***************************************************************** 01/17/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.14 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 [NYTr] Israelis Lean on Russia over Iran 2 [NYTr] Russia Opposes Sanctions on Iran 3 [du-list] 1/17 Nuke Watch: The Latest Iran's Nuclear Standoff 4 FW: [what's left] Why Iran? 5 Guardian Unlimited: Russian Cautions Against Iran Sanctions 6 Bellona: Bushehr nuclear plant “not to threaten non-proliferation” 7 AFP: Britain still aims for diplomatic solution on Iran - Blair spok 8 AFP: Iran nuclear crisis is key test for UN Security Council 9 AFP: No nuke talks unless Iran proves it's serious - US 10 UPI: Analysis: Iran long way from U.N. council 11 Guardian Unlimited: World Latest | U.S., Europeans Step Up Pressure 12 Guardian Unlimited: China, Russia Urge Iran Nuke Negotiations 13 Korea Herald: 'Washington will continue to suppress North Korea' 14 US: NRC: Steven Moffitt; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licens 15 US: NRC: Prasoon Goyal; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-License 16 US: NRC: David Geisen; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed 17 US: NRC: Dale Miller; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed 18 Moscow Times: Power Cuts as Cold Turns More Bitter 19 Guardian Unlimited: Russian energy giant targets UK market 20 BBC: Nuclear rivals in Kashmir talks 21 Herald: UKAEA forges alliance to target international nuclear clean- 22 Xinhua: China to set up museum of A, H bombs, artificial satellites 23 edie news centre: Majority prefer renewables and efficiency over nuc 24 Guardian Unlimited: The awakening giant NUCLEAR REACTORS 25 US: ALLIANCE EFFORTS RESULT IN FIRST EVER UNANIMOUS VOTE ON 26 Chernobyl+20: Lessons from the Continuing Catastrophe 27 US: TMI punishes 'inattentive' plant workers (History of problems 28 US: TMI Guard Removal Makes Nuclear Plant Vulnerable 29 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Yankee protesters arrested 30 US: Brattleboro Reformer: Clerical error may give anti-nuclear prote 31 Guardian Unlimited: Atomic Energy Agency signs deal with private 32 US: NIRS: NRC Proposed Rule Making on Nuclear Power Station Security 33 US: AZ Republic: Cooling line problems shuts down Palo Verde reactor 34 inadaily.com: Desperate for a nuclear deal 35 Bellona: Putin wants renewal of soviet-era nuclear industry complex 36 BBC: Britons split on N-power advance 37 BBC: Nuclear energy 'too uneconomic' 38 Daily Yomiuri: Review of quake-hit N-plant vital 39 Moscow Times: United Russia Backs More Nuclear Power 40 US: toledo blade: Davis-Besse court cases could loom over big step 41 US: Rutland Herald: 11 arrested in latest Yankee protest 42 ePolitix.com: Nuclear power wins public backing 43 Reuters: UK green lobby girds for nuclear battle over energy 44 US: NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Edwin I. Hatch Nu 45 The Moscow Times: Baltics Plan Nuclear Reactor 46 asahi.com: Watchdog checks nuclear plant safety 47 US: UPI: U.S. pushes for more nuclear power NUCLEAR SECURITY NUCLEAR SAFETY 48 [du-list] Warning to SE ASian countries about Iran war and 49 US: CCT: Search for barrels said to contain radioactive matter turns 50 US: Deseret News: Downwinder group upset with Leavitt NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 51 US: Sydney Morning Herald: Speculation drives uranium miners as Gall 52 US: LA Daily News: CLWA eyes cleanup funding 53 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Lawmakers ponder bill on waste 54 The Nevada Observer: Wake Up. 55 Nevada Observer: "The Program Is In Utter Chaos," Bob Loux, Nevada N 56 US: NewsRoom Finland: French and British firms re-launch uranium pro PEACE US DEPT. OF ENERGY 57 [NukeNet] LIVERMORE/U.C. must bid to run Lawrence 58 Hanford News: AdvanceMed Hanford receives accreditation 59 Tri-Valley Herald: Los Alamos pension plan underfunded 60 lamonitor.com: LANL pension proposal goes to regents ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 [NYTr] Israelis Lean on Russia over Iran Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 12:07:50 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit excerpted from Abunimah News - Jan 17, 2006 Agence France Presse - 17 January 2006 Israel sends team to Russia Attempt to get Iranian issue brought to U.N. Security Council JERUSALEM-- Israel planned to dispatch a top team to Russia on Tuesday to urge Moscow to act against suspected Iranian efforts to develop a nuclear weapon, government spokesman Asaf Shariv said. The Israeli delegation hoped to get Russia to agree to refer the Iranian issue to the U.N. Security Council, the Haaretz newspaper Web site reported on Tuesday. A referral to the council could result in sanctions against Iran. Iran has close ties with Russia, which is building a nuclear power station there. Iran says its nuclear program is intended only to produce energy, but Israel, the U.S. and others accuse Tehran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons. On Monday, Iran's ambassador to Moscow praised a Russian proposal to move Iran's uranium enrichment program to Russia a step that could resolve the deadlock over Tehran's nuclear ambitions because it would allow close oversight. The Israeli team to Russia included National Security Chief Giora Eiland and the director of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission, Gideon Frank, Haaretz said. A spokesman for Eiland did not immediately return a call requesting comment. * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 2 [NYTr] Russia Opposes Sanctions on Iran Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 14:31:51 -0600 (CST) Via NY Transfer News Collective * All the News that Doesn't Fit Prensa Latina, Havana http://www.plenglish.com Russia Opposes Iran Sanctions Moscow, Jan 17 (Prensa Latina) As an international meeting to discuss a possible referral of Iran to the UN Security council failed to produce an agreement, Russia4s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov Tuesday said that sanctions are not the best way to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue. "Our common efforts should be aimed at getting answers to all the questions, without exception, which were posed by experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency," the Russian minister press. Lavrov also asserted that their common goal is to ensure the inviolability of the nuclear non-proliferation regime. "If we all strive for this main goal, we will be able to find a collective approach to solving this issue." European, Russian, Chinese and US officials met in London on Monday and though they agree that Iran must fully suspend its nuclear program, they differed over whether to refer the dispute for sanction by the US Security Council. Russia and China are under pressure from the United States and the European Union to support a move to refer Iran to the Security Council as the Persian country has decided to resume its nuclear program for energy generation. Russia has offered to enrich uranium for Iran to allay international concern over Tehran4s nuclear ambitions. Tehran has called Moscow4s proposal constructive, defending its right to move ahead with its nuclear research for peaceful purposes. Moscow has close ties with the Iranian leadership and is building Iran4s first nuclear power station at Bushehr. Meanwhile in separate talks over Iran4s nuclear strategy, a delegation of Israeli atomic and security experts was due in Moscow on Tuesday for talks with Russian officials. According to Israeli officials, the visit is designed to enable an exchange of views and information on the state of play with Iran4s nuclear program. Diplomats in London announced plans Monday to call for an emergency meeting of the IAEA board of directors on February 2-3 in Vienna, in which the Iranian issue will be the main issue on the table. mh/ajs * ================================================================ .NY Transfer News Collective * A Service of Blythe Systems . Since 1985 - Information for the Rest of Us . .339 Lafayette St., New York, NY 10012 http://www.blythe.org .List Archives: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/pipermail/nytr/ .Subscribe: https://olm.blythe-systems.com/mailman/listinfo/nytr ================================================================ ***************************************************************** 3 [du-list] 1/17 Nuke Watch: The Latest Iran's Nuclear Standoff Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:25:12 -0800 The Latest Iran's Nuclear Standoff Nuke Watch - Projects of the Peace No War Network January 17, 2006 URL: _http://www.nukewatch.net_ (http://www.nukewatch.net/) _http://www.PeaceNoWar.net_ (http://www.PeaceNoWar.net) (http://www.cagle.com/caglecards/main.asp?image=../../../working/060112/bennett.jpg) _Diplomats fail to agree on Iran_ (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BBE8ACA9-B532-4874-8CE1-69447CE2D58F.htm) The political stand-off over Iran's nuclear ambitions continues as an international meeting to discuss a possible referral to the UN Security council failed to produce an agreement. _FULL STORY_ (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/BBE8ACA9-B532-4874-8CE1-69447CE2D58F.htm) _6 countries hold "confidential" meeting on Iran_ (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/17/content_4060416.htm) _EU calls for IAEA meeting on Iran next month_ (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/17/content_4061217.htm) _Putin urges caution on Iran_ (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/17/content_4061916.htm) _Iranian president to visit Syria on Friday_ (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/17/content_4061941.htm) _Putin cautions against "rash or erroneous" moves on Iran_ (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2006-01/17/content_4062758.htm) _U.S., Britain, France, Germany, China, Russia meet over Iran nuclear issue_ (http://english.people.com.cn/200601/17/eng20060117_235906.html) **Please cast your opinion votes on the current Iranian Nuclear standoff on our web page! ================================================================= Peace, No War War is not the answer, for only love can conquer hate Not in our Name! And another world is possible! Tel: (213)403-0131 Information for antiwar movements, news across the World, please visit: _http://www.PeaceNoWar.net_ (http://www.peacenowar.net/) Please Join PeaceNoWar Listserv, send e-mail to: _peacenowar-subscribe@lists.riseup.net_ (mailto:peacenowar-subscribe@lists.riseup.net) Please Donate to Peace No War Network! Send check pay to: ActionLA/SEE 1013 Mission St. #6 South Pasadena CA 91030 (All donations are tax deductible) <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> *To Translate this page to Arabic, please visit ajeeb.com: _http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/ajeeb/default.asp?lang=1_ (http://tarjim.ajeeb.com/ajeeb/default.asp?lang=1) *To Translate this page to French, Spanish, German, Italian or Portuguese, please visit Systran: _http://www.systransoft.com/_ (http://www.systransoft.com/) [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 4 FW: [what's left] Why Iran? Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 00:04:01 -0600 (CST) _____ From: Stephen Gowans [mailto:sr.gowans@sympatico.ca] Sent: Sunday, January 15, 2006 6:37 PM To: sr.gowans@sympatico.ca Subject: [what's left] Why Iran? January 15, 2006 Why Iran? By Stephen Gowans http://gowans.blogspot.com/ The increasingly frequent demonization of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the Western media has become an integral part of the stepped-up efforts of Washington, London, the EU-3 and Tel Aviv to bring Iran under US control, efforts that may, if scattered newspapers reports are to believed, culminate in the aerial bombing by US or Israeli forces or both of Iranian nuclear facilities early this spring. A London Sunday Times article of December 11, 2005 revealed that Israeli armed forces had been ordered to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on secret uranium enrichment sites in Iran. Scotlands The Herald (January 10, 2006) echoed the Times report. Meir Dagan, the chief of Israels spy service, Mossad, General Aharon Zeev-Farkasj, who retired earlier this month as head of Israeli military intelligence and Israeli policy makers all agree that a military option against Irans nuclear facilities cannot be ruled out. (New York Times, January 13, 2006.) But they say Israel has no intention, for now, of trying to deal with Iran alone or through military means. (New York Times, January 13, 2006) But do they have an intention of dealing with Iran through military means in partnership with the US? UPI (December 30, 2005), citing the German weekly, Der Spiegel, revealed that Washington appears to be dispatching high-level officials to prepare its allies for a possible attack (on Iran) rather than merely implying the possibility as it has repeatedly done during the past year. CIA Director Porter Goss is said to have traveled to Ankara to clear the way for Turkey to be used as a staging ground for US warplanes to fly missions against Iranian targets. Whether planning for an attack is in an advanced stage, or whether reports of an imminent assault are a ruse to pressure Iran, is unclear. Whatever the case, theres no mistaking the reality that the Iranian president is being elevated to the position of international enemy #1, in much the same way Saddam Hussein was in the run-up to the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq. Emblematic is the Times of Londons Bronwen Maddox (January 12, 2006) asking whether Ahmadinejad is the most dangerous leader in the world? and answering her own question in the affirmative by noting its thin reassurance for the West that Iranian clerics are the bulwark against Ahmadinejads excesses. Not too many months ago, Kim Jong Il was called the most dangerous leader in the world, though the demands of the Western propaganda machine have since thrust him aside, for now, to better align with the shifting priorities of US foreign policy. Not to be outdone, Timothy Garton Ash, professor of European studies at the University of Oxford, speaks of Ahmadinejad as the seemingly half-crazed Iranian President. (Globe and Mail, January 12, 2006) In doing so, he places the Iranian president in the company of north Koreas Kim Jong Il, also regularly presented as half-mad, along with a legion of other Third World leaders who have, as the standard operating procedure of imperialism, been described variously as bloodthirsty, dictatorial, despotic, antidemocratic and monstrous -- whatever it takes to make the messy and murderous business of regime change appear to be worth the price. Ash, by the way, worries that US or Israeli bombing raids would take the lives of innocent civilians or at least of people who Iranian television could credibly claim were innocent civilians, implying that while the job of taking over a country might seem messy, the carnage is probably an illusion conjured up by the propaganda ministry of the country whose innocent civilians lives are not really being snuffed out. Innocent civilians has become a clichi, a prepackaged phrase to be thrown about, and absorbed, without much thought. What about innocent soldiers? Is a solider, or for that matter, a guerilla, or insurgent, who resists an invader any less innocent than a civilian? And can people like Ash, who prepare public opinion for war, be considered innocent? One wishes Ash could be plunked down in the middle of Tehran, to take the place of the innocent civilians he says probably wont be killed or mangled or permanently disabled by the terror bombing of the US and Israeli air force. If hes right, he has nothing to worry about. It happens so regularly as to have become a law, that we can soon expect prominent critics of US foreign policy to join in the demonization, at the same time donning t-shirts emblazoned with the smiling mug of George W. Bush above the words: international terrorist, just to show theyre above the fray and with the angels. Analysis of foreign affairs, in the hands of pro-imperialist scribblers, like Ash, and of professed anti-imperialists, who invariably deplore the monsters imperialist armies and bomber crews are set in motion against, is nothing more than demonology. The problem with the Bush international terrorist t-shirts is that, while Bush is indeed a terrorist, and deserves the opprobrium, so were all his predecessors, and so too would be anyone who replaced him. Get rid of one international terrorist, and another will immediately pop up in the White House to take his place. Like whack-a-mole, no matter how many moles you hit, the rodents keep coming back, because thats the way the game is programmed. The t-shirts would convey a deeper truth if they featured the outline of faceless person, accompanied by the following note: place picture here of head of US (or British or French or German) government. When all heads of US governments, to single out one imperialist country, have at least one entry in their portfolios of terrorist acts, from the ethnic cleansing of aboriginal populations and wars of conquest that attended the expansion of the US westward, through the wars of conquest to dominate the Philippines, Hawaii, Guam, Samoa and Cuba, through regular bloody interventions throughout Latin America, to fire-, carpet-, and atomic-bombings of civilian populations, its clear theres something deeper than the personal characteristics of high state officials that account for this sanguinary, horrific, record. Like whack-a-mole, there seems to be something deep in the programming that thrusts individuals forward as the culprits, when in fact theyre simply agents through which the program works. Its not individuals, but the program, that ultimately matters. A clue to what the logic is that governs the program can be glimpsed in the Heritage Foundations 2006 Index of Economic Freedom. The think tanks index is a kind of measure of how pleased youd be with a country if you had a whole pile of cash to invest, or goods and services to sell, and were looking around for a good place to expand your stock of capital. Hong Kong, for example, which tops the list, has everything a capitalist could want. No tariffs and no barriers to trade, no pesky minimum wage laws, free entry of capital, unrestricted repatriation of earnings, and a low corporate and personal income tax rate. Other countries high on the list include Singapore (no tariffs, low corporate income tax), Ireland (hungry for foreign investment and willing to do whatever it takes to get it), Luxemburg (virtually free entry of goods) and the UK (good foreign investment climate, minimal tariffs). The countries at the bottom, on the other hand, are a veritable Whos Who of international pariahs, as defined by US State Department: Cuba (rank: 150, restricts and imposes performance criteria on foreign investment); Belarus (rank: 151, concerted resistance to the private sector, and resistance to privatization serving to hinder foreign investment; follows active policies of import suppression and export promotion); Venezuela (rank: 152, government controls key sectors of the economy limiting US investment opportunities); Zimbabwe (rank: 154, generally unwelcoming to foreign investment, preferring majority Zimbabwean participation in new ventures and eventual local ownership); Iran (rank: 156, see below) and north Korea (rank: 157, firmly rooted in communism with a central command economy which controls all imports and exports and prohibits most foreign investment). Were supposed to believe these countries -- the perennial bugbears of US-UK foreign policy are countries of concern, not because they set local development and economic sovereignty ahead of what Western investors and trans-nationals believe is their inalienable right to accumulate capital wherever they like, but because theyre supposed to be anti-democratic and contemptuous of human rights. Yet all these countries share one thing in common: they prohibit or impose conditions on foreign investment and imports. That includes US investment and US exports. It would hardly be surprising that the US state, dominated by business interests, where the majority of cabinet members are, and have, for at least the past century, been corporate directors or members of corporate law firms, would be hostile to countries that interfere with, or prohibit, activities related to the accumulation of capital by US-based trans-nationals. Iran prohibits private ownership of power generation, postal services, telecommunications and large-scale industry hardly an inviting place for a foreign investor looking to expand his capital. Add to that the fact that Irans constitution severely restricts foreign ownership in the petroleum sector and mandates that the banking sector be state-owned. Theres also the reality that the government uses its ownership stake in over 1,500 companies to influence pricing to meet social policy (not trans-national profit-making) goals. Top these multiple crimes against the potential for fat profits with a trade policy that fosters the development of domestic industry by discouraging imports, and the conclusion is clear: Iran isnt the kind of place a capitalist scouring the globe for markets and investment opportunities is going to warm up to. So, is alarm over Iran acquiring the means to develop nuclear weapons, and Ahmadinejads reputed violent anti-Semitism, a cover for an effort to pry open the Iranian economy to move it up the Index of Economic Freedom? Ask yourself this: Is the US trying to make over Iraq, its latest conquest, into another Hong Kong, the indexs champion? Before the US installed itself as the effective ruler of the country, Iraq had a largely state-owned economy, imposed restrictions on foreign ownership of key economic sectors, and subsidized necessities, such as fuel, cooking oil and staples, to meet social policy objectives. Like Iran today, Iraq had all the features of a largely closed, dirigiste economy, so richly at odds with the expansionary requirements of US capital. But Iraq, under US guidance, is in the midst of an economic makeover. State-owned enterprises are to be sold off. Subsidies for fuel and oil are being eliminated. The country is under the control of the IMF. Foreign investors are to be allowed to enter the state-run oil-export business, and promises are being made to open up downstream infrastructure, like refining, to private investors. (New York Times, August 11, 2005) So, yes, Iraq is being transformed from an economy much like Irans into one much like Hong Kongs. Thats one reason to believe that alarm over Iran is contrived, a cover for pursuing a new economic makeover project to benefit the economic elite of the US imperialist alliance. But there are others. Lay aside the monumental hypocrisy of rich, industrialized countries, some teeming with nuclear weapons, all with the capability of producing them, most with their own civilian nuclear power industries, demanding that Iran relinquish its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to independently develop nuclear power for civilian use. Ignore, too, that the same demands are not made of other less developed countries, higher on the index of economic freedom, and more accommodating to the profit-making interests of Western investors and trans-national corporations. Its not as if Iran hasnt a legitimate need for nuclear energy, notwithstanding the insinuations of the Bush administration that a country rich in oil hasnt a need for nuclear energy. On top of oil, Iran has abundant supplies of uranium. And while it sits on a sea of oil, it lacks sufficient refinery capacity. So it imports refined fuel. Add to that the fact that the US hasnt always been opposed to nuclear power in Iran, and the alarm over Irans nuclear energy program is seen for what it is -- contrived. Under the Shah, a consortium of US corporations, led by Westinghouse, put together a proposal to build a massive nuclear power industry in the country with the approval of the US government. (Washington Post, March 27, 2005) The proposal was shelved after the Shah was overthrown. Were Westinghouse hired to build nuclear power plants in Iran today, US foreign policy wouldnt be so hostile, but Irans nuclear facilities are being built by Russia, a US economic competitor. Nor would Washington look askance if US investors were allowed to own Irans proposed nuclear industry, but Irans constitution forbids foreign ownership of power generation. What about the claim Iran is seeking to develop nuclear weapons? Its true that on top of strengthening Irans economic sovereignty, a civilian nuclear power industry, and domestic control over the fuel cycle, would give the country the means to develop nuclear weapons. But who are the US, France, the UK and Israel, all possessed of nuclear weapons themselves and having no intention of relinquishing them, to tell Iran it cant have them, too? Moreover, just because someone has the means to do something, doesnt mean theyll do it. Your neighbor has the means to creep into your bedroom late at night and slip a stiletto under your sternum, but do you stay awake worrying about it? Western media coverage implicitly accepts as an axiom that if Iran is permitted to exercise its right under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to refine uranium, it will, ipso facto, produce nuclear weapons, and use them. The only evidence it will do so, is that the US, some Western European countries which have a habit of joining the US in pulverizing countries youll find at the bottom of the Heritage Foundations Economic Freedom Index, and Israel, keep rattling their sabers in Tehrans direction; faced with unceasing threats, Iran may decide to acquire a nuclear capability to make imperialist countries think twice about doing to Iran what they have, in recent years, done to Iraq and Yugoslavia, and to countless other less developed countries in other times. Indeed, it would seem almost to be a necessity of maintaining any kind of real sovereignty, to equip oneself with an effective means of deterring the inevitable threats of destabilization, economic strangulation and open warfare that the ruling interests of Washington and other advanced, industrialized countries routinely employ to keep the world open to their products, services and capital. But thats not the Western media line. Instead, were to understand that Iran may acquire nuclear weapons, not as a self-defensive measure, but because its president is half-crazed, the clerics who hold him in check are not much better, and that they all want to wipe Israel off the map, which is to say, fire a few nuclear tipped missiles Israels way to reduce the Jewish settler state to cinders. Surely, this is not beyond the capability of anyone who denies the Holocaust. The line that a half-crazed and violently anti-Semitic president of Iran has denied the Holocaust and threatened to wipe Israel off the map, is a useful as a tool to justify strenuous action against Iran, including war, but it creates an impression that doesnt quite line up with the facts. Ahmadinejads Holocaust remarks were a challenge to those who use the Nazis attempt to systematically exterminate European Jews as justification for displacing Palestinian Arabs to found a Jewish state. What he said about the Holocaust amounted to this: Either it took place or it didnt. If it didnt take place, then it is a fabrication. If it did, it wasnt the Arabs who did it; it was the Europeans. Why then should the Palestinians pay the price of what the Europeans did against the Jews? (Musayeb Naimi, editor of Al Wefaq, New York Times, December 20, 2005) That, by the way, is a question those who express high moral dudgeon over the Iranian presidents comments, have steered clear of. Instead, theyve latched onto his questioning of the Holocaust, even as a hypothetical, as the mark of a half-crazed Jew-hater. Ahmadinejads remarks: If you committed this big crime, then why should the oppressed Palestinian nation pay? This is our proposal: If you committed the crime, then give part of your land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to them so that the Jews can establish their own country. (New York Times, December 15, 2005) Why do you want to force Israel on the holy land of Palestine by killing Muslims? Give a piece of your land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska so the Jews can create their own state. (Los Angeles Times, December 15, 2005) Is the killing of innocent Jewish people by Hitler, the reason for their (the Europeans) support to the occupiers of Jerusalem? If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in