cleanups at Oak Ridge, Tenn.; Rocky Flats, Colo.; and Fernald, Ohio, rest on rails along Interstate 80. Still more wait on the mile-square Tooele County site to be unloaded, cleaned and returned to their owners. In the first six months of 2005, the Tooele County landfill took in 74 percent as much waste as it accepted in all of last year, most of it from Superfund and U.S. Energy Department cleanups. Envirocare can't bury it fast enough. State regulators took the company to task earlier this year for leaving in the open about 18,000 cubic yards of waste contaminated with hazardous PCBs and ``dry active waste.'' The Utah Division of Radiation Control ordered the company to clean up the pile in a couple of months and it complied, according to the agency's John Hultquist. Also, in the spring of 2004, the Division of Radiation Control issued a ``notice of violation'' when the company had too much waste backed up. Under its state license, the company keeps a surety bond to cover the cost of burying all the waste on its property in the event its owners walked away. But during a springtime visit, inspectors noticed thousands more cubic yards than allowed under the bond. The Division of Radiation Control has since doubled the amount of disposed waste allowed on site and has increased the amount of the required bond. The growth in Envirocare's waste volume is documented in reports the company files periodically to the state radiation regulators. Envirocare this summer won the division's approval to double in size onto property just north of its current site about 80 miles west of Salt Lake City. Construction cannot begin until the expansion plans get the approval of Gov. Jon Huntsman and the Legislature. Company officials plan to make that request during the legislative session that opens in January. Envirocare Senior Vice President Tim Barney said the company is expecting lower volumes of waste next year and beyond after big government cleanups at Rocky Flats, Colo., and Fernald, Ohio, wrap up. Rocky Flats has sent more than 6 million cubic feet of contaminated waste to Utah in recent years as part of its $7 billion cleanup of a plant that used to make plutonium triggers for nuclear weapons. The contractor, Kaiser-Hill, has stepped up the shipments this year in hopes of landing a $20 million schedule bonus and a $500 million incentive bonus. (© 2005 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.) ***************************************************************** 51 PE.com: Bill aids Inland water cleanup Inland Southern California FUNDS: The Senate plan provides $13 million to help remove perchlorate contamination. 12:20 AM PDT on Saturday, October 1, 2005 By CLAIRE VITUCCI / Washington Bureau Perchlorate cleanup California Sens. Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein have secured $13 million to treat contaminated wells. Money would be split between West Valley Water District, Fontana Water Co., and cities of Rialto and Colton. Funding is part of the Fiscal Year 2006 Pentagon spending bill, which still must pass the Senate. WASHINGTON - California's senators have included $13 million in the Pentagon spending bill to help remove perchlorate from contaminated wells in the Inland area. The money would be equally divided among the cities of Rialto and Colton, the West Valley Water District and the Fontana Water Co. The funds would pay to help develop new technology to clean up contaminated drinking water in Rialto, Fontana and Colton. The funding is part of the Fiscal Year 2006 Department of Defense spending bill, which still must pass the Senate. The bill could be voted on as early as late next week, said Scott Gerber, a spokesman for Sen. Dianne Feinstein. The bill would still have to be reconciled with the House version, and the resulting product would have to be signed by President Bush. In a statement, Feinstein said much more money is needed. "Nevertheless, it will help the Inland Empire begin to clean up tainted groundwater and drinking water sources," the statement said. Both Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer have said they intend to hold the Department of Defense accountable for the contamination and to push them to pay for cleanup efforts. A Government Accountability Office report in June said Defense Department activities are a leading cause of perchlorate contamination. More than 20 wells in the three cities are contaminated by an underground plume of perchlorate, a water-soluble chemical used in fireworks, rocket fuel and ammunition. In sufficient amounts, scientists say, the chemical interferes with thyroid functions. The costs of removing perchlorate run between $300,000 and $400,000 per well annually. The West Valley Water District, which serves about half of Rialto and portions of Fontana and Colton, has put two of its wells back into service. But much more