Europe like in Germany, Austria or other countries to the Zionists, and the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part of Europe, and we will support it. (Washington Post, December 9, 2005) To this, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharons spokesman, Raanan Gissin, replied: Just to remind Mr. Ahmadinejad, weve been here long before his ancestors were here. Therefore, we have a birthright to be here in the land of our forefathers and to live here. (Washington Post, December 9, 2005) Whos the religious fanatic? Ahmadinejads assertion that Israel must be wiped from the face of the map (by which he meant the idea of Israel as a Jewish homeland, founded on expulsion of Palestinians) has, predictably, been deliberately misinterpreted as a call for a second Holocaust, this serving the necessary pro-war propaganda function of painting Ahmadinejad as beyond the pale a new Hitler whose country must be contained, crushed and subordinated, like the countries of all the other propaganda program-fabricated monsters the US and its janissaries have argued they needed to take out. When Egypts ambassador to the UN, Maged Abdelaziz, criticized a UN General Assembly Resolution adopted November 1, 2005 to set aside a day each year to commemorate the Nazi perpetrated anti-Jewish holocaust as being too narrow (We believe no one should have a monopoly on suffering,) US ambassador to the UN, John Bolton replied, When a president of a member state can brazenly and hatefully call for a second Holocaust by suggesting that Israel, the Jewish homeland, should be wiped off the face of the map, it is clear that not all have learned the lesson of the Holocaust and that much works needs to be done. (New York Times, November 2, 2005) Ahmadinejads explanation of what he meant by wiping Israel of the face of the map is a far cry from what Bolton, and others, angling for intervention in Iran, would have you believe. The only logical solution to solve the Palestinian issues, explained Ahmadinejad, is to hold free elections with the participation of Palestinians inside and outside the occupied territories and in recognition of a nations legitimacy. (RNA, cited in Workers World, November 6, 2005). Ahmadinejad later noted that they (Bolton and others) created a lot of hue and cry over that, adding, It is clear what we say: Let the Palestinians participate in free elections and they will say what they want. (New York Times, January 15, 2006) This isnt the half-crazed ranting of a violently anti-Semitic leader; its a call for justice. It is a standard practice, going back to at least WWI, if not earlier, to select an individual on whom all the fear and hatred whipped up by a deliberate program of pro-war propaganda can be focused. Where plans to pry open the Iranian economy are concerned, Ahmadinejad is that person, as Hugo Chavez (now described by the US as anti-democratic, though popularly elected (New York Times, January 14, 2006)) is in Venezuela, Fidel Castro is in Cuba, Alexander Lukashenko is in Belarus, Robert Mugabe is in Zimbabwe and Kim Jong Il is in the DPRK. Since the Second World War, it has been common practice to try to equate such individuals to Hitler, a fairly easy task in Ahmadinejads case, not because hes anti-Semitic, but because his hostility to the expulsion of Palestinians as the basis of Israeli can be readily twisted into an apparent anti-Semitism, while his opposition to the idea of a Jewish state in historic Palestine, featuring a single dominant ethnic group by design and intention, can be distorted demagogically to create the appearance hes committed to a second Holocaust. The hostility of Western powers to Iran, then, has little to do with the ideas of Irans leadership, especially as they pertain to Israel, for those ideas, as presented by pro-interventionists, are distortions deliberately twisted to build a case for economic strangulation, at the very least, and war, quite probably. Instead, the hostility is rooted in Irans economy, and the countrys assertion of economic sovereignty. It would, however, be wrong to say that Irans hostility to the idea of Israel as an ethnically-defined state, founded on a gross injustice perpetrated against Palestinians, is entirely insignificant to US foreign policy, for insofar as it signals an opposition to Israel, it strikes at part of the apparatus the US relies on to enforce its domination of the Middle East. But domination, to what end? Its often said that the US seeks to bring renegade states under its control, either for entirely spurious reasons (to introduce democracy and respect for human rights, for example) or, where these reasons have been discredited and shown to be false, for reasons that are often left unstated. Power, control, domination these represent the end point of the analysis, as if imperialist powers seek power for powers sake. But what is it about renegade states that impel Western powers to bring them under their control? Rebellion, yes, but against what? Against the economic interests of Western powers; not out of hostility to the West as a policy, but out of commitment to their own independent development and sovereignty. State-ownership of key, and in some cases, all economic sectors; intervention in internal markets in pursuit of social policy objectives; control of, or influence over, pricing, including the price of labor; and the use of barriers to trade to foster internal industrial development; these are policies that may significantly improve the living conditions of domestic populations, but they, of necessity, impede the pursuit by Western investors and trans-nationals of activities related to capital accumulation. Since the same investors and trans-nationals hold almost exclusive sway over the policies of Western states, they are able to press the apparatus of the state into service to unblock pathways to foreign investment and export. Subversion, destabilization, economic strangulation and war are used to establish political and military control over economically renegade states, to define a space wherein investors and trans-nationals of whichever alliance of advanced, industrialized countries has undertaken the intervention are free to move about economically, to sell products and services without restriction, to own industry and infrastructure, to accumulate capital, and to do so without constraint, free from performance conditions, with profit senior to all other considerations. Why Iran? (1) To stifle the countrys economic development by depriving it of nuclear power; (2) To prevent it from acquiring a nuclear deterrent to Western aggression; (3) To keep it from becoming powerful enough to challenge the US attack dog in the region, Israel; and the reason to which the preceding three are subordinate: (4) To put an end to Irans assertion of economic sovereignty, which conflicts with the profit-making interests of US investors and trans-nationals. Achieving these goals is a multi-phase project. The project has now moved into the phase of preparing public opinion for some manner of stepped up intervention, possibly culminating in terror bombing of Iranian targets. This will not make people in the West or Israel safer, but will greatly heighten the chance there will be retaliatory strikes against Western and Israeli targets. This, however, is of little moment to the economic elite of the advanced, industrialized countries, who are compelled by the logic of capitalism to vigorously pursue the project of capital accumulation. Iran, as other countries deemed to be of concern by US foreign policy, is a multiform obstacle to unimpeded foreign investment and export. A state dominated by business interests, scouring the globe for investment and export opportunities, will quite naturally move in the direction of undermining and outraging the sovereignty of closed or economically sovereign countries, to open markets and improve investment climates. The demonization of Ahmadinejad is merely the mostly publicly visible part of that project. To be notified of updates, send an e-mail to sr.gowans@sympatico.ca and write subscribe in the subject line. To unsubscribe, write unsubscribe in the subject line. ***************************************************************** 5 Guardian Unlimited: Russian Cautions Against Iran Sanctions From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday January 17, 2006 1:47 PM AP Photo MOSB108 By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press Writer MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's foreign minister said Tuesday that referring Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible sanctions was not the best way to resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis, urging all nations involved to keep nonproliferation as their paramount goal. But Britain remains convinced that the Security Council's involvement is necessary. The permanent members of the Security Council - the United States, Russia, France, Britain and China - agreed during a meeting in London on Monday that Iran must fully suspend its nuclear program, but differed over whether to refer the dispute for action by the council. Russia and China have been under pressure from the United States and the European Union to support a move to refer Iran to the Security Council as a result of its decision earlier this month to restart its nuclear program. The Western allies fear Iran intends to build an atomic bomb, and Iran's new hard-line president's sharp anti-Israeli comments recently have only fueled their anxiety. ``Sanctions are not the best or the only way to solve international problems,'' Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a news conference Tuesday. ``Our common efforts should be aimed at getting answers to all the questions, without exception, which were posed by experts of the International Atomic Energy Agency.'' Lavrov said that raising the prospect of sanctions was tantamount to ``putting the cart before the horse.'' ``Our common goal is to ensure the inviolability of the nuclear nonproliferation regime,'' he said. ``If we all strive for this main goal, we will be able to find a collective approach to solving this issue.'' However, a British senior Foreign Office official questioned Tehran's sincerity about its purported openness to a Russian nuclear compromise proposal to resolve a standoff over Iran's nuclear program. ``Our own assessment is the Iranians are playing with the Russian proposal for tactical reasons,'' the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the negotiations. Russian President Vladimir Putin on Monday urged caution in dealing with the Iranian nuclear issue, saying Tehran might still agree to Moscow's offer to move Iran's uranium enrichment program to Russia - a step offered as a way to resolve the deadlock over Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Iran's ambassador to Moscow, Gholamreza Ansari, said late Monday that Iran considered the proposal ``constructive'' and said Tehran was still considering it. Diplomats in London announced plans Monday for an emergency meeting of the IAEA board of directors on Feb. 2-3. The 35-member board of the U.N. nuclear watchdog has the power to refer the issue to the Security Council. The Interfax news agency reported that the Iranian Embassy in Moscow had circulated an Iranian Foreign Ministry statement saying Tehran invited the EU to return to negotiations but that the emergency IAEA session could lead to a new impasse. Israel planned to dispatch a top team to Russia on Tuesday in an attempt to get Russia to agree to refer Iran to the Security Council, the Haaretz newspaper reported on its Web site. The team would include National Security Chief Giora Eiland and the director of Israel's Atomic Energy Commission, Gideon Frank, Haaretz said. China on Tuesday appealed for a negotiated settlement to the dispute, calling on Tehran to return to talks with Britain, France and Germany. ``We hope Iran can coordinate with the international community so as to resume negotiations through diplomatic means,'' said Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Kong Quan. ``All parties should keep patience and do all they can to restore the negotiations between Iran and the three European Union countries.'' Kong didn't respond directly when asked whether Beijing wanted to see the matter referred to the Security Council. China, a major buyer of Iranian oil, said earlier that taking the dispute to the council could worsen tensions. --- Associated Press Writer Beth Gardiner in London contributed to this report. Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 6 Bellona: Bushehr nuclear plant “not to threaten non-proliferation” The Russian foreign minister Sergey Lavrov stated that to Echo Moscow. 2006-01-16 17:18 . He also said that the one and only nuclear power plant in Bushehr is being constructed under the IAEA full control and is supplied with the nuclear fuel. According to Lavrov, Russia will deliver the nuclear fuel and receive back the spent nuclear fuel. “This scheme suits all” the minister said. Lavrov added that Russia is ready to deliver the fuel to the future Iranian plants. It will take years to build new nuclear plants. “The real fuel for them will be needed not tomorrow or next year, but closer to the end of current decade” said the minister. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 7 AFP: Britain still aims for diplomatic solution on Iran - Blair spokesman Tue Jan 17, 8:38 AM ET LONDON (AFP) - The British government is still seeking a diplomatic solution to the Western standoff with Iran" /> over its disputed nuclear program, Prime Minister Tony Blair" /> 's official spokesman said. meeting has been brought forward by about a month speaks for itself. I think that shows that everyone accepts there is now urgency about how to deal with this issue. We have to persuade Iran to abide by its international obligations." He was speaking as an Iranian official said Tehran had written to Britain, France and Germany asking for new talks in their nuclear standoff. After talks in London on Monday that also included officials from China, Russia and United States, the European Union" /> troika of Britain, France and Germany said they want the IAEA board to hold an emergency meeting on February 2-3. The discussions came amid calls for the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to refer Iran to the UN Security Council, a possible precursor for sanctions, after Tehran's decision to resume uranium enrichment testing. Iran vowed on January 10 to put an end to tough United Nations" /> inspections of its atomic program and fully resume sensitive nuclear fuel work if its case is referred to the Security Council. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 8 AFP: Iran nuclear crisis is key test for UN Security Council Tue Jan 17, 7:24 PM ET UNITED NATIONS (AFP) - US envoy to the UN John Bolton said the Iranian nuclear crisis was a key test for the UN Security Council but warned that there was no guarantee that a consensus would be reached on how to deal with Tehran. "If the Security Council can't deal with something like the Iranian nuclear weapons program, then it's hard to imagine what circumstances the (UN) Charter contemplated the Council would be involved in," he told reporters. "This is a clear threat to international peace and security as we've said for some time." Speaking a day after Britain, France and Germany called for an emergency meeting February 2-3 of the the UN nuclear watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) board of governors, Bolton said ultimately the security council must get involved. "That's not to say in any way that the IAEA would be displaced, quite the contrary," Bolton said. "We think that Security Council involvement brings the possibility of strengthening the hand of the IAEA in dealing with the Iranian nuclear weapons program." The IAEA could refer Iran" /> Iranto the Security Council, which has the power to impose sanctions, but Russia and China are resisting European and US calls for such intervention. Russia said sanctions were not the best way forward, while China called for a return to the negotiating table. Tehran, meanwhile, vowed reprisals against any crackdown, saying it would end tough UN inspections and fully resume nuclear fuel work if the dossier is referred to the Security Council. Bolton made it clear that there was "obviously no guarantee" that hauling Iran before the security council over its decision to resume sensitive nuclear research would yield a consensus. "This will be a test for the Council and appropriately so because the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems threatens their region and threatens the world as a whole," Bolton said. Iran insists that it is only interested in developing a civil nuclear program, but critics, led by Washington, suspect Iran of seeking to build nuclear weapons. Tehran resumed nuclear activities last week, claiming it had the right to pursue atomic research for peaceful means under the nuclear non-proliferation treaty despite Western concern that the technology can be used to build atomic bombs. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 9 AFP: No nuke talks unless Iran proves it's serious - US Tue Jan 17, 4:07 PM ET WASHINGTON (AFP) - The United States said Iran" /> Iran's offer to resume negotiations on its nuclear program was mere "diplomatic fog" and barred new talks without a concrete gesture from Tehran. "The onus is on the Iranians," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said amid intense diplomatic maneuvering over Western calls to haul Iran before the UN Security Council for its suspected nuclear weapons activities. "At this point I don't think that we see anything that indicates the Iranians are willing to engage in a serious diplomatic process" on the nuclear standoff, McCormack told reporters. "It's not on the EU-3 (British, French and German negotiators) or the United States or anybody else to come up with some other neat proposal for them to consider," he said. "It is on the Iranians now to take actions." He spoke as Washington's European allies sought to keep up pressure on Iran, dismissing an offer by Tehran to resume negotiations and seeking to overcome Russian and Chinese opposition to UN action. With the EU-3 seeking an emergency meeting of the International Atomic Energy Agency" /> International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA) for February 2-3 in Vienna to discuss referring Iran to the UN Security Council, Tehran has been seeking to restart talks. The Iranians asked the EU-3 to resume on Wednesday year-old discussions on economic and other incentives to renounce their nuclear plans. The top Iranian negotiator also met Sunday in Vienna with IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei. But McCormack, while insisting on the US goal of achieving a diplomatic solution to the nuclear crisis, put little stock in the Iranian efforts to get back to the bargaining table. "They've started up their diplomatic fog machine here," he said. The confrontation between Iran and the West came to a head last week after Iran lifted IAEA seals from a key nuclear facility and announced its intention to resume sensitive uranium enrichment research. The EU-3 declared their negotiations with Iran dead and lined up behind a US call to bring in the UN Security Council. But other countries, notably China and Russia, have been cooler to tough action against Tehran. McCormack expressed confidence the 35-member IAEA board of governors would send the matter to the Security Council even if it was not clear what action the world body executive would take. "All the parties agree that Iran's behavior has crossed the line and that they need to suspend their enrichment activities, that they cannot be allowed to obtain and master that technology and that technique," he said. With intensive diplomacy continuing on the row, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice" /> Condoleezza Riceworked the phone and her aides fanned out across the globe to press their case against Iran. Nicholas Burns, the State Department's number three official, met Monday with the EU-3, Russia and China in London and was traveling on to India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka for talks. Joseph Burns, undersecretary for arms control, was in Vienna for consultations with IAEA members and was to head off to Moscow and Tokyo afterward, McCormack said. White House spokesman Scott McClellan said that all countr\ies shared the same goal of depriving Iran of a nuclear weapons capability but the question was one of tactics. "What we'll continue to do is discuss the next steps with the Europeans and Russia and China and others as we move closer to the (IAEA) board meeting and at the board meeting," he said. Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The ***************************************************************** 10 UPI: Analysis: Iran long way from U.N. council United Press International - Intl. Intelligence - 1/17/2006 4:52:00 PM -0500 By WILLIAM M. REILLY UPI U.N. Correspondent UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 17 (UPI) -- The U.N. Security Council Tuesday was not expected to get the Iran nuclear issue until next month and then it may be a while before it would be decided what kind of action to take, if any, and still a while more to see if there would be enough support to put it up for a vote by the 15-member panel. Expect no quick action and the possibility of sanctions, slim, appears even more distant. "We think that Security Council involvement strengthens the hand of the IAEA in dealing with the Iranian nuclear weapons program," U.S. Ambassador John Bolton told reporters outside the council chamber Tuesday evening. "There obviously are no guarantees in the Security Council. This will be a test for the council, and appropriately so, because the Iranian pursuit of nuclear weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems threatens their region and threatens the world as a whole. But, it is because the council does have that responsibility under the (U.N.) Charter that we think it should be addressed here, not that it is a guarantee of success." So far, the EU3 -- Britain, France and Germany -- have called on the 35-member Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear monitoring body based in Vienna, to meet on the topic early next month. But there is no agreement beyond the simple referral. The 25-member European Union backs the trio. The United States supports the move. Russia and China have agreed not to block it going to the IAEA, but that is a long way from supporting any action even if they have joined in the call to Tehran to freeze its nuclear research. A week ago, Iran broke the IAEA inspector seals at its Natanz nuclear research facility and others, saying it was going ahead with what Tehran calls its right to develop nuclear energy. It claims that right, despite contravening nuclear accords and clandestinely conducting nuclear research for decades. Iran has said if the United Nations against acts against it, all cooperation with the IAEA would cease, such as allowing spot checks. Opponents say since Tehran was not truthful about Iran's nuclear research in the past, there is no reason to believe Tehran now when it claims its research is strictly for developing its ability to produce energy for when its huge oil reserves are depleted. Britain has said it wants the IAEA to refer the question to the council. The nuclear watchdog already has a draft resolution from last autumn that was pigeonholed, to await the EU3's efforts. It would only take a positive vote from 18 of the board's 35 governors to send the issue to the golden-hued, horseshoe-shaped, table at U.N. World Headquarters in New York where the council sits. There is no veto in the IAEA. While China and Russia are not ready to recommend referral to the council they have not said they would block referral. Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said Moscow's compromise offer to help Tehran enrich uranium, but not in Iran, is still viable. That would remove concerns about Iran developing nuclear weapon capability. It already has the means to deliver a nuclear weapon by missile to as far away as Europe. Moscow also wants negotiations between the EU3 and Tehran to resume. China agrees and Iran says it is willing to resume talks. Britain sees Iran's supposed willingness to talk, in face of bellicose statements of Iran's outspoken new president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as stalling. If, as expected, the issue goes to New York, there are several outcomes possible. One outcome, is none. That's right, at the end there could be no action, other than diplomatic maneuverings. The most likely initial reaction by the 15-member Security Council would be a statement from the panel calling on Iran to cooperate with inspectors and continue negotiations. Even targeted sanctions at this stage do not appear likely, but it is possible. Reasoning for this lies in positions of the veto-wielding five permanent members of the panel. While Britain, France and the United States may be in favor of action, China and Russia are not and could cast a veto. However, they also could abstain from a vote, enabling sanctions. Such a resolution, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, requires "an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members." They could abstain and sanctions could be improved. China depends on oil from Iran and has a long history of reluctance to interfere in the domestic affairs of another state, perhaps motivated of intrusion into China's "internal affairs" over the annexation of Tibet. A similar situation holds true in Sudan where China also buys a lot of oil and is against sanctions. "The Chinese side believes resolving the issue through peaceful diplomatic means is the best choice, benefiting all parties," said a spokesman for China's Foreign Ministry, Kong Quan. Russia is building a $1 billion nuclear plant in Iran, a project it does not want jeopardized and is reluctant see any embargo imposed on Iran. "The question of sanctions against Iran puts the cart before the horse," Russia's Lavrov has said. "Sanctions are in no way the best, or the only, way to solve the problem." Lavrov has said Iran should halt attempts at enrichment, assist IAEA inspectors and negotiate. Going into a Security Council session on Afghanistan Tuesday afternoon, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton was asked about the Iran situation. "The next event will be at the IAEA in early February," he said, declining to comment directly. "If the Security Council can't deal with something like the Iranian nuclear weapons program then it's hard to imagine what circumstances the (U.N.) Charter contemplated the council would be involved in," Bolton said earlier. "This is a clear threat to international peace and security, which we have said for some time." © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 11 Guardian Unlimited: World Latest | U.S., Europeans Step Up Pressure on Iran From the Associated Press [UP] Tuesday January 17, 2006 7:32 PM AP Photo MOSB110 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Pressure on Iran intensified Tuesday, with key European countries and the United States moving ahead with plans to refer Tehran to the U.N. Security Council and Israel vowing not to let the Iranians develop nuclear weapons. But Russia and China - Iran's past backers - urged negotiations instead of confrontation, casting doubt on whether next month's International Atomic Energy Agency meeting will demonstrate a unified political will. A meeting Monday in London produced no agreement among the United States, France, Britain and Germany and Moscow and Beijing on whether to refer the dispute over Iranian nuclear enrichment to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions. Past opposition to such action by Russia and China led the Europeans and the United States to postpone referral. Russia and China have joined Europe and the U.S. in criticizing Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment. But both would prefer to avoid Security Council involvement and are outright opposed to sanctions. A draft text by Britain proposing referral when the IAEA's 35-nation board of directors meets Feb. 2 reflected deference to the Russians and Chinese, stopping short of calls for punitive measures. Instead, the text, read in part to The Associated Press by a European diplomat accredited to the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, urges the 15-nation council to press Tehran ``to extend full and prompt cooperation to the agency'' in its investigation of suspect nuclear activities. It also asks the council to make clear ``that additional transparency measures are indispensable'' if Iran hopes to prove it does not want to make nuclear weapons. The diplomat agreed to share the confidential information only on condition of anonymity. The wording of the text is sure to change ahead of the IAEA meeting. Still, the fact that it was calling on the council to send Iran's nuclear file back to the IAEA provided the latest indication the country could escape sanctions. Moscow supports calling on Iran to renew a moratorium on uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear arms. But asked Tuesday whether Russia would be ready to refer Iran to the Security Council for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said other means should be considered first. ``I don't think that the potential of the IAEA's Governing Board has been exhausted and the European troika has the same opinion,'' he said, alluding to France, Britain and Germany, which represent the European Union in talks on the issue. The Chinese Foreign Ministry took a cautious tone, saying ``all relevant sides should remain restrained and stick to solving the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiations.'' Israel - whose right to exist has been denied by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - took a tough stance. In response to a question about Iran, acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said ``under no circumstances can Israel allow someone with hostile intentions against us to have control over weapons of mass destruction that can endanger our existence.'' Israel has refused to categorically rule out military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. But officials say that's not in the cards anytime soon, and Olmert said Tuesday any Israeli action would be in cooperation with the international community. Raising hopes for a compromise, Iran on Monday praised a proposal by Russian President Vladimir Putin to conduct Iranian uranium enrichment in Russia, which would allow for greater international oversight. But British officials questioned Tehran's sincerity and said Tuesday that London maintained its stance on the need for Security Council action. Russia and China are IAEA board opinion leaders whose voice counts with other nations. They also are veto-wielding members of the Security Council that could block harsh action against Tehran - including economic sanctions, an option backed by the Bush administration. European nations have been willing to wait on referral in hopes Tehran's defiance would sway Moscow and Beijing. The United States is the key backer of Security Council sanctions, but has thrown its weight behind the Europeans in hopes that time would work on its behalf in hardening anti-Iran sentiment. In a Jan. 12 letter to other board nation members that was made available to the AP, Washington's chief delegate to the IAEA, Gregory L. Schulte, urged them ``to vote affirmatively to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council.'' The letter was part of a dossier being circulated by the Americans to support their argument that Iran's main interest is to develop weapons, a diplomat said. Iran's case also has been hurt by comments by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, who says he is losing patience with Iran for blocking requests for documents, interviews and access to sites to test Iranian claims its nuclear program is peaceful. Robert Joseph, U.S. undersecretary for arms control and international security, was in Vienna and planned to meet with ElBaradei before heading to Moscow and Tokyo. The path for referral was laid by an IAEA resolution finding Iran in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for clandestine nuclear activity. That resolution implied Tehran's defiance of calls to freeze enrichment would be the ``trigger'' for Security Council involvement, a condition met Jan. 10 when Iran removed U.N. seals from its main uranium enrichment facility and resumed research on nuclear fuel - including small-scale enrichment. --- On the Net: http://www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 12 Guardian Unlimited: China, Russia Urge Iran Nuke Negotiations From the Associated Press [UP] Wednesday January 18, 2006 1:02 AM AP Photo CX105 By GEORGE JAHN Associated Press Writer VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Pressure on Iran intensified Tuesday, with key European countries and the United States moving ahead with plans to refer Tehran to the U.N. Security Council and Israel vowing not to let the Iranians develop nuclear weapons. But Russia and China - Iran's past backers - urged negotiations instead of confrontation, casting doubt on whether next month's International Atomic Energy Agency meeting will demonstrate a unified political will. A meeting Monday in London produced no agreement among the United States, France, Britain and Germany and Moscow and Beijing on whether to refer the dispute over Iranian nuclear enrichment to the Security Council, which could impose sanctions. Past opposition to such action by Russia and China led the Europeans and the United States to postpone referral. Russia and China have joined Europe and the U.S. in criticizing Iran's resumption of uranium enrichment. But both would prefer to avoid Security Council involvement and are outright opposed to sanctions. A draft text by Britain proposing referral when the IAEA's 35-nation board of directors meets Feb. 2 reflected deference to the Russians and Chinese, stopping short of calls for punitive measures. Instead, the text, read in part to The Associated Press by a European diplomat accredited to the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, urges the 15-nation council to press Tehran ``to extend full and prompt cooperation to the agency'' in its investigation of suspect nuclear activities. It also asks the council to make clear ``that additional transparency measures are indispensable'' if Iran hopes to prove it does not want to make nuclear weapons. The diplomat agreed to share the confidential information only on condition of anonymity. The wording of the text is sure to change ahead of the IAEA meeting. Still, the fact that it was calling on the council to send Iran's nuclear file back to the IAEA provided the latest indication the country could escape sanctions. U.S. State Department spokesman Seam McCormack suggested Washington would push to have Iran hauled before the Security Council no matter what the Russians and Chinese thought. ``We have the votes for a referral to the Security Council, and we believe that that is the action the IAEA is going to take when they meet in February,'' he said. ``Whether or not the Russians vote with the rest of the world is up to them.'' John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stressed that under the U.N. Charter, the Security Council has the responsibility to deal with threats to peace and security, and he said the Iranian nuclear dispute is a test of the charter, ``The issue of Iran's nuclear weapons program is a classic threat to international peace and security, which is why we've felt for some time that the matter should be on the Security Council's agenda,'' he told reporters at the United Nations. ``It's been the view of the United States for four years that this matter should be referred to the Security Council,'' he said. Moscow supports calling on Iran to renew a moratorium on uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear arms. But asked Tuesday whether Russia would be ready to refer Iran to the Security Council for violating the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said other means should be considered first. ``I don't think that the potential of the IAEA's Governing Board has been exhausted and the European troika has the same opinion,'' he said, alluding to France, Britain and Germany, which represent the European Union in talks on the issue. The Chinese Foreign Ministry took a cautious tone, saying ``all relevant sides should remain restrained and stick to solving the Iranian nuclear issue through negotiations.'' Israel - whose right to exist has been denied by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - took a tough stance. In response to a question about Iran, acting Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said ``under no circumstances can Israel allow someone with hostile intentions against us to have control over weapons of mass destruction that can endanger our existence.'' Israel has refused to categorically rule out military strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. But officials say that's not in the cards anytime soon, and Olmert said Tuesday any Israeli action would be in cooperation with the international community. Raising hopes for a compromise, Iran on Monday praised a proposal by Russian President Vladimir Putin to conduct Iranian uranium enrichment in Russia, which would allow for greater international oversight. And Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Tuesday again invited Europeans to the negotiation table to avoid a major international crisis, state-run television reported. But British officials questioned Tehran's sincerity and said Tuesday that London maintained its stance on the need for Security Council action. Russia and China are IAEA board opinion leaders whose voice counts with other nations. They also are veto-wielding members of the Security Council that could block harsh action against Tehran - including economic sanctions, an option backed by the Bush administration. European nations have been willing to wait on referral in hopes Tehran's defiance would sway Moscow and Beijing. The United States is the key backer of Security Council sanctions, but has thrown its weight behind the Europeans in hopes that time would work on its behalf in hardening anti-Iran sentiment. In a Jan. 12 letter to other board nation members that was made available to the AP, Washington's chief delegate to the IAEA, Gregory L. Schulte, urged them ``to vote affirmatively to report Iran to the United Nations Security Council.'' The letter was part of a dossier being circulated by the Americans to support their argument that Iran's main interest is to develop weapons, a diplomat said. But the leaders of Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the Arab world's two major powers, urged Vice President Dick Cheney on a trip to the region Tuesday to give negotiations with Iran more time. Iran's case also has been hurt by comments by IAEA head Mohamed ElBaradei, who says he is losing patience with Iran for blocking requests for documents, interviews and access to sites to test Iranian claims its nuclear program is peaceful. Robert Joseph, U.S. undersecretary for arms control and international security, was in Vienna and planned to meet with ElBaradei before heading to Moscow and Tokyo. The path for referral was laid by an IAEA resolution finding Iran in violation of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for clandestine nuclear activity. That resolution implied Tehran's defiance of calls to freeze enrichment would be the ``trigger'' for Security Council involvement, a condition met Jan. 10 when Iran removed U.N. seals from its main uranium enrichment facility and resumed research on nuclear fuel - including small-scale enrichment. --- On the Net: http://www.iaea.org Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 13 Korea Herald: 'Washington will continue to suppress North Korea' (aibang@heraldm.com) By Annie I. Bang 2006.01.18 The United States will continue to suppress North Korea, by taking a hard-line policy against various issues including the North's alleged counterfeiting of U.S. currency and its nuclear program standoff, a Korean public institute said in a report released yesterday. "The Bush administration has recently raised concerns of North Korea's counterfeiting and circulation of the false currency separate from the nuclear issues. And those various pressures against North Korea are not one-off actions but will continue throughout this year," the government-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses said in a report. The report was written by Kim Chang-su, researcher for the R.O.K-U.S. Alliance, U.S. security policies at the institute. "At first, there is a greater possibility for the Bush administration's high-ranking officials not to give up their strong attitudes towards North Korea although Washington has insisted that it would adopt the 'conditional engagement' instead of a hard-line policy," Kim wrote. Since the Bush administration has concerns about North Korea's human rights issues, in relation to both South Korean defectors and the population living in the North, Kim said it will "confidentially" review various ways to reduce the threat from weapons of mass destruction. To scrap North Korea's nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction and promote transparency, the actions of Robert Joseph, senior adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush, are important, Kim said. Joseph is also Secretary of State for Arms Control, Nonproliferation, and Disarmament. U.S. Ambassador to Korea Alexander Vershbow also alerted South Koreans yesterday that people should be worried over the North's regime, which "is wasting its resources developing nuclear weapons and counterfeit bills, drug-dealing and money-laundering to survive." "The criticism on policies of the North Korean regime by me and other U.S. leaders is because over 23 million Koreans in the North are facing difficulties and pain due to those policies," Vershbow wrote in Korean on the U.S. Embassy's online chat room - Cafe USA. He criticized North Korea's policies which starved over 1 million people to death. "Even the survivors go through chronic malnutrition, economic slumps and do not have the freedoms which South Koreans take for granted. Overlooking these is not going to make Korea unification any sooner," he wrote. Supporting the idea of unification on the peninsula, Vershbow said the United States encourages North Korean people to seek the freedom and prosperity which South Koreans enjoy. "We hope that North Korean leaders will open their isolated society, carry out and reform into free market economy and respect their people's human rights," he wrote. "With North Korea abandoning its nuclear programs, these reforms will help North Korea get out of isolation and make unification on the peninsula more feasible." ***************************************************************** 14 NRC: Steven Moffitt; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed FR Doc E6-416 [Federal Register: January 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 10)] [Notices] [Page 2581-2585] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17ja06-89] Activities (Effective Immediately) I Mr. Steven Moffitt was previously employed, at times relevant to this Order, as the Technical Services Director at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse) operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC or licensee). The licensee holds License No. NPF-3 which was issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 on April 22, 1977. The license authorizes the operation of Davis-Besse in accordance with the conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the Licensee's site near Oak Harbor, Ohio. II On August 3, 2001, the NRC issued Bulletin 2001-001, ``Circumferential Cracking of Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles,'' (Bulletin). [[Page 2582]] In the Bulletin, the NRC requested that all holders of operating licenses for pressurized water nuclear power reactors (PWR), including FENOC for the Davis-Besse facility, provide information to the NRC relating to the structural integrity of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head penetration nozzles at their respective facilities. The information requested from the licensees included the extent of RPV head penetration nozzle leakage and cracking that had been found to date, a description of the inspections and repairs undertaken to satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, and the basis for concluding that a licensee's plans for future inspections would ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The NRC also required that all the Bulletin addressees, including FENOC, submit a written response to the NRC in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(f). That regulation provides, in part, that upon request of the NRC, an NRC-licensee must submit written statements, signed under oath or affirmation, to enable the NRC to determine whether the license should be modified, suspended, or revoked. On September 4, October 17, and October 30, 2001, the licensee provided written responses to the Bulletin. Additionally, the licensee met with the NRC staff on numerous occasions during October and November of 2001 to provide clarifying information. Based, in part, on the information provided by FENOC in its written responses to the Bulletin and during meetings with the NRC staff, the NRC staff allowed the licensee to continue operation of the Davis-Besse facility until February 2002, rather than requiring FENOC to shut the unit down to perform inspections by December 31, 2001, as provided in the Bulletin. On February 16, 2002, FENOC shut down Davis-Besse for refueling and inspection of control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) RPV head penetration nozzles. Using ultrasonic testing, the licensee found cracks in three CRDM RPV head penetration nozzles and on March 6, 2002, the licensee discovered a cavity in the RPV head in the vicinity of CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The cavity measured approximately 5 to 7 inches long, 4 to 5 inches wide, and penetrated through the 6.63 inch-thick low-alloy steel portion of the RPV head, leaving the stainless steel cladding material (measuring 0.202 to 0.314 inches-thick) as the sole reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure boundary. A smaller cavity was also found near CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 2. The licensee conducted a root cause evaluation and determined that, contrary to the earlier information provided to the NRC, the cavities were caused by boric acid from the RCS released through cracks in the CRDM RPV head penetration nozzles. The root cause evaluation found that the licensee had previously conducted limited cleaning and inspections of the RPV head during the Twelfth Refueling Outage (12RFO) that ended on May 18, 2000. However, neither the limited RPV head cleaning nor the resultant inspections during 12RFO were sufficient to ensure that the significant boric acid deposits on the RPV head were only a result of CRDM flange leakage and were not a result of RCS pressure boundary leakage. On March 6 and March 10, 2002, the licensee provided information to the NRC concerning the identification of a large cavity in the RPV head adjacent to CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The NRC conducted an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) inspection at Davis-Besse from March 12 to April 5, 2002, to determine the facts and circumstances related to the significant degradation of the RPV head. The results of the AIT inspection were documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-346/2002-03, issued on May 3, 2002. A follow-up Special Inspection was conducted from May 15 to August 9, 2002, and on October 2, 2002, the NRC issued the AIT Follow-up Special Inspection Report No. 50-346/2002-08 documenting ten apparent violations associated with the RPV head degradation. On April 22, 2002, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) initiated an investigation at Davis-Besse to determine, among other matters, whether FENOC and individual employees at the Davis-Besse facility failed to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC in its September 4, October 17, and October 30, 2001, responses to the Bulletin and during numerous conference calls and meetings in violation of 10 CFR 50.9 and 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). The OI report (No. 3-2002-006) was issued on August 22, 2003. A copy of the OI report was provided to the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of Ohio for review. The matter remains under continued Federal investigation. Mr. Moffitt was aware of the scope of the previous reactor vessel head inspections and the condition of the reactor vessel head due to his official duties and written and oral communications he received from other FENOC employees. For example; During a sworn, transcribed interview with OI, Mr. Moffitt stated that it was common knowledge that the reactor head was not totally cleaned during 12RFO. On June 27, 2001, Mr. Moffitt was sent a memorandum that provided an engineering evaluation of the question, ``Should Davis- Besse Perform a Visual Head Inspection if The Plant Shut Down to Mode 5 Conditions?'' Page 2 of the memorandum stated: ``During 12th RFO at Davis-Besse (DB) the Reactor Vessel head inspection was performed in accordance with boron inspection walkdown as required by GL-88-05 and GL 97-01. Large boron leakage from a CRDM flange was observed. This leakage did not permit the detailed inspection of CRDM nozzles.'' On August 11, 2001, FENOC held a meeting to discuss its pending response to the Bulletin. Mr. Moffitt was listed as an attendee at the meeting, as documented in an E-mail from a design engineer that same day. As stated in the E-mail, ``it was pointed out that we can not clean our head thru the mouse holes and a system engineer is requesting that three large holes be cut in the Service Structure for viewing [inspection] and cleaning.'' During a sworn, transcribed interview with OI, Mr. Moffitt stated that around the August 11, 2001, time frame he remembered talking to the engineer who had cleaned the RPV head regarding how much of the head was cleaned. Mr. Moffitt further stated that the engineer told him about 80 percent of the head was cleaned. During September 2001, Mr. Moffitt hired a contractor employed by Piedmont Management and Technical Services, Inc. to review Davis-Besse's preparation for 13RFO with implementing the requirements of Bulletin 2001-001. On September 14, 2001, the contractor provided Mr. Moffitt a copy of the letter [report] containing his recommendations and approximately one week later verbally briefed Mr. Moffitt on the contents of the report. The report stated, in part: ``It is noted that on completion of 12RFO, the Reactor Vessel head did have boric acid crystal deposits of considerable depth left in the center top area of the head, since cleaning of this area at that time was not successful in removing all the deposits (partly due to limited access).'' During a licensee interview of Mr. Moffitt on July 1, 2002, Mr. Moffitt indicated that he knew in the July to August 2001 time-frame that boric acid was left on the head in 12RFO and that the boric acid impeded a complete inspection of the head. [[Page 2583]] The above information demonstrates that Mr. Moffitt had sufficient knowledge of the results of previous inspections of the RPV head and that he knew the licensee's written and oral responses to NRC Bulletin 2001-001 were incomplete and inaccurate. Several FENOC employees, including Mr. Steven Moffitt, were responsible for the information provided to the NRC by FENOC in response to the Bulletin. III Steven Moffitt was employed by FENOC as the Technical Services Director at Davis-Besse at the time the responses to the Bulletin were developed and transmitted to the NRC. Mr. Moffitt participated in an October 3, 2001, teleconference with the NRC staff and a presentation on October 11, 2001, to the NRC Commissioners' Technical Assistants. On October 17, 2001, Mr. Moffitt concurred in the issuance of the supplemental licensee response, dated October 17, 2001. On October 3, 2001, Mr. Moffitt was a senior Davis-Besse management official on a conference call with the NRC staff. Mr. Moffitt was also involved in preparatory meetings for the October 3rd conference call. The agenda for the conference call stated: ``Video Inspection Review from RFO10, RFO11, and RFO12: Further Confirmation of no indication of leakage attributable to CRDM Nozzle leakage; clearly CRDM flange leakage.'' During the conference call, Mr. Moffitt's direct subordinate informed the NRC that 100% of the RPV head had been inspected during the last outage (12RFO) but that some areas were precluded from inspection and that videotapes of the inspections conducted during 10RFO, 11RFO, and 12RFO had been reviewed. Mr. Moffitt was aware at the time of the October 3, 2001, meeting that the licensee did not conduct a 100% inspection of the RPV head during 12RFO due to the presence of boric acid on the head which obscured a significant number of the RPV head nozzles yet approved the misleading statements thereby causing the incomplete and inaccurate information to be submitted to the NRC. On October 10, 2001, Mr. Moffitt participated in a meeting with other FENOC officials for the purpose of finalizing presentation slides to be used during an October 11, 2001, meeting with the NRC Commissioner's Technical Assistants. Draft Presentation Slide 20 stated: ``Reviewed video inspections of Reactor Vessel head taken during 11RFO (April 1998) and 12RFO (April 2000) and confirmed that Davis-Besse has not experienced boron leakage as seen at Oconee or Arkansas Nuclear.'' Presentation Draft Slide 21 for the briefing stated: ``Reviewed past 3 outages of Reactor Vessel Head inspection video tapes which were taken to satisfy Generic Letter 97-01: No telltale ``popcorn'' type boron deposits; During 12RFO (Spring 2000), Davis-Besse identified sources of boron that precluded the visual inspection of some CRDM penetrations, as five leaking flanges above the mirror insulation; Viewed past 3 outages of inspection video tapes of area masked by boron in 12 RFO did not have previous leakage.'' On October 11, 2001, Mr. Moffitt and other licensee staff briefed the NRC Commissioners' Technical Assistants on FENOC's basis for concluding that Davis-Besse was safe to operate until the next refueling outage (March 2002). During the briefing, FENOC utilized the presentation slides that were finalized the previous day. Presentation Slide 6 stated, in part: ``Conducted and recorded video inspections of the head during 11RFO (April 1998) and 12RFO (April 2000)--No head penetration leakage was identified.'' Presentation Slide 7 stated, in part: ``All CRDM [control rod drive mechanism] penetrations were verified to be free from ``popcorn'' type boron deposits using video recordings from 11RFO or 12RFO.'' The licensee's October 11, 2001, presentation to the NRC Commissioners' Technical Assistants was materially incomplete and inaccurate in that the presentation slides did not state that the build-up of boric acid on the RPV head was so significant that the licensee could not inspect all of the RPV head penetration nozzles. Due to the significant amount of boric acid present on the RPV head, of which Mr. Moffitt was aware, the licensee also did not have a basis for stating that no visible evidence of RPV penetration nozzle leakage was detected. Mr. Moffitt knew the information was incomplete and inaccurate and allowed it to be submitted to the NRC. On October 17, 2001, the licensee provided a supplemental response to the Bulletin. The second paragraph under the section entitled, ``Previous Inspection Results,'' on Page 2 of Attachment 1 of the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response stated, in part: ``The inspections performed during the 10th, 11th, and 12th Refueling Outage (10RFO, conducted April 8 to June 2, 1996; 11RFO, conducted April 10 to May 23, 1998; and, 12RFO, conducted April 1 to May 18, 2000) consisted of a whole head visual inspection of the RPV head in accordance with the DBNPS Boric Acid Control Program pursuant to Generic Letter 88-05 ``Boric Acid Corrosion of Carbon Steel Reactor Pressure Boundary Components in PWR Plants.'' The visual inspections were conducted by remote camera and included below insulation inspections of the RPV bare head such that the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) nozzle penetrations were viewed. During 10RFO, 65 of 69 nozzles were viewed, during 11RFO, 50 of 69 nozzles were viewed, and during 12RFO, 45 of 69 nozzles were viewed. It should be noted that 19 of the obscured nozzles in 12RFO were also those obscured in 11RFO.'' Information included under Column 6 of Attachment 2 of the licensee's October 17, 2001, response stated, in part, that 24 nozzles have a ``flange leak evident.'' Note 1 on the same table stated, in part: ``In 1996 during 10 RFO, the entire RPV head was inspected. Since the video was void of head orientation narration, each specific nozzle view could not be correlated.'' The licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response was materially incomplete and inaccurate, in that the licensee did not view the stated number of RPV head penetration nozzles during the referenced outages, and the licensee believed that only five RPV head control rod drive mechanism flanges were leaking instead of the 24 RPV head control rod drive mechanism flanges noted in the response. Specifically, during 12RFO the licensee did not clean all of the RPV head; therefore, the licensee could not have viewed each of the RPV head penetration nozzles and determined that the observed boric acid accumulation was not a result of RPV nozzle leakage. Mr. Moffitt knew the information was incomplete and inaccurate but nonetheless, concurred on the response, thereby allowing the information to be submitted to the NRC. Based on the above information, the NRC concludes that Mr. Moffitt had knowledge of the condition of the RPV head and the limitations experienced during RPV head inspections, and he deliberately failed to ensure that information that was developed for and presented during an October 3, 2001, teleconference with the NRC; was developed during an October 10, 2001, meeting and presented during an October 11, 2001, meeting with the NRC; and was included in the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response to the NRC Bulletin 2001-001 was materially complete and accurate. The information presented to the NRC and provided in the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response was material to the NRC because the information gave the impression to the NRC staff that the Davis- Besse RPV head had been completely inspected for [[Page 2584]] evidence of nozzle cracks, when this was not the case at the time the information was provided or the supplemental response was submitted. In addition, information provided during the October 3 and October 11, 2001, meetings and in the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response to the NRC was material to the NRC because the NRC used the information, in part, to allow FENOC to operate Davis-Besse until February 2002 rather than requiring the plant to shut down by December 31, 2001, to conduct inspections of the RPV head as discussed in Item 3.v.1 of the Bulletin. Based on the above, Mr. Steven Moffitt, while employed by the licensee, engaged in deliberate misconduct by providing FENOC and the NRC information that he knew was not complete and accurate in all material respects to the NRC, a violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). Mr. Moffitt's actions also placed FENOC in violation of 10 CFR 50.9. The NRC determined that these violations were of very high safety and regulatory significance because they demonstrated a pattern of deliberate inaccurate or incomplete documentation of information that was required to be submitted to the NRC. Had the NRC been aware of this incomplete and inaccurate information, the NRC would likely have taken immediate regulatory action to shut down the plant and require the licensee to implement appropriate corrective actions. IV The NRC must be able to rely on the licensee and its employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide information and maintain records that are complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Moffitt's deliberate actions raise serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Moffitt is permitted to be involved in NRC- licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Moffitt be prohibited from any involvement in NRC- licensed activities for a period of five years from the date of this Order. Additionally, Mr. Moffitt is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years following the prohibition period. V Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 50.5, and 10 CFR 150.20, It is hereby ordered that effective immediately: 1. Mr. Steven Moffitt is prohibited for five years from the date of this Order from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. The NRC considers NRC-licensed activities to be those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. 