work must be done to clean up the contaminated wells, said Anthony "Butch" Araiza, general manager of the district. And district officials believe that a former defense site is still leaching perchlorate. Michael Whitehead, president of the San Gabriel Valley Water Company -- which includes the Fontana Water Co. -- said the water purveyors together lobbied for the money and "the unity has paid off." Perchlorate contamination of groundwater in the Rialto-Colton basin was discovered in 1997. Last year's Pentagon spending bill included $6.5 million for cleanup in the Inland area. Reach Claire Vitucci at (202) 661-8422 or cvitucci@pe.comMore 2005, The Press-Enterprise Company ***************************************************************** 52 UK: News & Star: NEW BOSS FOR 15,000 WORKERS Published on 01/10/2005 By Andrea Thompson SELLAFIELD workers could find themselves working for a US firm following the announcement that the company which runs the nuclear site is to be sold. State-owned British Nuclear Fuels Ltd confirmed late yesterday afternoon that its board had recommended the sale of its operating arm, British Nuclear Group. It runs Sellafield and other major UK nuclear sites such as Sizewell and Dungeness – and its sale to the private sector would mean more than 15,000 workers being transferred to a new employer. Likely contenders in the race to take it over are US companies Bechtel, Fluor and Halliburton, and UK contractors Amec and Serco. The decision to sell British Nuclear Group, which comes just days after Tony Blair indicated his backing for the construction of a new generation of nuclear power stations in Britain, has been met with concern and criticism from trade unions. Peter Kane, GMB convener for Sellafield, which employs around 10,000 people, told the News & Star: “We need to ask the company about where we take our members now – what will it mean for workers if it is privatised. Who will buy it, how long will the sale take and what are they going to do? “There has to be consultation with our members and the general public who will be concerned about the future of the nuclear industry if it is privatised.” Prospect, the trade union that represents BNFL's scientists and engineers, says the Government must retain responsibility for the nuclear industry in the UK. National secretary Mike Graham is seeking assurances from Trade and Industry secretary Alan Johnson, over the terms of the sale, which is estimated to be worth up to Ł150m to the Government. Copeland MP Jamie Reed has also stressed that any sale must be made with the consent of the trade unions, He added: “This could be superb opportunity for both BNFL and West Cumbria. There is a long way to go and I will be taking a detailed interest every single step of the way.” A spokeswoman for British Nuclear Group said that the decision to sell the company was considered to be in the best interests of the company and its employees. “We all wish to see British Nuclear Group in the strongest possible position to win the upcoming competitions. “ The ultimate decision on any sale or otherwise will be made by the BNFL Board after full consultation with all stakeholders and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.” ***************************************************************** 53 The Signal: Officials Hit ‘Brick Wall’ in Bid to Investigate NTS 10/1/2005 Lila Campuzano City Editor While testing on Keysor-Century Corp. property has detected toxins, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is still awaiting a chance to take soil and water samples from National Technical Systems property in Santa Clarita. On Friday, the EPA put the brakes on plans to move subcontractors onto the Centre Pointe Parkway property Monday for a 3 1/2-day round of sampling. “Everything was buttoned down,” said Matt Mitguard, site assessment manager for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “They had some requirements they made of us earlier this week, and we responded with what we could do, and it resulted in a refusal to let us on site. The project has hit another brick wall.” But Robert Snyder, attorney for the firm that tests high-tech and defense equipment at its Centre Pointe-area location, said there were no last-minute changes in the deal. “Basically, there were conditions which were known in 2004 — those conditions remain,” Snyder said. “The requirements that have been in place simply have not been met.” The EPA has been trying for more than a year to test soil and water samples from the NTS property. State soil tests conducted in 2003 were positive for perchlorate, a primary ingredient in solid rocket propellant. NTS has disputed those findings. The EPA efforts have been met with numerous delays. NTS tests products for the telecommunications, aerospace and defense industries; much of its work requires a high level of security, and