2. If Mr. Moffitt is currently involved with another licensee in NRC-licensed activities, he must immediately cease those activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer. 3. For a period of five years after the five-year period of prohibition has expired, Mr. Moffitt shall, within 20 days of acceptance of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in NRC-licensed activities. In the notification, Mr. Moffitt shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Moffitt of good cause. VI In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Steven Moffitt must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order within 20 days of the date of this Order. However, since this enforcement action is being proposed prior to the U.S. Department of Justice completing its review of the OI investigation results, consideration may be given to extending the response time for submitting an answer as well as the time for requesting a hearing, for good cause shown. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Moffitt or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4352, and to Mr. Moffitt if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Moffitt. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than Mr. Moffitt requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by Mr. Moffitt or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), Mr. Moffitt, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. [[Page 2585]] In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be effective immediately and final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. Dated this 4th day of January 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, State, and Compliance Programs, Office of the Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E6-416 Filed 1-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P b ***************************************************************** 15 NRC: Prasoon Goyal; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed FR Doc E6-418 [Federal Register: January 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 10)] [Notices] [Page 2576-2578] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17ja06-87] Activities (Effective Immediately) I Mr. Prasoon Goyal was previously employed, at times relevant to this Order, as a Senior Engineer at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse) operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC or licensee). The licensee holds License No. NPF-3 which was issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR part 50 on April 22, 1977. The license authorizes the operation of Davis-Besse in accordance with the conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the licensee's site near Oak Harbor, Ohio. II On August 3, 2001, the NRC issued Bulletin 2001-001, ``Circumferential Cracking of Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles,'' (Bulletin). In the Bulletin, the NRC requested that all holders of operating licenses for pressurized water nuclear power reactors (PWR), including FENOC for the Davis-Besse facility, provide information to the NRC relating to the structural integrity of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head penetration nozzles at their respective facilities. The information requested from the licensees included the extent of RPV head penetration nozzle leakage and cracking that had been found to date, a description of the inspections and repairs undertaken to satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, and the basis for concluding that a licensee's plans for future inspections would ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The NRC also required that all Bulletin addressees, including FENOC, submit a written response to the NRC in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(f). That regulation provides, in part, that upon request of the NRC, an NRC-licensee must submit written statements, signed under oath or affirmation, to enable the NRC to determine whether the license should be modified, suspended, or revoked. On September 4, October 17, and October 30, 2001, the licensee provided written responses to the Bulletin. Additionally, the licensee met with the NRC staff on numerous occasions during October and November of 2001 to provide clarifying information. Based, in part, on the information provided by FENOC in its written responses to the Bulletin and during meetings with the NRC staff, the NRC staff allowed the licensee to continue operation of the Davis-Besse facility until February 2002, rather than requiring FENOC to shut the unit down to perform inspections by December 31, 2001, as provided in the Bulletin. On February 16, 2002, FENOC shut down Davis-Besse for refueling and inspection of control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) RPV head penetration nozzles. Using ultrasonic testing, the licensee found cracks in three CRDM RPV head penetration nozzles and on March 6, 2002, the licensee discovered a cavity in the RPV head in the vicinity of CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The cavity measured approximately 5 to 7 inches long, 4 to 5 inches wide, and penetrated through the 6.63 inch-thick low-alloy steel portion of the RPV head, leaving the stainless steel cladding material (measuring 0.202 to 0.314 inches-thick) as the sole reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure boundary. A smaller cavity was also found near CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 2. The licensee conducted a root cause evaluation and determined, contrary to the earlier information provided to the NRC, that the cavities were caused by boric acid from the RCS released through cracks in the CRDM RPV head penetration nozzles. The root cause evaluation found that the licensee conducted limited cleaning and inspections of the RPV head during the Twelfth Refueling Outage (12RFO) that ended on May 18, 2000. However, neither the limited RPV head cleaning nor the resultant inspections during 12RFO were sufficient to ensure that the significant boric acid deposits on the RPV head were only a result of CRDM flange leakage, as supposed, and were not a result of RCS pressure boundary leakage. On March 6 and March 10, 2002, the licensee provided information to the NRC concerning the identification of a large cavity in the RPV head adjacent to CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The NRC conducted an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) inspection at Davis-Besse from March 12 to April 5, 2002, to determine the facts and circumstances related to the significant degradation of the RPV head. The results of the AIT inspection were documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-346/2002-03, issued on May 3, 2002. A follow-up Special Inspection was conducted from May 15 to August 9, 2002, and on October 2, 2002, the NRC issued the AIT Follow-up Special Inspection Report No. 50-346/2002-08 documenting ten apparent violations associated with the RPV head degradation. On April 22, 2002, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) initiated an investigation at Davis-Besse to determine, among other matters, whether FENOC and individual employees at the Davis-Besse facility failed to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC in its September 4, October 17, and October 30, 2001, responses to the Bulletin and during numerous conference calls and meetings in violation of 10 CFR 50.9 and 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). The OI report (No. 3-2002- [[Page 2577]] 006) was issued on August 22, 2003. A copy of the OI report was provided to the U. S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of Ohio for review. The matter remains under continued Federal investigation. Mr. Goyal, through the performance of his engineering duties, through his direct involvement in the licensee's 1996 RPV head inspection and cleaning activities, and through oral and written communications with other FENOC employees was aware of the results of previous RPV head inspections. Mr. Goyal was the engineer responsible for performing the 1996 reactor head inspection during the Tenth Refueling Outage (10RFO). During a sworn, transcribed interview with OI, Mr. Goyal stated that he could not see the top of the RPV head during 10RFO due to the limited access through the mouseholes and the accumulation of boric acid on the RPV head. Mr. Goyal wrote Potential Condition Adverse to Quality Report (PCAQR) 96-0551 documenting that the accumulation of boric acid on the head and the size of the mouseholes limited the extent of the inspection. Mr. Goyal documented in PCAQR 96-0551, in part: ``Since the boric acid deposits are not cleaned it is difficult to distinguish whether the deposits occurred because of the leaking flanges or the leaking CRDM.'' ``This PCAQR is the quality document which recorded the boric acid deposit on the RV head. The deposits were discovered during the visual inspection of the RV head performed through the mouseholes utilizing a video camera. The extent of the inspection was limited to approximately 50 to 60% of the head areas because of the restrictions imposed by the location and sized of mouseholes. The inspection showed varying sizes of boric acid mounds scattered in various areas of head. It is extremely difficult to develop an estimate of the amount of boric acid deposit because of the deposit scatter and limited inspection.'' Mr. Goyal authored a ``White'' paper, distributed to other Davis-Besse staff on May 8, 1996, that discussed control rod drive nozzle cracking within the nuclear power industry. Mr. Goyal documented in the ``White'' paper, in part: ``All plants, except Davis-Besse and Arkansas Nuclear 1, have large access holes in the skirt area of the service structure to view/clean the entire head. Davis-Besse's access is limited to about 50 percent of the head area.'' Several FENOC employees, including Mr. Prasoon Goyal, were responsible for the information provided to the NRC by FENOC in response to the Bulletin. III Prasoon Goyal was employed by FENOC as a senior engineer in the Design Basis Engineering organization at Davis-Besse at the time the responses to the Bulletin were developed and transmitted to the NRC. Mr. Goyal was a design engineer and the individual who reviewed the licensee's 1996 inspection of the CRDM flanges, and conducted the licensee's inspection of the RPV head and CRDM nozzles during 10RFO. Mr. Goyal reviewed the October 17, 2001 supplemental response to the bulletin. On October 17, 2001, Mr. Goyal concurred as ``Design Basis Engrg--Mech'' [Design Basis Engineering--Mechanical] in the issuance of the licensee's October 17, 2001 supplemental response to the Bulletin. Item 1.d of the Bulletin requested each pressurized water reactor (PWR) licensee, including FENOC for Davis-Besse, to provide a description of the RPV head penetration nozzles and RPV head inspection (including type, scope, qualification requirements, and acceptance criteria) that were performed at PWRs in the 4 years preceding the date of the Bulletin, and the findings resulting from the inspections. The licensees were requested to include a description of any limitations (insulation or other impediments) to accessibility of the bare metal of the RPV head for visual examinations. On September 4, 2001, FENOC submitted its written response to the Bulletin for Davis-Besse. On October 17, 2001, FENOC submitted a supplemental response to the Bulletin for Davis-Besse and included information not provided in the September 4, 2001, response with regard to RPV inspections and cleaning conducted during 10RFO. Attachment 1 to the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response to the Bulletin stated under the section entitled, ``Summary,'' in part: ``In May 1996, during a refueling outage, the RPV head was inspected. No leakage was identified, and these results have been recently verified by a re-review of the video tapes obtained from that inspection.'' The October 17, 2001, supplemental response to the Bulletin also stated under the section entitled, ``Previous Inspection Results,'' in part: ``The inspections performed during the 10th, 11th, and 12th Refueling Outage (10RFO, conducted April 8 to June 2, 1996; 11RFO, conducted April 10, to May 23, 1998; and, 12RFO, conducted April 1 to May 28, 2000) consisted of a whole head visual inspection of the RPV head in accordance with the DBNPS Boric Acid Control Program pursuant to Generic Letter 88-05, `Boric Acid Corrosion of Carbon Steel Reactor Pressure Boundary Components in PWR Plants.' The visual inspections were conducted by remote camera and included below insulation inspections of the RPV bare head such that the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) nozzle penetrations were viewed. During 10RFO, 65 of 69 nozzles were viewed, during 11RFO, 50 of 69 nozzles were viewed, and during 12 RFO, 45 of 69 nozzles were viewed.'' Information included under Column 6 of Attachment 2 of the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response stated, in part, that 24 nozzles have a ``flange leak evident.'' Note 1 on the same table stated, in part: ``In 1996 during 10 RFO, the entire RPV head was inspected. Since the video was void of head orientation narration, each specific nozzle view could not be correlated.'' The licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response was materially incomplete and inaccurate in that the licensee did not view the stated number of RPV head penetration nozzles during the referenced outages, and the licensee believed that only five RPV head control rod drive mechanism flanges were leaking instead of the 24 RPV head control rod drive mechanism flanges noted in the response. Mr. Goyal was aware that the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response was materially incomplete and inaccurate and concurred on the response, thereby allowing it to be submitted to the NRC. Based on the above information, the NRC concludes that Mr. Goyal had sufficient knowledge of the condition of the RPV head and the limitations experienced during the RPV head inspections conducted during 10RFO, and notwithstanding that knowledge, he deliberately provided materially incomplete and inaccurate information, when on October 17, 2001, he concurred on the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response to the NRC. The information provided by the licensee under oath in the Bulletin supplemental response was material to the NRC because the NRC used the information, in part, to allow FENOC to operate Davis-Besse until February 2002 rather than requiring the plant to shut down by December 31, 2001, to conduct inspections of the head as discussed in Item 3.v.1. of the Bulletin. Based on the above information, Mr. Prasoon Goyal, while employed by the licensee, engaged in deliberate misconduct by deliberately providing incomplete or inaccurate information that he knew was not complete and accurate in all material respects to the NRC, a violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). [[Page 2578]] Mr. Goyal's actions also placed FENOC in violation of 10 CFR 50.9. The NRC determined that these violations were of very high safety and regulatory significance because they involved a pattern of deliberate documentation of inaccurate or incomplete information that was required to be submitted to the NRC. Had the NRC been aware of this incomplete and inaccurate information, the NRC would likely have taken immediate regulatory action to shut down the plant and require the licensee to implement appropriate corrective actions. IV The NRC must be able to rely on the licensee and its employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide information and maintain records that are complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Goyal's deliberate actions raise serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Goyal is permitted to be involved in NRC- licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Goyal be prohibited from any involvement in NRC- licensed activities for a period of one year effective immediately. Additionally, Mr. Goyal is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-licensed activities for a period of one year following the prohibition period. V Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 50.5, and 10 CFR 150.20, It is hereby ordered that effective immediately: 1. Mr. Prasoon Goyal is prohibited for one year from the date of this Order from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. The NRC considers NRC-licensed activities to be those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. 2. If Mr. Goyal is currently involved with another licensee in NRC- licensed activities, he must immediately cease those activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer. 3. For a period of one year after the one-year period of prohibition has expired, Mr. Goyal shall, within 20 days of acceptance of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in NRC-licensed activities. In the notification, Mr. Goyal shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Goyal of good cause. VI In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Prasoon Goyal must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order within 20 days of the date of this Order, consideration may be given to extending the response time for submitting an answer as well as the time for requesting a hearing, for good cause shown. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Goyal or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4352, and to Mr. Goyal if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Goyal. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415- 1101 or by e-mail to and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301- 415-3725 or by e-mail to . If a person other than the Mr. Goyal requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by Mr. Goyal or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr. Goyal, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be effective immediately and final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. Dated this 4th day of January 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, State, and Compliance Programs, Office of the Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E6-418 Filed 1-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P b ***************************************************************** 16 NRC: David Geisen; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed FR Doc E6-437 [Federal Register: January 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 10)] [Notices] [Page 2571-2576] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17ja06-86] Activities (Effective Immediately) I Mr. David Geisen was previously employed, at times relevant to this Order, as the Manager of Design Engineering at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse) operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC or licensee). The licensee holds License No. NPF-3 which was issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR part 50 on April 22, 1977. The license authorizes the operation of Davis-Besse in accordance with the conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the licensee's site near Oak Harbor, Ohio. II On August 3, 2001, the NRC issued Bulletin 2001-001, ``Circumferential Cracking of Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles,'' (Bulletin). In the Bulletin, the NRC requested that all holders of operating licenses for pressurized water nuclear power reactors (PWR), including FENOC for the Davis-Besse facility, provide information to the NRC relating to the structural integrity of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head penetration nozzles at their respective facilities. The information requested from the licensees included the extent of RPV head penetration nozzle leakage and cracking that had been found to date, a description of the inspections and repairs undertaken to satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, and the basis for concluding that a licensee's plans for future inspections would ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The NRC also required that all Bulletin addressees, including FENOC, submit a written response to the NRC in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(f). That [[Page 2572]] regulation provides, in part, that upon request of the NRC, an NRC- licensee must submit written statements, signed under oath or affirmation, to enable the NRC to determine whether the license should be modified, suspended, or revoked. On September 4, October 17, and October 30, 2001, the licensee provided written responses to the Bulletin. Additionally, the licensee met with the NRC staff on numerous occasions during October and November of 2001 to provide clarifying information. Based, in part, on the information provided by FENOC in its written responses to the Bulletin and during meetings with the NRC staff, the NRC staff allowed the licensee to continue operation of the Davis-Besse facility until February 2002, rather than requiring FENOC to shut the unit down to perform inspections by December 31, 2001, as provided in the Bulletin. On February 16, 2002, FENOC shut down Davis-Besse for refueling and inspection of control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) RPV head penetration nozzles. Using ultrasonic testing, the licensee found cracks in three CRDM RPV head penetration nozzles and on March 6, 2002, the licensee discovered a cavity in the RPV head in the vicinity of CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The cavity measured approximately 5 to 7 inches long, 4 to 5 inches wide, and penetrated through the 6.63 inch-thick low-alloy steel portion of the RPV head, leaving the stainless steel cladding material (measuring 0.202 to 0.314 inches-thick) as the sole reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure boundary. A smaller cavity was also found near CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 2. The licensee conducted a root cause evaluation and determined that, contrary to the earlier information provided to the NRC, the cavities were caused by boric acid from the RCS released through cracks in the CRDM RPV head penetration nozzles. The root cause evaluation found that the licensee conducted limited cleaning and inspections of the RPV head during the Twelfth Refueling Outage (12RFO) that ended on May 18, 2000. However, neither the limited RPV head cleaning nor the resultant inspections during 12RFO were sufficient to ensure that the significant boric acid deposits on the RPV head were only a result of CRDM flange leakage, as supposed, and were not a result of RCS pressure boundary leakage. On March 6 and March 10, 2002, the licensee provided information to the NRC concerning the identification of a large cavity in the RPV head adjacent to CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The NRC conducted an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) inspection at Davis-Besse from March 12 to April 5, 2002, to determine the facts and circumstances related to the significant degradation of the RPV head. The results of the AIT inspection were documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-346/2002-03, issued on May 3, 2002. A follow-up Special Inspection was conducted from May 15 to August 9, 2002, and on October 2, 2002, the NRC issued the AIT Follow-up Special Inspection Report No. 50-346/2002-08 documenting ten apparent violations associated with the RPV head degradation. On April 22, 2002, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) initiated an investigation at Davis-Besse to determine, among other matters, whether FENOC and individual employees at the Davis-Besse facility failed to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC in its September 4, October 17, and October 30, 2001, responses to the Bulletin and during numerous conference calls and meetings in violation of 10 CFR 50.9 and 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). The OI report (No. 3-2002-006) was issued on August 22, 2003. A copy of the OI report was provided to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of Ohio for review. The matter remains under continued Federal investigation. Mr. Geisen, through the performance of his engineering duties, and through oral and written communications with other FENOC employees, was aware of the results of previous RPV head inspections. For example: On April 27, 2000, Mr. Geisen signed and closed out Condition Report (CR) 2000-1037 which included the following problem statement associated with the identification of five leaking control rod drives: ``Identified at locations: F10, D10, C11, F8, and G9 * * * There are no boron deposits on the vertical faces of the flange of G9 drive. The bottom of the flange of G9 drive is inaccessible for inspection due to the boron buildup on the reactor head insulation, not allowing full camera insertion. Since the boron is evident only under the flange and not on the vertical surfaces, there is a high probability that G9 is a leaking CRD.'' On June 27, 2001, Mr. Giesen approved and signed an intra- company memorandum that indicated that ``large boron leakage from a control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) flange was observed during 12RFO inspection'' and ``This leakage did not permit the detailed inspection of CRDM nozzles.'' On August 11, 2001, Mr. Geisen received an E-mail that stated, in part: ``it was pointed out that we cannot clean our head thru the mouse holes and a system engineer is requesting that three large holes be cut in the Service Structure for viewing [inspection] and cleaning.'' Mr. Geisen reviewed a Piedmont Management and Technical Services, Inc., report, dated September 14, 2001, that indicated, in part, that at the completion of 12RFO the RPV head had boric acid deposits of considerable depth left at the center top area of the head. A Senior Staff Nuclear Advisor (former inservice inspector), FENOC, at the request of a system engineer from Davis-Besse plant engineering, reviewed a CD ROM video that the system engineer had made from videos of the reactor vessel head. The purpose of the review was to assist in locating or determining the location of some nozzles. Shortly after completing the review, Mr. Geisen asked the Senior Staff Nuclear Advisor what he thought, from a visual standpoint, of the data he had seen on the video. The Senior Staff Nuclear Advisor replied, in part, that, based on an Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) head examination document being developed, boron on the Davis-Besse head would preclude an examination of that nature [EPRI] from being performed. In March 2002, a consultant from Martin Sigmund Consulting Services, Inc., conducted an assessment of reactor head management issues at Davis-Besse. The consultant provided his assessment to the Davis-Besse Site Vice President via a memorandum dated March 28, 2002. The assessment, in part, consisted of interviews with many of the personnel involved with the reactor head corrosion issues. Mr. Geisen was interviewed for this assessment on March 27, 2002, and stated, in part, that some boric acid was left on the head in 2000 and that the condition report was not very thoroughly evaluated. Mr. Geisen also stated that he became aware that the reactor vessel head had not been cleaned completely when reviewing the videos of the inspections in preparation for interacting with the NRC in August, 2001. On June 18, 2002, the licensee interviewed Mr. Geisen regarding the Davis-Besse responses to Bulletin 2001-001. When asked whether the reactor vessel head was inspected in accordance with plant procedure, Mr. Geisen stated, in part, that we did the inspection but clearly not with [in accordance with] the procedure. Mr. Geisen further stated that Davis-Besse [[Page 2573]] was taking credit for a general inspection which clearly did not meet the requirements in Bulletin 2001-001. The above information demonstrates that Mr. Geisen had sufficient knowledge of the results of previous inspections of the RPV head and that he knew that the licensee's written and oral responses to NRC Bulletin 2001-001 were incomplete and inaccurate. Several FENOC employees, including Mr. David Geisen, were responsible for the information provided to the NRC by FENOC in response to the Bulletin. III David Geisen was employed by FENOC as the Manager of Design Engineering at Davis-Besse at the time the licensee developed and transmitted to the NRC its written responses to the Bulletin and at the time the licensee met with the NRC to provide clarifying information regarding its written responses. On August 28, October 17, and October 30, 2001, respectively, Mr. Geisen concurred in the issuance of the licensee's September 4, October 17, and October 30, 2001, responses to the Bulletin. On the concurrence sheets, Mr. Geisen was listed as the FENOC manager responsible for ensuring the completeness and accuracy of the responses. Mr. Geisen participated in the development and presentation of information to the NRC during information briefings held on October 3, October 11, and November 9, 2001. Item 1.d of the Bulletin requested each pressurized water reactor (PWR) licensee, including FENOC for Davis-Besse, to provide a description of the RPV head penetration nozzles and RPV head inspection (including type, scope, qualification requirements, and acceptance criteria) that were performed at PWRs in the 4 years preceding the date of the Bulletin, and the findings resulting from the inspections. The licensees were requested to include a description of any limitations (insulation or other impediments) to accessibility of the bare metal of the RPV head for visual examinations. On September 4, 2001, FENOC submitted its written response to the Bulletin for Davis-Besse. Item 1.d of the licensee's September 4, 2001, response to the Bulletin stated, in part, that: ``The DBNPS [Davis-Besse] has performed two inspections within the past four years, during the 11th Refueling Outage (RFO) in April 1998 and during the 12th RFO in April 2000. The scope of the visual inspection was to inspect the bare metal RPV head area that was accessible through the weep holes to identify any boric acid leaks/ deposits. The DBNPS also inspected 100% of Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) flanges for leaks in response to Generic Letter 88- 05, `Boric Acid Corrosion of Carbon Steel Reactor pressure Boundary Components in PWR Plants.' The results of these two recent inspections are described below. Inspections of the RPV head are performed with the RPV head insulation installed in accordance with DBNPS procedure NG-EN-0324, `Boric Acid Corrosion Control Program,' which was developed in response to Generic Letter 88-05. As stated previously, a gap exists between the RPV head and the insulation, the minimum gap being at the dome center of the RPV head where it is approximately 2 inches, and does not impede visual inspection. The service structure envelopes the DBNPS RPV head and has 18 openings (weep holes) at the bottom through which inspections are performed. There are 69 CRDM nozzles that penetrate the RPV head. The metal reflective insulation is located above the head and does not interfere with the visual inspection. The visual inspection is performed by the use of a small camera. This camera is inserted through the weep holes.'' Item 1.d of the licensee's September 4, 2001, response, under the section entitled, ``April 2000 Inspection Results (12RFO),'' stated: ``The boric acid deposits were located beneath the leaking flanges with clear evidence of downward flow. No visible evidence of nozzle leakage was detected.'' Item 1.d of the licensee's September 4, 2001, response, under the section entitled, ``Subsequent Review of 1998 and 2000 Inspection Videotapes Results,'' stated: ``Since May 2001, a review of the 1998 and 2000 inspection videotapes of the RPV head has been performed. This review was conducted to re-confirm the indications of boron leakage experienced at the DBNPS were not similar to the indications seen at ONS and ANO-1; i.e., was not indicative of RPV nozzle leakage. This review determined that indications such as those that would result from RPV head penetration leakage were not evident.'' The licensee's September 4, 2001, response was materially incomplete and inaccurate in that the response: (1) Mischaracterized the accumulation of boric acid on the RVP head as a result of the 12RFO RPV head inspection; (2) failed to include information that during the Eleventh Refueling Outage (11RFO) and 12RFO, the licensee's access to the RPV head bare metal was impeded by the presence of significant accumulations of boric acid deposits; (3) failed to indicate that the presence of boric acid deposits was not limited to the area beneath control rod drive mechanism flanges; and (4) failed to indicate that the build-up of boric acid deposits was so significant that the licensee could not inspect all of the RPV head penetration nozzles. Mr. Geisen was aware that the licensee's September 4, 2001, response to the Bulletin was materially incomplete and inaccurate, but nevertheless concurred on the response, thereby allowing it to be submitted to the NRC. The NRC staff determined that the September 4, 2001 response did not include sufficient information to justify the NRC permitting FENOC to operate Davis-Besse beyond December 31, 2001. As a result, FENOC met with the NRC staff, Commissioners' Technical Assistants, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, and Congressional staff members, and developed supplemental responses in an effort to better communicate its justification for continued operations beyond December 31, 2001. On October 3, 2001, Mr. Geisen participated in a conference call with the NRC staff. Mr. Geisen was also involved in preparatory meetings for the October 3rd conference call. The agenda for the conference call stated ``Video Inspection Review from RFO10, RFO11, and RFO12: Further Confirmation of no indication of leakage attributable to CRDM nozzle leakage; clearly CRDM flange leakage.'' During the conference call, Mr. Geisen informed the NRC that 100% of the reactor pressure vessel head had been inspected during the last outage (RFO12) but some areas were precluded from inspection and that videotapes of the 10RFO, 11RFO, and 12RFO reactor pressure vessel head inspections had been reviewed. The information communicated by the Mr. Geisen during the conference call was materially incomplete and inaccurate in that the licensee did not conduct a 100% inspection of the RPV head during 12RFO due to the presence of significant amount of boric acid on the reactor pressure vessel head which obscured a significant number of RPV head nozzles. On October 10, 2001, Mr. Geisen attended a meeting with other FENOC management officials for the purposes of finalizing presentation slides for an October 11, 2001, meeting with the NRC Commissioner's Technical Assistants. Draft Presentation Slide 20 stated: ``Reviewed video inspections of Reactor Vessel head taken during 11RFO (April 1998) and 12RFO (April 2000) and confirmed that Davis-Besse has not experienced boron leakage as seen at Oconee or Arkansas Nuclear.'' Presentation Draft Slide 21 stated: ``Reviewed past 3 outages of Reactor Vessel Head inspection video tapes which were taken to satisfy Generic Letter 97- 01: No telltale ``popcorn'' type boron deposits; During 12RFO (Spring 2000), Davis-Besse identified sources of [[Page 2574]] boron that precluded the visual inspection of some CRDM penetrations, as five leaking flanges above the mirror insulation; Viewed past 3 outages of inspection video tapes of area masked by boron in 12 RFO did not have previous leakage.'' On October 11, 2001, Mr. Geisen and other licensee staff briefed the NRC Commissioners' Technical Assistants as to FENOC's basis for determining that Davis-Besse was safe to operate until the next refueling outage (March 2002). During the briefing, FENOC and Mr. Geisen, as a presenter, discussed the presentation slides that were finalized the previous day. Presentation Slide 6, as presented by FENOC stated, in part: ``Conducted and recorded video inspections of the head during 11RFO (April 1998) and 12RFO (April 2000)--No head penetration leakage was identified.'' Presentation Slide 7, as presented by Mr. Geisen stated, in part: ``All CRDM [control rod drive mechanism] penetrations were verified to be free from ``popcorn'' type boron deposits using video recordings from 11RFO or 12RFO.'' The licensee's October 11, 2001, presentation to the NRC Commissioners' Technical Assistants was materially incomplete and inaccurate in that the presentation slides did not state that the build-up of boric acid on the RPV head was so significant that the licensee could not inspect all of the RPV head penetration nozzles. Due to the significant amount of boric acid present on the RPV head, of which he was aware, Mr. Geisen did not have a basis for stating that no visible evidence of RPV penetration nozzle leakage was detected. On October 17, 2001, the licensee provided a supplemental response to the Bulletin. The second paragraph under the section entitled, ``Previous Inspection Results,'' on Page 2 of Attachment 1 of the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response stated, in part: ``The inspections performed during the 10th, 11th, and 12th Refueling Outage (10RFO, conducted April 8 to June 2, 1996; 11RFO, conducted April 10 to May 23, 1998; and, 12RFO, conducted April 1 to May 18, 2000) consisted of a whole head visual inspection of the RPV head in accordance with the DBNPS Boric Acid Control Program pursuant to Generic Letter 88-05 `Boric Acid Corrosion of Carbon Steel Reactor Pressure Boundary Components in PWR Plants.' The visual inspections were conducted by remote camera and included below insulation inspections of the RPV bare head such that the Control Rod Drive Mechanism (CRDM) nozzle penetrations were viewed. During 10RFO, 65 of 69 nozzles were viewed, during 11RFO, 50 of 69 nozzles were viewed, and during 12RFO, 45 of 69 nozzles were viewed. It should be noted that 19 of the obscured nozzles in 12RFO were also those obscured in 11RFO.'' Information included under Column 6 of Attachment 2 of the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response stated, in part, that 24 nozzles have a ``flange leak evident.'' Note 1 on the same table stated, in part: ``In 1996 during 10 RFO, the entire RPV head was inspected. Since the video was void of head orientation narration, each specific nozzle view could not be correlated.'' The licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response was materially incomplete and inaccurate, in that the licensee did not view the stated number of RPV head penetration nozzles during the referenced outages, and the licensee believed that only five RPV head control rod drive mechanism flanges were leaking instead of the 24 RPV head control rod drive mechanism flanges noted in the response. Mr. Geisen was aware that the licensee's October 17, 2001, supplemental response was materially incomplete and inaccurate but, nevertheless, concurred on the response, thereby allowing it to be submitted to the NRC. On October 30, 2001, the licensee provided a supplemental response to the Bulletin. In an enclosure to the supplemental response, the licensee provided a summary table and photographic images of areas of accumulated boric acid crystal deposits on the RPV head. The photographic images were labeled to indicate the time the images were captured, the specific RPV nozzle locations associated with the images, except for those associated with 10 RFO (1996), and narrative comments. The labels also represented that the images were generally indicative of the condition of the RPV head for 10RFO and 11RFO. The licensee's October 30, 2001, supplemental response was materially incomplete and inaccurate, in that the photographic images of the RPV head nozzles and the accompanying labels were not consistent with the actual RPV head conditions and with the actual RPV head nozzle pictured. Specifically, the RPV head images omitted images of the significant boric acid accumulations present on the RPV head, and many of the RPV head nozzle images were mislabeled to indicate that the images were of different RPV head nozzles than actually presented in the image. In addition, several of the images were mere copies of other images with the labels changed. Mr. Geisen labeled the images based on his understanding of the head inspections and his discussions with a former Davis-Besse system engineer. Mr. Geisen was aware that the information contained in the licensee's October 30, 2001, supplemental response was materially incomplete and inaccurate but, nevertheless, concurred on the response, thereby allowing it to be submitted to the NRC. On November 9, 2001, in a transcribed presentation to the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS), Mr. Geisen stated that the 11RFO (1998) and 12RFO (2000) inspections were focused on inspecting the RPV for indications of the impact of boric acid leakage from leaking flanges. Mr. Geisen stated that the 1998 and 2000 inspections (video tapes) did not give a good view of the control rod drives because the camera angle was looking upwards at the structural material of the service structure on top of the head. Mr. Geisen stated that the video tape of the 10RFO (1996) inspection was a better video because the camera was following around a vacuum and probe that were specifically looking for head wastage as a result of boron deposits on the head. The information provided by the licensee and Mr. Geisen to the ACRS was materially incomplete and inaccurate in that each of the video tapes was helpful in understanding the significant boron accumulations present at the start of each outage, the clear impediments to 100% inspection of the RPV head nozzles, and difficulty the licensee encountered in its attempts to fully clean the RPV head of boron or to complete a comprehensive inspection of the RPV head nozzles. Following the 1996 RPV head inspection, the licensee generated Potential Condition Adverse to Quality Report 96-0551, which stated, in part, on Continuation Sheet Page 9, Part C, Item 1: ``The extent of the inspection was limited to approximately 50 to 60% of the head area because of the restrictions imposed by the location and size of mouseholes. The inspection showed varying sizes of boric acid mounds scattered in various areas of the head. It is extremely difficult to develop an estimate of the amount of boric acid deposit because of the deposit scatter and limited inspection.'' Based on the above information, the NRC concludes that Mr. Geisen had knowledge of the RPV head conditions and the limitations experienced during RPV head inspections, and that, notwithstanding that knowledge, he deliberately provided materially incomplete and inaccurate information when he: (1) Concurred, on August 28, [[Page 2575]] October 17, and October 30, 2001, respectively, in the licensee's September 4, October 17, and October 30, 2001, responses to the Bulletin; and (2) assisted in the preparation and presentation of incomplete or inaccurate information during internal meetings on October 2 and 10, 2001, and during meetings or teleconferences held with the NRC on October 3, 11, and November 9, 2001. The information provided by the licensee under oath in the Bulletin responses based, in part on the concurrence of Mr. Geisen, was material to the NRC because the NRC used the information, in part, to allow FENOC to operate Davis-Besse until February 2002 rather than requiring the plant to shut down by December 31, 2001, to conduct inspections of the head as discussed in Item 3.v.1. of the Bulletin. The information provided to the NRC during teleconferences and meetings was material to the NRC because the information gave the impression to the NRC staff that the Davis-Besse RPV head had been completely inspected and that the licensee had not identified any indications of RPV head penetration nozzle cracks when this was not the case at the time the response was submitted. Based on the above information, Mr. David Geisen, while employed by the licensee, engaged in deliberate misconduct by deliberately providing FENOC and the NRC information that he knew was not complete or accurate in all material respects to the NRC, a violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). Mr. Geisen's actions also placed FENOC in violation of 10 CFR 50.9. The NRC determined that these violations were of very high safety and regulatory significance because they demonstrated a pattern of deliberate inaccurate or incomplete documentation of information that was required to be submitted to the NRC. Had the NRC been aware of this incomplete and inaccurate information, the NRC would likely have taken immediate regulatory action to shut down the plant and require the licensee to implement appropriate corrective actions. The NRC must be able to rely on the licensee and its employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide information that is complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Geisen's action violated 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2) and caused the licensee to violate 10 CFR 50.9, and raise serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Geisen is permitted to be involved in NRC- licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Geisen be prohibited from any involvement in NRC- licensed activities for a period of five years from the effective date of this Order. Additionally, Mr. Geisen is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years following the prohibition period. V Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 50.5, and 10 CFR 150.20, It is hereby ordered that effective immediately: 1. Mr. David Geisen is prohibited for five years from the date of this Order from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. The NRC considers NRC-licensed activities to be those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. 2. If Mr. Geisen is currently involved with another licensee in NRC-licensed activities, he must immediately cease those activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer. 3. For a period of five years after the five-year period of prohibition has expired, Mr. Geisen shall, within 20 days of acceptance of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in NRC-licensed activities. In the notification, Mr. Geisen shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Geisen of good cause. VI In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, David Geisen must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order within 20 days of the date of this Order. However, since this enforcement action is being proposed prior to the U.S. Department of Justice completing its review of the OI investigation results, consideration may be given to extending the response time for submitting an answer as well as the time for requesting a hearing, for good cause shown. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Geisen or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr. Giesen, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4352, and to Mr. Geisen if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Geisen. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415- 1101 or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General [[Page 2576]] Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than Mr. Geisen requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by Mr. Geisen or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), Mr. Goyal, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be effective immediately and shall be final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. Dated this 4th day of January 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, State and Compliance Programs, Office of the Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E6-437 Filed 1-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 17 NRC: Dale Miller; Order Prohibiting Involvement in NRC-Licensed FR Doc E6-438 [Federal Register: January 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 10)] [Notices] [Page 2579-2581] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17ja06-88] [[Page 2579]] Activities (Effective Immediately) I Mr. Dale Miller was previously employed, at times relevant to this Order, as a Compliance Supervisor at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station (Davis-Besse) operated by FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company (FENOC or licensee). The licensee holds License No. NPF-3 which was issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50 on April 22, 1977. The license authorizes the operation of Davis-Besse in accordance with the conditions specified therein. The facility is located on the licensee's site near Oak Harbor, Ohio. II On August 3, 2001, the NRC issued Bulletin 2001-001, ``Circumferential Cracking of Reactor Pressure Vessel Head Penetration Nozzles,'' (Bulletin). In the Bulletin, the NRC requested that all holders of operating licenses for pressurized water nuclear power reactors (PWR), including FENOC for the Davis-Besse facility, provide information to the NRC relating to the structural integrity of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head penetration nozzles at their respective facilities. The information requested from the licensees included the extent of RPV head penetration nozzle leakage and cracking that had been found to date, a description of the inspections and repairs undertaken to satisfy applicable regulatory requirements, and the basis for concluding that a licensee's plans for future inspections would ensure compliance with applicable regulatory requirements. The NRC also required that all the Bulletin addressees, including FENOC, submit a written response to the NRC in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 50.54(f). That regulation provides, in part, that upon request of the NRC, an NRC-licensee must submit written statements, signed under oath or affirmation, to enable the NRC to determine whether the license should be modified, suspended, or revoked. On September 4, October 17, and October 30, 2001, the licensee provided written responses to the Bulletin. Additionally, the licensee met with the NRC staff on numerous occasions during October and November of 2001 to provide clarifying information. Based, in part, on the information provided by FENOC in the written responses to the Bulletin and during meetings with the NRC staff, the NRC staff allowed the licensee to continue operation of the Davis-Besse facility until February 2002, rather than requiring FENOC to shut the unit down to perform inspections by December 31, 2001, as provided in the Bulletin. On February 16, 2002, FENOC shut down Davis-Besse for refueling and inspection of control rod drive mechanism (CRDM) RPV head penetration nozzles. Using ultrasonic testing, the licensee found cracks in three CRDM RPV head penetration nozzles and on March 6, 2002, the licensee discovered a cavity in the RPV head in the vicinity of CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The cavity measured approximately 5 to 7 inches long, 4 to 5 inches wide, and penetrated through the 6.63 inch-thick low-alloy steel portion of the RPV head, leaving the stainless steel cladding material (measuring 0.202 to 0.314 inches-thick) as the sole reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure boundary. A smaller cavity was also found near CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 2. The licensee conducted a root cause evaluation and determined that, contrary to the earlier information provided to the NRC, the cavities were caused by boric acid from the RCS released through cracks in the CRDM RPV head penetration nozzles. The root cause evaluation found that the licensee conducted limited cleaning and inspections of the RPV head during the Twelfth Refueling Outage (12RFO) that ended on May 18, 2000. However, neither the limited RPV head cleaning nor the resultant inspections during 12RFO were sufficient to ensure that the significant boric acid deposits on the RPV head were only a result of CRDM flange leakage, as supposed, and were not a result of RCS pressure boundary leakage. On March 6 and March 10, 2002, the licensee provided information to the NRC concerning the identification of a large cavity in the RPV head adjacent to CRDM Penetration Nozzle No. 3. The NRC conducted an Augmented Inspection Team (AIT) inspection at Davis-Besse from March 12 to April 5, 2002, to determine the facts and circumstances related to the significant degradation of the RPV head. The results of the AIT inspection were documented in NRC Inspection Report No. 50-346/2002-03, issued on May 3, 2002. A follow-up Special Inspection was conducted from May 15 to August 9, 2002, and on October 2, 2002, the NRC issued the AIT Follow-up Special Inspection Report No. 50-346/2002-08 documenting ten apparent violations associated with the RPV head degradation. On April 22, 