much of the testing goes on around the clock. Subterranean cables criss-cross the facility, making the EPA’s plans for drilling problematical, Snyder said. Halting testing interferes with its ability to serve its clients, including the federal government, he said. The EPA has the option of seeking a court order to get on the land, but Mitguard said Friday that would be a last resort. “We don’t like to do that kind of thing unless we have to,” he said. “The idea is to work in a positive, constructive way with the property owner. As a rule, that works.” NTS’s 160 acres of land lie to the east of Whittaker-Bermite, a 1,000-acre parcel known to be contaminated with perchlorate and volatile organic compounds. Whittaker-Bermite, which is south of Saugus Speedway, was a munitions manufacturing plant during much of the 20th century. The Keysor-Century property is west of Whttaker-Bermite and was found to be contaminated with volatile organic compounds. Tests on groundwater near the Whittaker-Bermite site have been positive for perchlorate, and five wells have been shut down. Santa Clarita Valley residents rely on groundwater for about 50 percent of their water needs. Perchlorate can cause thyroid problems in humans, especially pregnant women and the very young. “In terms of the next step, I’ll have to sit down with NTS and our attorney and figure out what is the best fit for the taxpayer in terms of taking action,” Mitguard said Friday from Sacramento. “I think the folks down there deserve some knowledge” about possible contamination of soil and water. ©2005 The-Signal.com - Site powered with DynamicBase by ActiveQuest, Inc. ***************************************************************** 54 Guardian Unlimited: Unions warn BNFL over sell-off · 'No Hatfield at Sellafield,' state-owned body is told · Concerns raised over generating capacity Mark Milner, industrial editor Saturday October 1, 2005 The state-owned British Nuclear Fuels Ltd confirmed last night that it would like to sell British Nuclear Group, its specialist decommissioning arm, which also manages the Sellafield facility. A sale, which would need government approval, would be likely to attract a lot of interest, with US firms such as Halliburton and Fluor tipped as potential bidders. Last night a BNFL spokeswoman said the board had considered BNG's strategic options and decided that "the preference of BNFL is that it [BNG] should be sold; we feel this would be in the best interests of the company and employees." Trade union leaders appeared resigned to the sale of the business, which employs more than 13,000, to the private sector but expressed a number of reservations. Mike Graham, an official with Prospect, said the Department of Trade and Industry should lay down strict criteria for the sale. "The UK government must retain responsibility for the nuclear industry ... BNG must not be sold off to the highest bidder but to the most competent. This is the most safety-critical industry in the UK: there cannot be a Hatfield at Sellafield." Mr Graham also expressed concern that with the government reopening the debate on nuclear power, the sale of BNG could affect the British nuclear industry's ability to deliver new generating capacity. Dougie Rooney, Amicus' national officer, said: "We are concerned to make sure any buyer will work with the trade unions and the workforce to build the business." BNFL has already said it is prepared to sell its US-based Westinghouse business, which designs and constructs nuclear reactors, and the disposal of BNG would in effect mark the break-up of the group. Last night the DTI said it had not yet received any proposals over BNG's future. "If any such proposals were received, ministers would want to consider the views of other stakeholders as well as those of the company," said a spokesman. BNG operates in the US and mainland Europe but mostly in Britain, where it has contracts with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) to decommission Britain's ageing Magnox reactors (most of which have been shut down) and run Sellafield. BNFL is believed to see a sale as a way to sharpen BNG's competitive edge. Though BNG manages the sites, ownership and liabilities for the clean-up costs remain with the NDA and the government. The NDA is one of the organisations, along with the trades unions and the nuclear industry inspectorate, which will be consulted by the government before it makes a decision on a sale proposal. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 [UP] ***************************************************************** 55 Santa Fe New Mexican: New lab panel to manage hiring: LANL braces for cut in funding By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican October 1, 2005 Los Alamos National Laboratory has created a nine-member council that will manage all the lab's hiring and have the power to approve or reject hiring by all its divisions. Director Robert Kuckuck said in a memo to employees Wednesday that the action was being taken because of tight budget projections for the federal Department of Energy and a pending change in who will manage the lab. Although Kuckuck's memo cited "the reality that we must constrain hiring," lab spokesman Kevin Roark said reduced hiring is "not the goal. The goal is not to have more people on the payroll than you can pay for." The new laboratory hiring council created by Kuckuck will review all job postings and hiring requests. Previously, the lab's divisions could hire and fire on their own, usually with some level of higher approval, Roark explained. "The tight budget projections ... bring into focus the reality that we must constrain hiring to ensure staffing levels that can be sustained and do not create an imbalance in the near future," Kuckuck wrote. "A solid long-term hiring plan is in order, but such a plan would be best addressed after the contract award and transition." The National Nuclear Security Administration is scheduled to announce a new lab managing contractor Dec. 1. Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., said Friday that an interim budget passed by Congress will "put a pinch" on weapons programs at Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories. Congress has yet to pass a budget for the 2006 fiscal year, which begins today. A continuing resolution that lawmakers passed temporarily pays for most government operations until the House and Senate can agree on how to pay for many federal programs, including those of the Department of Energy. "The good news is that we do not expect the funding restrictions in the (continuing resolution) to cause any layoffs at Los Alamos or Sandia," Domenici said in a news release. Kuckuck's message Wednesday said that the lab "cannot sustain an aggressive hiring mode. Instead, we need to focus on mission-essential skills, as well as the pipeline, to sustain our scientific capability." Lab spokesman Jim Fallin stressed "the hiring sign is still out at Los Alamos. This is not a hiring freeze." The hiring council, which will meet every two weeks, is chaired by lab managers John Immelle and Rich Marquez. There were 9,591 University of California laboratory employees as of July 31, including 625 students, Kuckuck said, compared with 7,987 employees in September 2001. The cost of labor as a percentage of the overall lab budget is at an all-time high of 58 percent, he said. "I want to assure everyone that the laboratory is not in a state of fiscal emergency," Kuckuck wrote. "These actions are intended as a preventive measure to ensure fiscal responsibility." Domenici's statement Friday about the weapons budget pointed to a significant gap between the House and Senate in terms of funding for the Department of Energy, the Army Corps of Engineers and the federal Bureau of Reclamation. Domenici chairs the Senate Energy and Water Development appropriations subcommittee, which approved $31.245 billion for those agencies in the current fiscal year. In contrast, the House Appropriations subcommittee on energy and water development approved $29.7 billion. The continuing resolution was written to continue funding at the lowest level possible, Domenici's news release said. The House version reduced funding for National Nuclear Security Administration weapons programs by $449 million. "I am not pleased with the current funding situation, which will affect the labs and many other federal activities in New Mexico," Domenici said. "It's not good, but we can live with this for a short period of time." Domenici is leading a Senate team trying to settle differences between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The office of U.S. Rep. David Hobson, R-Ohio, who chairs the House subcommittee, did not respond to a request for comment Friday. The head of a citizen watchdog group commended the lab for its "prudent" efforts to control hiring. "It's a wise thing that Kuckuck is doing," Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group said. He also said Congress has to choose between some nuclear spending and repairing what hurricanes Katrina and Rita have wrecked. "The country has to pick between the optional components of nuclear-weapons spending and funding flood control and harbor construction to rebuild the country," Mello said. "These infrastructure projects will have big economic benefits to the country if done, and enormous economic and security costs to the country if not done." Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@ http://sfnewmexican.com. ***************************************************************** 56 Santa Fe New Mexican: Fairness key in choosing new LANL management By ANDY LENDERMAN | The New Mexican October 2, 2005 The men and women choosing who will manage the nation's premier nuclear-weapons laboratory include a former submarine officer and a lawyer praised for his honesty. Thomas D'Agostino, a deputy administrator for the National Nuclear Security Administration, and Tyler Przybylek, the agency's former general counsel, will play a big role in deciding who runs Los Alamos National Laboratory next year. It's the first time the management contract has been put out for bid since the lab's inception in 1943. A new manager will be announced Dec. 1. New Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici, a Republican, and Jeff Bingaman, a Democrat, were briefed recently by Linton Brooks, the head of the NNSA. Both senators said they're satisfied with the fairness of the process for choosing a new lab manager. "As best as I can determine, the process is going to be fair," Bingaman said by telephone. Brooks, he said, "explained in some detail the various steps that they were taking to ensure that the bids were appropriately considered and the factors that needed to be given the greatest importance were in fact going to be given the greatest importance." Details of the contract proposals submitted to the NNSA are secret. But the winner can earn up to $79 million a year. Eight NNSA employees -- called the Source Evaluation Board -- have been reviewing applications from groups who want to manage the lab's 8,000 employees and $2.2 billion yearly budget. Some members of the board work at NNSA sites in Los Alamos and Albuquerque, according to the NNSA. The University of California, which currently manages the lab, has joined with Bechtel National to bid for the contract, as is a partnership between the University of Texas and Lockheed Martin Corp. The board, headed by Przybylek, will give D'Agostino a report. And the Naval Academy graduate will make a decision to be announced in about two months. However, the head of a lab-watchdog group doubts the board's influence. "There's no major (Department of Energy) decisions that don't have a political component," said Greg Mello of the Los Alamos Study Group. "It's money and power rather than the technological reality that dominate the weapons programs." Contact Andy Lenderman at 995-3827 or alenderman@ http://sfnewmexican.com. THE SOURCE EVALUATION BOARD The board includes Przybylek and seven other voting members. All are NNSA employees. Richard F. Sena, Joseph C. Vozella, Patrick T. Cahalane, Kenneth E. Zamora, George N. Pappas, Jodi Lardner and Michael G. Loera round out the group. There are also nine nonvoting members on the board -- a secretary and eight advisers on things like finances, procurement and legal issues. "They are a good bunch of people trying to do a very difficult thing," said Joe Ladish, spokesman for the Coalition for LANL Excellence, a group of lab employees and community leaders voicing concerns about the transition. Ladish also said he thinks the board is trying to keep away from Washington and "from the pressures that might influence their decisions." BENEFITS Ladish said the coalition organized in part because of concerns about benefits that play a big role in attracting and keeping the world's best scientists. "It isn't just about money," he explained. His group of "a few hundred" members is concerned about retirement and medical benefits, academic freedom, the Los Alamos community quality of life and "the ability to criticize within the correct environment." "The reason we feel those things are important is because we care about maintaining the science excellence at the laboratory," Ladish said. For example, he said, it takes about 10 years to train a first-class theoretical bomb designer. "You make a lifetime commitment when you go into the weapons program," Ladish said. Current lab-employee retirement benefits will be "substantially equivalent" to the current University of California system, according to the NNSA. Pension benefits will continue under the University of California plan. Retiree medical benefits will be provided under a new contract, according to the NNSA. Domenici said he was pleased with the agency's decision to extend comment periods for people to voice their concerns. Bingaman agreed. "Obviously," Bingaman said, "we'll see what the end result is of this process. I do think that they took into account a lot of concerns that people have raised." Bingaman also discussed the lab's need to be competitive in its recruitment efforts. "The future strength of the lab depends entirely on who they're able to keep there at the laboratory," he said. No matter who wins the contract, Mello, of the nuclear watchdog group, said the real question is what happens next. "The key thing is what is the lab going to do," he said. "And that is also up in the air right now." A new manager will take over a seven-year contract on June 1. ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************