2002, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) initiated an investigation at Davis-Besse to determine, among other matters, whether FENOC and individual employees at the Davis-Besse facility failed to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC in its September 4, October 17, and October 30, 2001, responses to the Bulletin and during numerous conference calls and meetings in violation of 10 CFR 50.9 and 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). The OI report (No. 3-2002-006) was issued on August 22, 2003. A copy of the OI report was provided to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of the United States Attorney, Northern District of Ohio for review. The matter remains under continued Federal investigation. Mr. Miller, through the performance of his duties as a supervisor in the licensee's regulatory affairs organization, and through oral and written communications with other FENOC employees was aware of the results of previous RPV head inspections. For example: Mr. Miller received several E-mails during August 2001, while FENOC was preparing the September 4, 2001, response to the NRC. These E-mails, in part, made Mr. Miller aware that the boric acid deposits on the RPV head and the RPV head service structure weepholes were an impediment to viewing all RPV head nozzle penetrations. Mr. Miller received a copy of an E-mail, dated August 28, 2001, that questioned whether a discussion in the licensee's draft response to the Bulletin relative to a subsequent review of 1998 and 2000 inspection videotaped results should be reworded. The August 28, 2001, E-mail received by Mr. Miller stated, in part: ``the discussion gives an impression to the reader that we were able to look at all the CRDMs. It is very difficult to look at the CRDMs when there is boric acid around it.'' Mr. Miller also received a copy of an E-mail, dated August 30, 2001, in which the author stated, in part: ``I have not seen any EWR [engineering work request] to cut openings in the service structure in the 13th RFO. If we need these it should be funded and P.O. [Purchase Order] issued to Framatone immediately. We do not say anywhere in our response to the Bulletin that inspection thru the mouse holes creates an impediment for 100% visual inspection examination. (Management need[s] to know this).'' [[Page 2580]] During a sworn, transcribed interview with OI, Mr. Miller stated that if the author of the E-mail was concerned about addressing the impediments [discussed in the E-mails listed above] before the licensee issued its response to the Bulletin the individual should have brought it to the attention of his supervisor and his management chain in the Engineering Department. Mr. Miller also told OI that he looked-up the word ``impediment'' in the dictionary upon being informed of the size of the RPV head service structure weepholes, the two inch gap between the RPV head and the insulation at the top of the RPV head, the RPV head curvature, and the inspection limitations resulting from the presence of boron deposits. Specifically, Mr. Miller stated: ``I even went to the point of looking up the word ``impede'' in the dictionary, you know. It says obstruct or hinder. Obstruct. Does the mouse hole obstruct? No. Does the curvature of the head obstruct? No. Does the two inch gap obstruct? No. Does it hinder? It may hinder it, but again, I think the collective thought was that it could be done.'' Mr. Miller concluded that impediment meant something that obstructed or hindered. Using the dictionary definition, Mr. Miller concluded that none of these issues obstructed an inspection, though these issues may hinder it. Mr. Miller also stated in his interview with OI that at the time the September 4, 2001, response was being issued to the NRC: ``From what I knew, at that time they were able to look at them to a degree, but because there was boron, you know, on the head in some areas, it couldn't be credited as a qualified visual inspection. It's very difficult to look at CRDMs when there is boric acid around it. And in a sense, we were looking--we were--and my understanding at that time was that we were looking, you know, can we inspect to see that there's, you know, popcorn boron, or whatever, and it's very difficult to look at the CRDMs when there's boric acid around it. In other words, to me, it doesn't really say, it doesn't talk about, you know, and I'm speaking now, you know, somewhat what I know now, too. And this is where it's very difficult. You look back at this stuff and you could say, oh, for sure, you know, oh, it was obvious to the casual observer. Well, not to me it wasn't, because, you know, I'm this licensing guy taking input from engineering. It is very difficult to look at CRDMs when there's boric acid around it.'' The above information demonstrates that Mr. Miller had sufficient knowledge of the results of previous inspections of the RPV head and that he knew that the licensee's written response to NRC Bulletin 2001- 001 was incomplete and inaccurate. Several FENOC employees, including Mr. Dale Miller, were responsible for the information provided to the NRC by FENOC in response to the Bulletin. III Dale Miller was employed by FENOC as a Compliance Supervisor in the Regulatory Affairs organization at Davis-Besse at the time the responses to the Bulletin were developed and transmitted to the NRC. Additionally, Mr. Miller was the supervisor of the individual assigned the responsibility to prepare the September 4, 2001, response to the Bulletin. On August 30, 2001, Mr. Miller concurred as the ``Supervisor, DB Compliance'' in the issuance of the licensee's September 4, 2001, response to the Bulletin. Item 1.d of the Bulletin requested each PWR licensee, including FENOC for Davis-Besse, provide a description of the RPV head penetration nozzles and RPV head inspection (including type, scope, qualification requirements, and acceptance criteria) that were performed at PWRs in the 4 years preceding the date of the Bulletin, and the findings resulting from the inspections. The licensee's were requested to include a description of any limitations (insulation or other impediments) to accessibility of the bare metal of the RPV head for visual examinations. On September 4, 2001, FENOC submitted its written response to the Bulletin for Davis-Besse. Item 1.d of the licensee's September 4, 2001, response to the Bulletin stated, in part, ``a gap exits between the RPV head and the insulation, the minimum gap being at the dome center of the RPV head where it is approximately 2 inches, and does not impede visual inspection.'' The licensee included a description of the Eleventh Refueling Outage (11RFO) (April 1998) inspection of RPV head penetration nozzles and RPV head at Davis-Besse in its September 4, 2001, letter to the NRC, and stated, in part, ``The head was cleaned by use of a manual scrubber and vacuum through the weepholes.'' The licensee's September 4, 2001, response also described the results of the inspections conducted during 12RFO (April 2000) and included a statement that: ``Inspection of the RPV head/nozzles area indicated some accumulation of boric acid deposits. The boric acid deposits were located beneath the leaking flanges with clear evidence of downward flow. No visible evidence of nozzle leakage was detected.'' The licensee's September 4, 2001, response was materially incomplete and inaccurate in that the response did not describe impediments to accessing the RPV head bare metal during the 11RFO (1998) and 12RFO (2000). Access to the RPV head bare metal was limited due to significant accumulations of boric acid deposits and the size of the service structure access holes. Based on the above information, the NRC concludes that Mr. Miller had sufficient knowledge of the condition of the RPV head and the limitations experienced during RPV head inspections, and he deliberately provided materially incomplete and inaccurate information when, on August 30, 2001, Mr. Miller concurred on the licensee's September 4, 2001, response to the NRC. The information provided by the licensee under oath in the Bulletin response, based, in part, on the concurrence of Mr. Miller, was material to the NRC because the NRC used the information, in part, to allow FENOC to operate Davis-Besse until February 2002 rather than requiring the plant to shut down by December 31, 2001, to conduct inspections of the head as discussed in Item 3.v.1. of the Bulletin. Based on the above information, Mr. Dale Miller, while employed by the licensee, engaged in deliberate misconduct by deliberately providing FENOC and the NRC information that he knew was not complete or accurate in all material respects to the NRC, a violation of 10 CFR 50.5(a)(2). Mr. Miller's actions also placed FENOC in violation of 10 CFR 50.9. The NRC determined that these violations were of very high safety and regulatory significance because they demonstrated a pattern of deliberate inaccurate or incomplete documentation of information that was required to be submitted to the NRC pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(f). Had the NRC been aware of this incomplete and inaccurate information, the NRC would likely have taken immediate regulatory action to shut down the plant and require the licensee to implement appropriate corrective actions. IV The NRC must be able to rely on the licensee and its employees to comply with NRC requirements, including the requirement to provide information and maintain records that are complete and accurate in all material respects. Mr. Miller's deliberate actions raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements [[Page 2581]] and to provide complete and accurate information to the NRC. Consequently, I lack the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Miller is permitted to be involved in NRC- licensed activities. Therefore, the public health, safety and interest require that Mr. Miller be prohibited from any involvement in NRC- licensed activities for a period of five years effective immediately. Additionally, Mr. Miller is required to notify the NRC of his first employment in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years following the prohibition period. V Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, 10 CFR 50.5, and 10 CFR 150.20, It is hereby ordered that effective immediately: 1. Mr. Dale Miller is prohibited for five years from the date of this Order from engaging in NRC-licensed activities. The NRC considers NRC-licensed activities to be those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20. 2. If Mr. Miller is currently involved with another licensee in NRC-licensed activities, he must immediately cease those activities, and inform the NRC of the name, address and telephone number of the employer, and provide a copy of this Order to the employer. 3. For a period of five years after the five-year period of prohibition has expired, Mr. Miller shall, within 20 days of acceptance of his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or his becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or the entity where he is, or will be, involved in NRC-licensed activities. In the notification, Mr. Miller shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements. The Director, Office of Enforcement, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Miller of good cause. VI In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Dale Miller must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order within 20 days of the date of this Order, consideration may be given to extending the response time for submitting an answer as well as the time for requesting a hearing, for good cause shown. A request for extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically admit or deny each allegation or charge made in this Order and shall set forth the matters of fact and law on which Mr. Miller or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Attn: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address, to the Regional Administrator, NRC Region III, 2443 Warrenville Road, Lisle, IL 60532-4352, and to Mr. Miller if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than Mr. Miller. Because of continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415- 1101 or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General Counsel either by means of facsimile transmission to 301- 415-3725 or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than the Mr. Miller requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309. If a hearing is requested by Mr. Miller or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(I), Mr. Miller, may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section V above shall be effective immediately and final 20 days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section V shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. Dated this 4th day of January 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Martin J. Virgilio, Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Research, State, and Compliance Programs, Office of the Executive Director for Operations. [FR Doc. E6-438 Filed 1-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 18 Moscow Times: Power Cuts as Cold Turns More Bitter Wednesday, January 18, 2006. Issue 3333. Page 1. By Stephen Boykewich and Lyuba Pronina Staff Writers Vladimir Filonov / MT Tatyana hurrying past the Alexeyevskaya metro station on Tuesday with her dog, which she wrapped in a bedspread to protect it from the bitter cold. Moscow electricity suppliers began power cuts to nonessential industries Tuesday in response to unusually low temperatures, but fears of a wider power outage in the city appeared to recede. More than 250 companies in Moscow and the Moscow region were ordered to reduce power as electricity officials sought to avoid a repetition of the large-scale blackout that crippled the city last May. More power reductions were scheduled for Wednesday as temperatures were predicted to fall even further as the week went on. Daytime temperatures reached minus 23 degrees Celsius on Tuesday. The ordered power cuts were "in line with the government's order to avert disruptions in the electricity system," said Tatyana Milyayeva, a spokeswoman for Unified Energy Systems, the national utility giant. Fears of a wider power blackout lessened as the day wore on, as the city's schools, hospitals and other essential services were reported to be working normally through the day. City education officials said Tuesday that schools were operating on their regular schedule, although parents had the right to keep their children home if temperatures fell below minus 25 C, Ekho Moskvy radio reported. Milyayeva said that 206 Moscow companies had received notification on Monday about the power cut orders, as had 47 companies in the Moscow region. UES and Mosenergosbyt, the sales company that handles Moscow electricity contracts, refused to name the companies notified. The 253 companies account for 2 percent the total energy consumption by Moscow and the Moscow region, Milyayeva said. The Moscow Stock Exchange, the city's second-tier market, halted share trading at 2 p.m. to avoid potential computer failures after Mosenergo warned that its power supply might be cut, according to the exchange's web site. Tenants of the NPO Spektr building near the Sportivnaya metro station in southwest Moscow, including American Express, Volga-Dnepr airlines and aviation consultancy Infomost, also faced work disruptions due to power cuts. "It affected our work. We had to rent a generator," said Dmitry Mikhalyov, head of administrative services at AmEx. "Our IT department said that the server would be off as of 5:25 p.m. We all went home," said Volga-Dnepr spokesman Alexei Ivanov. The offices of Independent Media Sanoma Magazines, the publisher of The Moscow Times and Vedomosti newspapers, worked with severely reduced electricity Tuesday afternoon after receiving a letter from Mosnergosbyt asking that consumption be cut by 94 percent from 3 to 9 p.m. on Tuesday and Wednesday. Although the newspapers' computers and telephones continued to operate at the offices, which are owned by and located on the premises of a furniture plant near the Savyolovskaya metro station, reporters worked by flashlight and candlelight until full power was restored at 6 p.m. Igor Tabakov / MT A street cleaner working near manholes emitting steam on Tverskaya Ulitsa. It was unclear how long power supply limitations would continue, though temperatures were expected to keep falling though the week, prompting schools to cancel classes and authorities to prepare for emergencies in several regions. Federal Meteorological Center chief Roman Vilfand predicted nighttime temperatures in Moscow would fall to minus 30 C on Wednesday and to minus 37 C on Friday, Interfax reported. "Neither now nor in 100 years will it be possible to give an exact prognosis," Vilfand said, adding that he did not know of a single case of a meteorologist facing criminal charges for giving an incorrect forecast. UES's Milyayeva said that power could be cut to any institution in line with a 1999 governmental order, though current power limitations would not affect residential buildings, schools, hospitals, government and municipal institutions, and nuclear sites. The electricity provider keeps a list ranking energy consumers according to "social importance," Milyayeva said. "We sort through those lists and will not, for example, limit the electricity supply to IKEA, which has thousands of customers," she said. The rapid growth of Moscow's economy is straining the city's energy infrastructure. Though the city had an oversupply of electricity two years ago, it now consumes an average of 14,000 megawatts per day, close to its production capacity of 16,000 megawatts, Milyayeva said. Monday evening's peak consumption was 14,660 megawatts, and Tuesday morning's consumption reached 14,446 megawatts, according to UES. Consumption often rises in low temperatures as people use electric appliances such as radiators and heaters. UES chief Anatoly Chubais has said the electricity sector needs $50 billion in upgrades and new generation facilities. City Hall has responded to the cold snap with several precautionary measures, including a ban on digging and drilling work to avoid rupturing pipes and a shut-off of electronic advertising billboards. Alla Karpova, a Moscow government spokeswoman, said that the few minor breakdowns in the heating system that had occurred since Monday had not seriously affected residential buildings and were fixed within hours, Interfax reported. Karpova said that during peak consumption times -- from 8 to 11 a.m., and 3 to 9 p.m. -- the electricity supply would be reduced to clothing markets, advertising billboards and other outdoor sites. As of 4 p.m. Tuesday, electricity was cut for 132 advertising billboards, Interfax reported. City authorities planned to switch off illumination at 550 buildings, some metro stations and bridges. First Deputy Interior Minister Alexander Chekalin said Tuesday that police would monitor locations such as train stations and abandoned buildings during the cold spell and bring homeless people to "social institutions," Interfax reported. Twelve Moscow residents had been hospitalized and two had died as a result of the cold as of Tuesday night. Across the regions, at least 49 other people had been hospitalized and eight others had died, Interfax reported. Deaths attributed to cold have reached 107 in the city this winter. First Deputy Minister of Emergency Situations Yury Vorobyov said Tuesday that "there was nothing unexpected or urgent" about the cold spell the city was facing, Interfax reported. In Tver, plans were still under way for a religious procession on Wednesday night celebrating the baptism of Christ -- and ending with a midnight swim in the Volga River. Uspensky Cathedral, where the procession was to begin, would be open all night so swimmers could warm up, drink tea and receive holy water, Interfax reported. © Copyright 2006 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 19 Guardian Unlimited: Russian energy giant targets UK market Terry Macalister Wednesday January 18, 2006 Gazprom, the Russian energy giant, is planning an assault on the UK market with plans to provide 20% of Britain's gas by 2015, possibly through the £10bn takeover of a company such as Scottish Power. The world's biggest gas producer admits the recent spat with Ukraine has damaged its image but insists this is because western politicians have reverted to "cold war" rhetoric. In an interview with the Guardian, Gazprom's deputy chairman, Alexander Medvedev, insisted Britain had nothing to fear from sourcing energy from his company, and from Russia. "We now have a good wholesale business in the UK with big industrial customers and power stations. We are aiming to secure 20% of the market by 2015," he said. Gazprom has so far steered clear of supplying domestic users directly, in the way British Gas does, but it also has ambitions in this area. "To start from scratch in retail would be impossible - but through acquisitions, yes, we do not rule this out," Mr Medvedev said. One way of speeding up this process would be to acquire an existing energy supply business such as that of Scottish Power which has 5 million domestic energy customers in Britain and was in recent takeover talks with E.ON, the German energy services provider. "We are looking at such opportunities now. We are not afraid of such size as Scottish Power but we have no concrete plans at this moment," said Mr Medvedev, who pointed out that such an acquisition would give Gazprom a direct route to UK householders. The purchase of a big oil company in Britain or elsewhere has not been ruled out either. The acquisition of Russian rival Sibneft gave Gazprom a substantial oil presence for the first time and it would like to add to that, he said. Gazprom spends $10bn (£5.6bn) a year on investment "and with our credit rating it is not hard to raise more money. The banks are happy to lend to us", said Mr Medvedev. The ambitious Russian plans will alarm some British politicians and local gas company rivals but come at a time when the UK is seeing a dramatic fall-off in domestic North Sea oil and gas supplies. An energy review is to be launched by the government on Monday to examine whether the UK needs a new generation of nuclear power stations or whether it can find another means of securing supply and lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Atomic power alongside renewables is seen as one way of preventing the country becoming overly dependent on foreign gas imports which some experts say will provide 90% of our gas by 2020. The decision by Russia to cut off supplies to Ukraine on January 1 was seen by some in London and Washington as a wake-up call. They believed the spat was a symbol of how Vladimir Putin could use Gazprom as a vehicle for geopolitical ambition. This shook confidence in Russia as a gas provider and led to the former UK energy minister Brian Wilson telling the Guardian that it pointed up the dangers of Britain becoming dependent on Moscow gas. Mr Medvedev said of the Ukraine row: "We as Gazprom acted in this as a commercial organisation. If Russia wanted to use gas as a political weapon then surely it would have used it after the [Orange] revolution period. We started negotiating with Ukraine about 2006 gas deliveries in March 2005 and used European rules as initiated by Ukraine. In the absence of such agreement on January 1 we had to stop deliveries. But there was only one day when Ukraine took gas [bound for western Europe] from the export pipeline." The problem was exacerbated by politicians in the west "taking all the terminology from the cold war times", Mr Medvedev said. He said they should have been looking at the details of the deal: the fact that Ukraine was paying $50 per thousand cubic metres when continental Europe was paying $250. Gazprom, which controls a quarter of the world's gas reserves, had successfully delivered gas to Europe for 30 years without interruption throughout a series of domestic and other political and economic crises, he added. [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 20 BBC: Nuclear rivals in Kashmir talks Last Updated: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 [Indian troops patrol near the Line of Control] India has rejected a demand to pull out troops from Kashmir Foreign ministry officials from India and Pakistan have held the first of two days of talks in Delhi aimed at settling long-standing differences. India said progress had been made on nuclear confidence-building measures and transport links. The key dispute over Kashmir is expected to be discussed on Wednesday. Peace moves between the nuclear-armed rivals began two years ago and have slowed down in recent months. Little progress has been made on Kashmir. Indian Foreign Ministry spokesman Navtej Sarna said Delhi had suggested extending a rail link connecting India and Pakistan. The BBC's Renu Agal says the extension of the rail link is seen as symbolising the attitude with which both sides are approaching the talks process. Agenda The rail link was stopped in 1965 after the two countries went to war. [Shyam Saran (left) with Riaz Mohammed Khan] Both sides will assess the progress made so far But its first journey in four decades is expected to take place on 1 February 2006. India also proposed an end to building defence posts on the Line of Control (LoC) which divides Kashmir. Pakistan's foreign secretary Riaz Mohammed Khan offered new nuclear confidence-building measures, foreign ministry spokeswoman Tasnim Aslam said. Wednesday's talks will review the progress of improving ties, particularly across the LoC. Other issues on the agenda include: + opening a second intra-Kashmir bus service + allowing trucks and pilgrims to cross the LoC + problems related to opening consulates in Karachi and Lahore Kashmir deadlock Despite steadily improving ties, India and Pakistan have failed to make any headway on resolving the Kashmir dispute. Earlier this month, Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf called for a pull-out of Indian army troops from three cities in Indian-administered Kashmir. While the proposal received some support in Kashmir, it was rejected by India which says it needs the troops to fight armed militants. There has also been a sharp exchange between both countries over unrest in the Pakistani province of Balochistan. India said it was worried about "spiralling violence" in gas-rich Balochistan, where Pakistani forces are battling armed tribal militants. The comments brought a strong response from Pakistan which asked Delhi to back off while simultaneously accusing India of supporting the militants. India has denied the charge. ***************************************************************** 21 Herald: UKAEA forges alliance to target international nuclear clean-ups Web Issue 2444 January 17 2006 GRAEME SMITH The United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority has formed an alliance with Amec and American company CH2M Hill to target the nuclear clean-up market. The alliance, which will also compete for international contracts, has been formed in anticipation of the opening of the UK civil nuclear decommissioning market to competition. That market alone will be worth an estimated £2bn a year, but the new alliance also hopes to capitalise on opportunities such as the multi-billion pound market in Eastern Europe. Initially it will target sites among the UK's 20 civil nuclear sites, including Dounreay, of which are half expected to be bid by the end of 2008. It says the move will enable UKAEA, a public sector company which has historically led a significant share of the UK's nuclear clean-up work, to compete on a stronger basis in an evolving market. "UKAEA has led the way in decommissioning in this country, including the complete dismantling of 15 of our 26 research reactors, and accelerated programmes for our sites resulting in very substantial savings on lifetime costs," said Dipesh Shah, chief executive officer of UKAEA, said. "The UK decommissioning market is now opening up to competition, and it is our aim to maintain our leading role. That is why we sought partners who can complement our skills. UKAEA's private sector partners were chosen from more than 70 applicants to create a strong, exclusive and international team." Amec and CH2M Hill have already seconded expert staff to join the teams working on UKAEA sites. In October 2004, UKAEA announced accelerated plans for cleaning up its sites, and the seconded staff will help to deliver these programmes and identify further opportunities for acceleration. Ralph Peterson, president and chief executive of CH2M HILL, said: "We bring to the alliance a track record of saving the US department of energy billions of dollars in safely decommissioning major US nuclear sites." Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights ***************************************************************** 22 Xinhua: China to set up museum of A, H bombs, artificial satellites www.xinhuanet.com www.chinaview.cn 2006-01-17 15:02:08 BEIJING, Jan. 17 -- China is to set to complete its first scientific and technological museum, featuring the atomic and hydrogen bombs and artificial satellites, in Mianyang city, Sichuan province. The government has invested 250 million yuan, or about 30 million US dollars, in the construction of the museum. The museum will comprise four different exhibition spaces, highlighting nuclear and computer technology amongst other subjects. Mianyang city, located in southwest China, is renowned in the fields of science and technology. (Source: CRIENGLISH.com) Copyright ©2003 Xinhua News Agency. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 23 edie news centre: Majority prefer renewables and efficiency over nuclear future (17 January 2006) An overwhelming majority of people favour the promotion of renewable energy sources and energy efficiency measures as the best ways to tackle climate change rather than restarting a nuclear power programme, a new poll has found. A majority of the British public still reject nuclear power as the preferred option for tackling climate change The survey, published this week and carried out by a joint team from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research and Ipsos MORI, found that 78% of respondents favoured renewables as the energy choice of the future, while 76% thought energy efficiency and lifestyle changes would be a better way of tackling emissions. However, it also found that roughly half (54%) of respondents would be willing to accept the building of new nuclear power stations if it would definitely help to tackle climate change - a view that has been doubted by a leading scientist. The results come as the Government is conducting its review of energy policies - widely believed to favour the nuclear option (see related story) - and is due to report later this year. Professor Nick Pidgeon, who led the research team, said that the Government recognised the need to take public acceptability into account over future energy options. "However, almost nothing is known about how ordinary people are responding to the new debate about nuclear power and climate change," he said. "This new research helps us to understand public views on this critical question." The results found high levels of concern about climate change among the British public and its findings seem to contradict a variety of polls over the past few years which tend to suggest a lessening of opposition to nuclear power. This new survey shows opposition to nuclear is still high. It also shows the lack of faith that many people have in democracy these days, as 62% said that it doesn't matter what the public think of nuclear power as nuclear power stations will be built anyway. "The survey findings suggest that, given the numbers of people who are opposed to the renewal of nuclear power, there remains considerable potential for conflict around this issue. Additionally, many of those who do accept new nuclear power for Britain do so only reluctantly, and only if renewables and other strategies are developed and used alongside," Professor Pidgeon added. "Ordinary people have a more sophisticated understanding of energy futures than many decision makers like to believe. This wider context is something which the Government should take very seriously during its own review." Meanwhile, one of Professor Pidgeon's colleagues at the Tyndall Centre, Dr Kevin Anderson a senior research fellow, has said that claims that nuclear power can solve the problems of climate change are "simplistic" and that we can deal with climate change without nuclear power. Speaking to The Guardian, Dr Anderson said that the UK could very easily compensate for the loss of energy from closing nuclear stations with simple measures in energy efficiency. "If you've got money to spend on tackling climate change then you don't spend it on supply. You spend it on reducing demand," he said. By David Hopkins © Faversham House Group Ltd 2006. edie ***************************************************************** 24 Guardian Unlimited: The awakening giant Comment India is set to become one of the dominant global powers of the 21st century, and Britain would do well to pay it more attention, says Ed Vaizey Tuesday January 17, 2006 Tony Blair and the Indian prime minister, Manmohan Singh: Photograph: Saurabh Das/AP I have recently returned from my first parliamentary trip - to India. I flew out on new year's day with 11 other Conservative MPs, and returned just before parliament resumed. Trips like this rarely get publicity - and then only for the wrong reasons. The media likes to refer to them as junkets. They focus on the cost, the freebies, the exotic location. They certainly refuse to believe that anything like hard work can take place outside the jurisdiction. Just to clear that bit up, I flew world traveller plus, my wife came with me (I paid for her tickets), and the MPs had back-to-back meetings every day. Why did I want to spend the first week of the new year in India? Simple. Nothing could be clearer than that this is the Asian century, and India will become one of the dominant global powers. You only have to spend a week in the country to realise that it is brimming with self-confidence, something noticed in particular by my colleagues who had last visited a couple of years before. The statistics are mind-boggling. India is the world's largest democracy. It is the second-largest country by population. And the world's second largest Muslim country. It's a nuclear power, and has the largest film industry in the world. By 2030 many even those statistics will be redundant - it will be the biggest country in the world, and its economy will rank alongside America's and China's. Yet consider how much attention we pay to a country whose history and culture are so interwoven with our own. I doubt more than one in 10,000 people could tell you who the prime minister of India is. Or the president. You could probably name more members of the Big Brother house than prominent contemporary Indian figures. That is no criticism of India, but a criticism of our myopic euro-centric outlook. This is a massively squandered opportunity. India is now exporting more to us than we are exporting to India. While the Indian economy remains somewhat dirigiste, there are significant investment opportunities for the UK. Yet we spend most of our time focused on the EU, and most of our trade negotiations with India are via the EU. As some Indian officials made clear, we have lost our cultural and historic advantage by only approaching India through the EU. In years to come, call centres will not be the main industry for which India is well known in the UK. I suspect we will rely more and more on them for healthcare, and many Britons will start to consider retiring in India. These are the sorts of developments we should be looking at now. Just as important will be India's role on the diplomatic front. India could and should be playing a pivotal role in the west's negotiations with Iran. The two countries have ties that span the millennia. India is a nuclear power, and should have a permanent place on the UN security council. A posting to India should be one of the most coveted in the diplomatic pantheon, on a par with Washington, and far more important than Paris or Berlin. We also have the opportunity to embrace India within our culture and history. It is ironic that the so-called hick president of the United States has called on his countrymen to learn Hindi. If a British politician said the same, he would be seen as caving in to the multicultural lobby, instead of being praised for having a far-sighted vision about where our markets will be in 10 years' time. Similarly, if he were to urge a proper place for Anglo-Indian history in the national curriculum. I was astonished that in Gordon Brown's speech on Britishness, he barely mentioned India, and then only in the context of global competition. He could have used that speech to celebrate the legacy of empire. That has left us with a huge fund of goodwill and a shared communal culture across the globe, not least with India. If you visit that country, you will find no embarrassment at all about Britain's role in India, simply a celebration of the legacy it has given both countries, and the enormous potential that is still to come. If anything, you will find the Indians perplexed that the British do not exploit the connection to a far greater extent than they do. For too many Britons, India remains a country far, far away about which we know little. We had better learn fast. The special relationship with America helped us immeasurably in the 20th century. Our special relationship with India needs to be worked on to help us in the 21st century. Useful link Wantage Conservatives Ask Aristotle Ed Vaizey [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 25 ALLIANCE EFFORTS RESULT IN FIRST EVER UNANIMOUS VOTE ON Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:25:24 -0800 4d5399.jpg Click to open in your Browser ALLIANCE EFFORTS RESULT IN FIRST EVER UNANIMOUS VOTE ON NUCLEAR POWER RISKS Editor's Note: There is a lot of new information in this newsletter. 2006 is starting out as a good year for our cause. Please check out the action item we would like you to participate in http://a4nr.org/actionalerts/document.2006-01-17.2106638812 A Message from Rochelle ALLIANCE EFFORTS RESULT IN FIRST EVER UNANIMOUS VOTE ON NUCLEAR POWER RISKS On Jan 10, 2005 the San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors voted to support an Energy Commission recommendation to begin a cost/benefit/risk analysis of California’s continued reliance on aging nuclear power plants post current licenses. The vote was significant as in history of this controversial nuclear facility a unanimous vote has never occurred. The Alliance is seeking assistance in other counties to support the Energy Commission’s recommendation... BREAKING NEWS West Wing to Wrestle a radioactive release at a fictional nuclear plant at 8:00 on Jan 22, 2006. For more info ...message continued The Supervisors' action was followed by a 12 hour Planning Commission meeting focusing on a permit to store radioactive steam generators at Diablo. The Commission was deadlocked for hours finally voting 3 to 1 abstention to deny PG&E’s permit. The denial will be appealed by PG&E and heard by the County’s supervisors in the next few weeks. The Alliance will continue to concentrate on statewide support for the recommended risk analysis and will file with the California Public Utilities Commission to participate in PG&E’s funding request for $19 million to “study the feasibility of a license renewal.†In San Diego, the Alliance efforts are concentrating on educating the public, gathering support for the Energy Commission, advising real estate professionals on the added risks to property owners from the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station. We know that you are concerned about the increasing stockpiles of high-level radioactive waste on California’s vulnerable coast and implore you to support Alliance efforts. There are too avenues of support. Donations can be made to support vital legislation (not tax-deductible, but so important) or tax-deductible donations to educate California residents and participate in CPUC proceedings. The other avenue is attending meetings, sending letters, email and making calls to the state’s representatives, and sharing this information with others. Now is the first time in California’s history to create legislation to limit the amount of radioactive waste being stored on the state’s earthquake active coast. Please act now. ALLIANCE FOR NUCLEAR RESPONSIBILITY 2006 RESOLUTION Please join the Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility in resolving to dedicate a few hours a week to ensuring that the production of high-level radioactive waste on our coast is limited to current operating licenses. Thanks to all Alliance supporters we had a great and productive first year. The state has moved from the “head-in-the-sand†nuclear policy it has followed for the previous 20 years. Until 2005, California ignored the daily production of high-level radioactive waste being stored on our fragile coastline, but not any longer. Due to Alliance efforts, state legislators and oversight agencies are discussing whether or not it is in the best economic interest of California to rely on aging nuclear plants when licenses expire (mid-2020’s). The California Energy Commission has reinforced its position that new nuclear plants should not be constructed until there is a permanent safe offsite solution to storage and recommended a study of costs/benefits/risks of continued reliance on this dangerous energy source. The nuclear door is now open for discussion and all of us are needed to join together, educate our neighbors, lobby our elected officials and create legal policy that will limit the amount of radioactive waste California will allow to be stored in our state. Economics and reliability of energy sources are not preempted by the federal government, in fact five California reactors are no longer operating based on these issues. What we need to do: Letter writing Phone calls to elected representatives Emails Fundraising Letters to editors Resolutions presented to cities, counties and oversight agencies Questioning of all political candidates “How much radioactive waste should be stored in California’s earthquake active coastal zones and for how long?†Rochelle Becker, Executive Director Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility www.a4nr.org (858) 337 2703 4d53ad.jpg Upcoming Events Important events for the Alliance * West Wing to air program on nuclear emergency in CA * NBC Summary for "West Wing" Episode 12 THE WEST WING -- (8:00PM-9:00PM) -- (TV-PG) Duck And Cover" BARTLET FACES HIS GREATEST CHALLENGE IN OFFICE - A NUCLEAR EMERGENCY IN CALIFORNIA - Bartlet (Martin Sheen) must face the possibility of an exploding nuclear reactor in California. In the midst of this emergency exists the presidential campaign and the candidates find themselves struggling to find a good strategy to deal with the situation. Meanwhile, Kate (Mary McCormack) keeps an eye on the impending battle between Russia and China over Kazakhstan. Also starring Alan Alda, Jimmy Smits, Teri Polo, Ron Silver, Brad Whitford, Janel Moloney, Allison Janney and Josh Malina." * Read more * Grover Beach to discuss Diablo Canyon * Meeting on Diablo safety Grover Beach is planning a communitywide Neighborhood Watch meeting on operations, safety and security at Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant. John Miller, who is in charge of radiation protection at the plant, and Ellie Ripley, a tour guide there, will speak at the meeting. The meeting will start at 6:30 p.m. Jan. 18 at the Ramona Garden Park Center at Ramona Avenue and North 10th Street. For more information, call Sgt. Angelo Limon at the Grover Beach Police Department at 473-4511 or Neighborhood Watch volunteer Betty Ashton at 489-3932. * Read more Breaking News Here's the latest news * Energy officials halt some work at Yucca Mountain * The Department of Energy has suspended work on key segments of Yucca Mountain after whistle-blowers reported more problems with nuclear waste repository design and engineering, officials confirmed. * Read more * NRC not taking threat seriously * David Weisman responds to Victor Dricks December 28 Viewpoint in the SLO Tribune * Read more * Old Nuclear Parts Heading Down the River * Two major components of a nuclear reactor making their way down the Apalachicola River are also making a few people nervous. * Read more * Nuclear power 'cannot tackle climate change' * · Energy efficiency far more important, expert says · Standard of debate in UK condemned as abysmal * Read more * Feds Scrutinize Nuclear Plant over Alert Failure * Federal regulators say they'll keep closer tabs on the Oyster Creek nuclear plant in Ocean County. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission says the plant never declared an unusual event alert in August when sea grass built up, leading to a lower flow of water used to cool the plant. * Read more * NRC seeks to allay fear of transport * Testing shows casks of spent nuclear fuel surviving tunnel fire * Read more * Duel over Diablo ends with denial * Deadlock by planners is meant to send the $700 million steam generator replacement plan directly to the Board of Supervisors to decide * Read more * Calif energy regulators approve $3 billion in solar incentives * Hoping to make California a world leader in solar power, state energy regulators on Thursday approved $2.9 billion in rebates over the next decade to encourage people to install solar panels on their roofs. * Read more Recent Articles Recent articles of interest posted on the ANR website * Securities Exchange launch the benchmark ISE-CCM Alternative Energy Index * Cronus Capital Markets (CCM) and the International Securities Exchange have jointly developed the benchmark equity index to represent the alternative energy industry. Options on the ISE-CCM Alternative Energy Index started trading Tuesday January 10th under the symbol POW on the ISE with Timber * Read more * URGENT ACTION -- PROTECT REACTORS FROM TERRORIST ATTACK! * Comments due January 12. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has initiated an important rulemaking on reactor security, for which your comments are critical. * Read more * NUCLEAR POWER HAD A BAD YEAR IN 2005 * Nuclear power did not have a good year in 2005, despite President Bush's and Congress's best efforts to revive the moribund industry with massive new federal subsidies. * Read more * DONATE TO PROTECT THE FUTURE * Read more What you can do to help: * How To Become a Supporter * Quick, easy, effective, impressive. A contribution to the alliance will be a lasting and visible benefit to all. And it's simple to do. * Read more * 10 Things You Can Do To Help * Read more * How To Help * To help the Alliance, come to a4nr.org and make a donation, join our mailing lists, or become a Supporter. * Read more ---------- You subscribed to this newsletter or were added from a list of our friends. You may change your preferences at... http://a4nr.org/newsletters/a4nrMonthly/subscribers/subscriber.2005-02-21.0014529373/portal_form/Subscriber_editForm You may subscribe to our other newsletters in the panel on the left side of most of our pages at a4nr.org Attachment Converted: 4d5399.jpg: 00000001,1be75e95,00000000,00000000 Attachment Converted: 4d53ad.jpg: 00000001,1be75e96,00000000,00000000 ***************************************************************** 26 Chernobyl+20: Lessons from the Continuing Catastrophe Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 23:24:35 -0500 http://www.nirs.org Nuclear Information and Resource Service * Public Citizen Alliance for Nuclear Responsibility * Nuclear Energy Information Service Ukrainian-American Environmental Association PRESS ADVISORY For Immediate Release Contact: Michael Mariotte, NIRS, 202.328.0002 January 17, 2006 Michelle Boyd, Public Citizen, 202.454.5134 Rochelle Becker, ANA, 858.337.2703 Chernobyl + 20 Lessons from the Continuing Catastrophe Remembrance for the Future WHAT: April 26, 2006 will mark the 20th anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in Ukraine. Even as the true dimensions of the worst industrial accident in history become clearer, the nuclear power industry-backed by the Bush administration-is seeking to begin the first new reactor construction in the U.S. in more than 30 years. The industry claims that new atomic reactors can be used to combat global climate change, but environmentalists agree that relapsing into a nuclear program would prevent meaningful solutions to the climate crisis. Clearly, the nuclear power issue is as controversial as ever. The Chernobyl anniversary provides an appropriate time and backdrop to consider this issue. BACKGROUND: According to "official" studies from the Chernobyl Forum (International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), World Health Organization (WHO) and United Nations Development Program), the Chernobyl accident rivals Hurricane Katrina in its effects: 4,000 projected deaths, hundreds of billions of dollars in damage, millions of acres contaminated. Millions of people still live on contaminated land and hundreds of thousands were permanently evacuated from their homes. Sheep as far away as Scotland remain quarantined or have been slaughtered. In the U.S., fallout from Chernobyl caused interdiction of milk supplies on the west coast; more recently a report from Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute found Cesium-137 from Chernobyl fallout in soil in Rhode Island. Yet numerous credible independent scientists have found far greater effects than the "official" studies, perhaps because the IAEA continues to promote nuclear power development. New information about the continuing consequences of Chernobyl will continue to come out over the next 4 months. At a time when the nuclear industry stands poised to benefit from billions of dollars in taxpayer money to build new reactors-although a new study from Standard & Poor's suggests that is even not enough-it makes sense to evaluate the industry through the prism of the reality of a real nuclear accident. Today, 20 years following Chernobyl, 27 years after Three Mile Island, and more than 50 years after the launch of the Atoms for Peace program, nuclear power continues to be a failed technology. There remains no solution of the problem of mounting piles of lethal radioactive waste, nuclear power is still the most expensive way to produce electricity, and the continued operation of atomic reactors poses unacceptable safety, public health and weapons proliferation risks. Energy efficiency and renewable energy technologies offer cleaner, faster, safer, cheaper and more publicly acceptable solutions to the growing climate crisis, energy imports and rising energy costs. EVENTS: A major international conference is being held in Kiev, Ukraine April 23-25, 2006 in association with the anniversary. This conference, being sponsored by Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS); World Information Service on Energy (WISE); Heinrich Boell Foundation; Greens in the European Parliament; International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, and Ecoclub (Ukraine), will bring together the world's experts on Chernobyl, nuclear power generally, and sustainable development to chart a new path toward a sustainable energy future. A website, www.ch20.org, has been set up to provide more information about this conference. In the U.S., numerous grassroots environmental groups and Ukrainian immigrant organizations will be holding Chernobyl+20 commemorations and activities at locations across the country. Activities will be posted and updated at www.nirs.org/c20/c20us.htm, along with relevant background material. EXPERTS: Qualified experts are available to speak to the media about nuclear power, sustainable energy, Chernobyl, climate change, the relationship of IAEA/WHO to the nuclear power industry, energy democracy and other aspects of this issue that may come up in your coverage of the anniversary. A list of experts is attached, more are available for particular issues. NOTE TO ACTIVISTS: Please send NIRS information on your plans for Chernobyl+20 so we can post on the NIRS website (send to nirsnet@nirs.org). And let us know if you need any help making plans or obtaining information, materials, speakers, etc. We encourage you to send this press advisory to your local media. EXPERTS ON NUCLEAR POWER AND ENERGY ISSUES General nuclear issues, Chernobyl+20 conference, international Michael Mariotte, NIRS, 202.328.0002; nirsnet@nirs.org General nuclear issues Scott Denman, consultant, (Cell) 301.509.7480 (Land) 540.955.2358 sdenman@earthlink.net Chernobyl consequences Dr. Rosalie Bertell, 215.968.4236, rosaliebertell@greynun.org Dr. Judith Johnsrud, 814.237.3900, johnsrud@uplink.net Federal legislation, appropriations Michele Boyd, Public Citizen, 202.454.5134, mboyd@citizen.org Nuclear reactor hazards and technical information Paul Gunter, NIRS, 202.328.0002; pgunter@nirs.org David Lochbaum, Union of Concerned Scientists, 202.223.6133, dlochbaum@ucsusa.org Jim Riccio, Greenpeace, 202.319.2487, jim.riccio@wdc.greenpeace.org Radioactive waste issues Diane D'Arrigo, NIRS, 202.328.0002, dianed@nirs.org (low-level, deregulation) Kevin Kamps, NIRS, 202.328.0002; kevin@nirs.org (high-level, Yucca Mountain, PFS) Mary Olson, NIRS, 828.675.1792, nirs@main.nc.us (reprocessing, also general nuclear issues in southeast US) Sustainable Energy Issues Ken Bossong, Ukrainian-American Environmental Association, 301.588.4741, kbossong@hotmail.com Bill Prindle,(energy efficiency) American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, 202.429.8873; bprindle@aceee.org Carol Werner, (climate change, efficiency, renewables), Environmental & Energy Study Institute, 202.662.1881; cwerner@eesi.org Karl Gawell, (renewables) Geothermal Energy Association; 202.454.5264; karl@geo-energy.org Scott Sklar, President (distributed energy vs. vulnerability of nuclear plants and repositories) The Stella Group, Ltd., 202.347.2214; 703.522.1195; 703.522.3049 solarsklar@aol.com Referral to other experts and scientists, both in U.S. and internationally, as well as local grassroots organizations throughout the world, is also available from NIRS, 202.328.0002. ***************************************************************** 27 TMI punishes 'inattentive' plant workers (History of problems Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:15:21 -0800 Enclosed please find a chronology of Fitness for Duty Problems at Three Mile Island - 1978-2006. Highlighted in black are all problems relating to workers who were sleeping or "reclining" on the job. Sincerely, Eric Epstein Chairman, TMI_Alert 4100 Hillsdale Road Harrisburg, PA 17112 (717)-541-1101 Phone (717)-541-5487 Fax ericepstein@comcast.net TMI punishes 'inattentive' plant workers Monday, January 16, 2006 BY GARRY LENTON Of The Patriot-News A top manager and a security guard at Three Mile Island were reported "inattentive" while on duty in two separate incidents last month, company officials acknowledged. "Inattentive," often a euphemism for sleeping, means the employee was not focused on the job. At 3:45 a.m. on Dec. 11, a shift manager with responsibility for all operations of the plant was seen by a control room operator sitting at his desk with his head tilted back. The manager's office is visible from the control room of TMI's Unit 1 reactor through a large glass window. Advertisement "The control operator called the shift manager on the phone, and the shift manager immediately answered and displayed normal, coherent behavior," said Ralph DeSantis, a spokesman for plant operator AmerGen Energy. However, the manager was removed from the shift and disqualified from working in a managerial post pending the outcome of an internal investigation, DeSantis said. The employee is being permitted to work in a nonsupervisory role, he said. Eight days later, at 3:50 a.m. on Dec. 19, a Wackenhut security guard stationed at the plant's north gate was slow to acknowledge an employee arriving for work. "The officer did not do anything to acknowledge that the car was there," DeSantis said. "Normally ... even if the officer is on the phone, they will turn and acknowledge you. In this case, that didn't happen immediately." Though the delay lasted only six seconds, it was considered unusual, he said. Sanctions were leveled against the guard, but DeSantis would not specify what they were. Possible disciplinary actions include a letter of reprimand, time off without pay or dismissal, he said. More From The Patriot-News | Subscribe To The Patriot-News Security at the plant was increased after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Since then, guards have stopped vehicles at the entrance and cataloged visitors. Additional protections, including sweeps for explosives, are conducted by guards a few hundred yards beyond the north gate. AmerGen reported the incidents to federal regulators and the state Bureau of Radiation Protection, DeSantis said. "Our resident inspectors and specialists have been inspecting, and the staff also have had discussions with the company about this," said Diane Screnci, a spokeswoman for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which oversees commercial nuclear plants. "We are ensuring that the company understands what happened and why it happened." Advertisement She said the NRC is not investigating because the indicents were not reportable under licensing requirements. Sleeping on the job is a touchy issue for the nuclear industry, which is under increasing pressure to produce energy at competitive rates and protect plants from terrorist attacks. In 1987, the NRC shut the Peach Bottom nuclear station in southern York County because napping in the control room was common and accepted by senior management at Philadelphia Electric Co., then owner of the plant. Last year, the NRC reprimanded a shift supervisor at the Pilgrim Nuclear Plant in Massachusetts for failing to write a report about finding a control room operator sleeping. The sleeping employee was fired. Sleeping on the job raises concerns about the environment at the plant and the company's dedication to vigilance, especially among security forces, said David Lochbaum, a nuclear safety expert with the Union of Concerned Scientists, a watchdog group in Washington, D.C. "It suggests a cavalier attitude toward safety," he said. However, he said, the events at TMI did not sound as dire as events at Peach Bottom or Pilgrim. "These are human beings, so it's conceivable that you could fall asleep," Lochbaum said. "It's how you respond to it once it's discovered that really determines whether you have a problem or not." A dozing security guard would be the greater concern, he said, because a few seconds are all that is needed to give an attacker an advantage. AmerGen has hired an outside investigator to review the event involving the shift manager, DeSantis said. Advertisement AmerGen has a stringent fitness-for-duty policy that trains employees to look for signs of fatigue in themselves and co-workers and report them, he said. Eric Epstein, chairman of the watchdog group Three Mile Island Alert, criticized the NRC for not conducting an investigation. He also called on AmerGen to delay plans to remove the North Gate guard station until an investigation is completed. Exelon Nuclear, AmerGen's owner, announced last month that the North Gate station would be removed. It is expected to close this week. "The fundamental question is whether this is widespread and systemic throughout TMI. Are these isolated incidents or part of a growing trend attributable to understaffing?" Epstein said. The incidents are the first since AmerGen bought the plant in 1999. In 1991, a worker overseeing the evaporation of radioactive water from the damaged Unit 2 reactor was fired for sleeping. In 1987, a shift supervisor at the damaged reactor slept while on duty during defueling operations, an NRC investigation found. GARRY LENTON: 255-8264 or glenton@patriot-news.com Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 ***************************************************************** 28 TMI Guard Removal Makes Nuclear Plant Vulnerable Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:25:37 -0800 Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. January18, 2006 PRESS RELEASE Contact: (717)-541-1101 Eric Epstein ericepstein@comcast.net Guard Removal Makes Nuclear Plant Vulnerable Company Asked to Reconsider Deployment (Harrisburg, Pa.) ­ Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. a safe-organization based in Harrisburg and founded in 1977 asked AmerGen, a subsidiary of Chicgao-based Exelon, to reconsider abandoning its guard posts at the entrances to Three Mile Island. Mr. Epstein also renewed TMIA¹s request for an independent external investigation into sleeping allegations, forced overtime and understaffing at Three Island. (See enclosed PDF) ³I hope the Company will reconsider it¹s decision and commit to an increased security force with hardened structures at both entrances, to Eric Epstein, Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert stated. Mr. Epstein stated, ³The existing posts monitor the bridges and provide an early warning system. Their presence sends a clear and distinct signal to both internal and external security threats. "Abandoning the North gate is a crass business decision, " Mr. Epstein added. AmerGen's decision to remove the guards from their positions at the east end of the two bridges leading to Three Mile Island (TMI) leaves the Island increasingly vulnerable to terrorist attack and sabotage, according to Eric Epstein, Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert. Epstein warned that conceding the bridges to terrorists also makes TMI inaccessible to outside assistance from local law enforcement and emergency personnel. Epstein noted that on July 2, 2003, a fire in a transformer yard required outside assistance from firefighters and emergency responders. The off-site response is credited with minimizing damage to nuclear equipment ***************************************************************** 29 Brattleboro Reformer: Yankee protesters arrested January 17, 2006 Brattleboro, VT Teresa Caldwell, of Shelburn, Mass. is arrested and led from the vestibule at the Entergy Nuclear Vermont Yankee corporate headquarters in Brattleboro during a protest Monday. Photo by Patrick G. Rheaume /Reformer By CATE LECUYER Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- Eleven people were arrested Monday after making it inside the Vermont Yankee headquarters on Old Ferry Road. In the vestibule of the building, protesters banged on the locked door for about five minutes, and tried to use the intercom to be let in, before they were arrested for trespassing by the Brattleboro Police Department. More than 200 people crowded the parking lot outside the Entergy Nuclear offices -- almost four times as many people as in the past. This was the third organized protest in three months. Organizers vow to continue the monthly protests to draw attention to their opposition to the proposed power boost at the nuclear plant. Entergy is seeking a 20-year extension of its license beyond 2012 and for a concurrent power boost of 20 percent. The nuclear facility has been operating since 1972. Arrested Monday were Mary Alice Herbert of Putney, Jane Newton of South Londonderry, Sylvia Pigors of Putney, Christopher Williams of Hancock, Eesha Williams of Dummerston, Teresa Caldwell of Shelburne, Mass., David Detmold of Turners Falls, Mass., Jacquie Dauphinais of Florence, Mass., Cory Mathews of Greenfield, Mass., Harvey Schaktman of Shelburne Falls, Mass., and Eric Wasileski of Erving, Mass. They were issued a citation and released, pending a Feb. 21 court date in Windham District Court. Deb Katz, executive director of the Citizens Awareness Network, which helped organize the demonstration, said it was not only a call for action, but a tribute to a leader in nonviolent action, whose birthday was celebrated Monday. "Martin Luther King [Jr.] advocated civil disobedience and that's what took place today," Katz said. "It was a real validation and respect for what King stood for." Fewer police were present than at previous staged protests, in part, because Chief John Martin did not call in off-duty officers as he had in the past. Martin said he is frustrated by the continuing protests because it draws the department's manpower away from other important townwide policing activities. On Monday, some of the arresting officers were late in responding to a 911 hangup call, Martin said, possibly jeopardizing the welfare of other residents. The 911 call turned out not to be serious, but there is no way to know that at the time, Martin said. "All our resources are in one place," he said. "You don't send two officers into a crowd of 100, or to arrest 11 people even," he said. Martin hopes having fewer police at future protests will make them less effective. "Part of what we're trying to do is discourage the forum that's causing everyone to protest," said Martin. "Hopefully not getting that forum will reduce the number and frequency of the protests." Cate Lecuyer can be reached at clecuyer@reformer.comor (802) 254-2311, ext. 271. Associated Press ***************************************************************** 30 Brattleboro Reformer: Clerical error may give anti-nuclear protesters freedom January 17, 2006 Brattleboro, VT By BOB AUDETTE Reformer Staff BRATTLEBORO -- Five Massachusetts women who were arrested and cited for unlawful trespass on Dec. 5 may not be prosecuted because of a clerical snafu. Chief John Martin said his department accepted blame for the confusion. "The paperwork should have been done and prepared for the arraignments," admitted Martin. "Unfortunately, the cases just weren't prepared in time." According to Martin, a number of priority cases that his department was handling pushed the unlawful trespass cases onto a back burner. "Citations are issued at the time of arrest and then you have a certain amount of time to get the supporting paperwork to the state's attorney and they have a certain amount of time to get it to court," he explained. "We were overwhelmed with cases and we were trying to prepare cases on a priority basis." The protesters arrived in Windham District Court on Jan. 10 for their arraignments, but the state's attorney's office had no paperwork from the police department to proceed with the court cases. "We were never presented with any cases," said Dan Davis, Windham County state's attorney. "We received no paperwork from any agencies." Martin said he is now awaiting direction from the state's attorney on whether Davis' office intends to ask Brattleboro Police to refile the citations. Because Monday was a holiday, Davis was not available for comment. Martin said despite the glitch, his department doesn't want the protesters to think they'll get a freebie in the future. "If we receive a trespass complaint and they refuse to leave, they will be arrested," said Martin. "The Brattleboro Police Department will continue to arrest people." The protesters who were cited on Dec. 5 were Marcia Gagliardi of Athol, Mass., Frances Crowe of Northampton, Mass., Paki Wieland of Northampton, Mass., Claire Chang of Gill and Dorthee (her full legal name) of Wendell, Mass. Bob Audette can be reached at raudette@reformer.comor at (802) 254-2311, ext. 277. ***************************************************************** 31 Guardian Unlimited: Atomic Energy Agency signs deal with private firms to bid for nuclear clean-ups Terry Macalister Tuesday January 17, 2006 The Guardian The government has endorsed another move by a state-owned group towards the private sector as a result of the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) establishing an alliance with construction group Amec and US firm CH2M Hill. Dipesh Shah, chief executive of the UKAEA, denied it was a first step towards privatising the nuclear decommissioning group but would not discount the possibility of a change of ownership. "This move today is all about taking on additional expertise to strengthen our position in the clean-up market and there is nothing in what we have announced that will compromise future ownership arrangements," he said. Asked whether privatisation was out of the question, Mr Shah said: "Anything could be possible." The UKAEA is working on clean-up at four sites: Dounreay, in Caithness, Scotland; Harwell, in Oxfordshire; Winfrith in Dorset and Windscale, Cumbria. It brings in sales of £400m annually and two thirds of this comes from decommissioning. But the market is due for a shake-up, with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority planning to open it up for private firms to compete for clean-up contracts this year. The new UKAEA alliance will initially bid for selected sites among the UK's 20 civil nuclear plants which are expected to come up for contract, half of them by 2008. "It is our aim to maintain our leading role. That is why we sought partners who can complement our skills," said Mr Shah, who added that the two firms were chosen from an initial list of 70. But the choice of the two has raised some eyebrows. Amec has recently been the subject of takeover speculation while CH2M Hill was at the centre of a row in US Congress. The American company and a partner were awarded a $28.5m (£16m) contract to oversee the US-led $1.7bn public works and water construction projects in Iraq, only for politicians to point out that some of the firms it was monitoring were partners in other schemes elsewhere. This meant, said a report by Congressional Democrats, they could not be "the neutral and independent watchdog needed to provide rigorous oversight over substantial expenditures of taxpayer funds". The Bush administration has been accused of handing over non-competitive contracts to favoured companies such as vice-president Dick Cheney's former employer, Halliburton. Mr Shah said he had no idea about this but argued that CH2M had substantial experience in nuclear clean-ups. He also shrugged off takeover talk surrounding Amec, saying: "Amec has significant experience in the nuclear area and the skills would remain in the organisation regardless who the owner is." Useful links British Energy Department of Trade and Industry British Nuclear Fuels Ltd Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament Greenpeace HSE nuclear glossary Come Clean WMD awareness programme UK atomic energy authority National Radiological Protection Board Friends of the Earth World Nuclear Association World Nuclear Transport Institute [UP] Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006 ***************************************************************** 32 NIRS: NRC Proposed Rule Making on Nuclear Power Station Security ALERT! January 13, 2006 For more info, contact: Paul Gunter, NIRS 202-328-0002 Send your comments to NRC Mail comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff Or E-mail comments to: SECY@nrc.gov Background On November 7, 2005, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published in the Federal Register a Proposed Rulemaking (RIN 3150-AH60) to amend its rules regarding the Design Basis Threat (DBT) governing the required levels of security around U.S. nuclear reactors. The DBT is basically a document that identifies the potential size, modes and strength of attack by adversary forces intent upon radiological sabotage using a nuclear power station or other nuclear materials. The DBT is established in order to determine the required level of onsite defenses to reliably defend against such an attack until local law enforcement, National Guard or federal forces can be brought to bear. The DBT includes a classified description of "adversarial characteristics" designating the size of the attacking force and the number of potential insiders supporting the attack, the types of weapons and explosives they could employ as well as their modes of entry by land and water. Defense against air attack is neither considered nor required by NRC. The NRC summary of its Proposed Rulemaking states that it would amend the Commission's regulations to codify security requirements previously imposed by the Commission's April 29, 2003 DBT orders and redefine the level of security. The proposed rule would revise the DBT requirements for radiological sabotage applied to nuclear power reactors and nuclear fuel cycle facilities, as well as the theft or diversion of NRC-licensed Strategic Special Nuclear Material (SSNM). The NRC has also developed draft classified Regulatory Guides that provide guidance to its licensees concerning the DBT for radiological sabotage and theft and diversion. Additionally, a Petition for Rulemaking (PRM-73-12), filed by the Committee to Bridge the Gap and supported by NIRS and endorsed by hundreds of public comments and nine State Offices of Attorneys General was incorporated and in large part dismissed, trivialized and deferred as part of this NRC proposed rulemaking. [See the July 23, 2004 CBG Petition for Rulemaking and the January 24, 2005 NIRS comments in support of the rulemaking NIRS as well as the January 24, 2005 combined comments of the Offices of Attorneys General in support of the CBG rulemaking at http://www.nirs.org/reactorwatch/security/securityhome.htm] An Evaluation of the NRC Current Proposed Rule on Amending the DBT 1. The NRC proposal to make no upgrades to existing security requirements for nuclear facilities is unacceptable in the face of the current terrorist threat and the potential catastrophic consequences of a successful attack on a nuclear site. 2. Nineteen attackers, who were willing to kill large numbers of people and be killed in the process, were involved in the September 11th attacks on the United States. It is unacceptable to require site protection around nuclear power stations to prepare for only a small fraction of the number of attackers already demonstrated. 3. As identified in the report authored by The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks on the United States, the original al-Qaeda plan was to hijack ten domestic commercial aircraft and direct two of them into U.S. nuclear power stations. By September 11, 2001 the attack plan was scaled back to four hijacked aircraft which were involved in successful suicidal attacks from the air on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and an aborted unknown third destination, possibly a nuclear reactor. It is unacceptable as currently proposed by the NRC rule change to continue to exempt air attacks from the kinds of threats nuclear reactors must be capable of defending against. 4. The NRC proposed rulemaking defers specific actions requested by the Committee to Bridge the Gap for an overall upgrade of reactor security to a minimum level necessary to repel the equivalent of the September 11th attacks and in particular the physical construction of "Beamhenge" shields around each nuclear power station so that planes would crash into the shields, not the reactor facilities with catastrophic and far reaching destruction. 5. Under the guise of protecting "safeguards information," the NRC rulemaking itself is a violation of rulemaking laws, in that it provides nothing but vague generalities that make meaningful and genuine public comments impossible. Given the longstanding public concerns regarding NRC and nuclear industry security cost containment strategies, the proposed rule is the dangerous product of behind-closed-door meetings and dealmakings that after-the-fact offers the public an opportunity to comment without specifics or basis. This type of business as usual damages public confidence in NRC priorities and the current state of security levels existing at nuclear power stations. 6. Congress ordered NRC to include in any rulemaking consideration of September 11th-level threats, attacks by large groups, and attacks by air. NRC has defied Congress in this rulemaking by failing to consider any of these matters. For more information, see NRC's Federal Register notice for the proposed rulemaking at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/downloader/dbt_prule_lib/1635-0 001.pdf Bridge the Gap's Petition for Rulemaking at http://ruleforum.llnl.gov/cgi-bin/downloader/ctbg_prm_lib/1478-00 02.pdf and articles in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at http://www.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/jf02/jf02hirsch.html http://www.thebulletin.org/article.php?art_ofn=mj03hirschMake and submit your comments specific to NRC Proposed Rulemaking (RIN 3150-AH60). Contact: Paul Gunter, Nuclear Information and Resource Service, 202.328.0002, pgunter@nirs.org Don't forget to sign the Petition for A Sustainable Energy Future at www.nirs.organd send a copy to your friends and colleagues for them to sign as well! -30- ***************************************************************** 33 AZ Republic: Cooling line problems shuts down Palo Verde reactor [azcentral.com] Ken Alltucker The Arizona Republic Jan. 17, 2006 04:59 PM One of three reactors at the Palo Verde nuclear power plant shut down Tuesday after operator Arizona Public Service Co. discovered a problem with the unit's main emergency cooling line. It's been a problem APS has monitored closely for years but became more pronounced when the Phoenix-based utility restarted Unit 1 the week before Christmas after a refueling and repair outage. Crews discovered that Unit 1's emergency cooling line experienced an "acoustic impact" that vibrated the reactor's cooling line beyond acceptable levels. APS had been operating the reactor at about one-third of capacity due to the vibrations, but operators decided to shut down the reactor and attempt to fix the problem. "It's a sound you would get when whistling into a Coke bottle," APS spokesman Jim McDonald said. "It creates a vibrating effect on the emergency cooling line. We are shutting down Unit 1 and hope to come up in a relatively quick manner." McDonald said that crews believe that the unit could restart within two days after crews study and attempt a variety of repairs. Among the potential fixes could include adding shock absorbers, installing weights or adding heat to the emergency cooling line to reduce the rattle and hum. The utility said a contributing factor to the higher level of vibrations could be the unit's new twin, 800-ton steam generators and low-pressure turbines. APS replaced those parts at a cost of more than $200 million during the latest refueling. "The steam generators did change the flow characteristics, which has an important role in all of this," McDonald said. The steam generators' replacement represents the unit's largest construction job since the reactor opened in 1986, and the new generators have the capability of boosting the 1,250-megawatt reactor's electricity output by about 3 percent. Federal regulators have approved more than 100 small expansions, known as "uprates," at nuclear plants across the nation. Some anti-nuclear groups have been critical of the process, especially at older nuke plants in the Northeast Midwest, because they believe such expansions compromise safety. In 2002, Exelon Corp. discovered problems shortly after restarting its Quad Cities power plant after an increase in power output. An investigation showed that a hole had formed in the plant's steam dryer, which was exacerbated in part by the higher level of vibrations resulting from the power uprate. The Quad Cities nuclear power plant has a far different design than the three Palo Verde units. McDonald said that Palo Verde Unit 2 did not experience any vibration-related problems when its steam generators were swapped out in 2003. Palo Verde, located 50 miles west of downtown Phoenix, is the nation's largest nuclear power plant and a critical source of power for the Southwest and the Valley,. Although the nuclear power plant has been among the nation's top performing plants since it opened in 1986, it has experienced numerous outages over the past two years that have resulted in more than a dozen shutdowns. APS has estimated that the Palo Verde shutdowns last year cost the utility at least $40 million to replace the cheaper nuclear-generated electricity with more expensive electricity generated by natural gas or coal. E-mail the reporter at ken.alltucker@arizonarepublic.comor (602)444-8285. Copyright © 2006, azcentral.com. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 34 inadaily.com: Desperate for a nuclear deal [International News Alliance] The Asian AgeIndia | Bharat Karnad With the state visit by President George W. Bush looming, the Congress Party-led coalition government seems to be getting increasingly desperate to obtain a deal, any nuclear deal, as long as there is some paper for the US leader and Prime Minister Manmohan Singh to sign. And, apparently, US under-secretary of state Nicholas Burns' trip offers a last-gasp chance to firm up this transaction. That this will "transform Indo-US relations and consolidate India's standing as one of the world's major powers" as a media trumpeter breathlessly put it, is doubtful. What it is guaranteed to do, however, is begin firming up India's reputation as a tamed nuclear outlier state, one shorn off its Samson's locks of options and therefore denuded of its political and military leverage. Ideally, India should be able to fully safeguard both its sources of civilian nuclear energy and its freedom to design and develop its nuclear arsenal and weapons-mix to any qualitative and quantitative specifications necessary to enable it to deal with any conceivable crisis or contingency in the future. But assessments of the future are notoriously tricky. Because these are dogged by uncertainty and risk, it requires a country like India to exercise abundant caution, especially when it comes to negotiating deals, like the one the July 18 Joint Statement promises, which will limit the country's strategic choices. At the heart of the arguments supportive of a deal is the belief entirely unsupported by empirical evidence, that India does not require a meaningful deterrent, that a minimally-sized and basic quality of weapons inventory will do. Innocent of the manifold military and political utility of impressive thermonuclear forces or the need to feature tested and proven high-yield, long reach, armaments in the nuclear arsenal and unwilling to factor in the policies of continuous upgradation of strategic forces underway in the US, Russia and China, these worthies are apparently banking on Washington to come to India's aid in an emergency beyond the capacity of the latter's small nuclear arms inventory to handle. The certain end-state of India as a security dependency of the United States is sought to be papered over by references to the nuclear civilian technology benefits the country is supposedly set to derive. But if augmenting the nuclear sources of electricity generation is the Indian government's paramount concern, it is not clear why the deal with the US is needed. For one thing, there is no real shortage of natural uranium as is propagated by official circles. India's publicly touted reserves of uranium worth 10,000 MW equivalent actually do not take into account the "rich" veins of ore with 6-7% uranium content available in Meghalaya and in Nalgonda district of Andhra Pradesh. The government, however, has made no effort whatsoever under enabling provisions of the law to clear out the environmental opposition from the sites and to let the Atomic Minerals Division in Hyderabad get on with the business of mining the ore found at these locations. Indeed, environmental worries can be got around by having the mined ore trucked to processing plants. Further, even in the depleted uranium mines in Jadugoda, over 30% of the extractable ore has been left unmined owing to the fact that it forms the columns around which the mineral has been dug out. These ore-pillars can be replaced by columns of concrete. Advanced extraction technologies enable supposedly exhausted mines and oil-fields to once again become productive. It all depends on the current international price of the natural resource. Thus, because of high oil prices, ONGC, for instance, has found it economical to pump out residual oil from the fields in Digboi and elsewhere in Assam by investing some Rs 3,300 crores. With the price of natural uranium or "yellow cake" sky-rocketing — it has increased by some 300% in just the last couple of years — extraction of uranium from poor quality ore or even sea-water now makes economic sense. If natural uranium from abroad is not critically needed to fuel the country's indigenous nuclear energy programme, then let us examine the case for accessing foreign nuclear reactor technology. The US civilian nuclear industry has been in the doldrums for the last 30-35 years with not a single new plant being built in this period. The one new design — Westinghouse 1000 type — Westinghouse Company of America has developed is not yet certified by the US Atomic Energy Commission, meaning India accepts all the safety and other risks in case New Delhi gives in to the arm-twisting and as part of the bargain to get the total deal approved by the US Congress, agrees to buy several of these reactors. Should such certification be expedited, India will thereafter face the threat of a cut-off in fuel supplies. It will be Tarapur all over again except this time it will be the Indian taxpayer's money that will be invested in these plants rendered inoperable owing to lack of enriched uranium fuel supply. France and Russia will not be any more lenient in insisting that India keep to the non-proliferation straight and narrow, any departure from which, like the resumption of testing, will immediately bring down sanctions. Would it not be better, under the circumstances, for India to put its money and diplomatic and commercial effort into constructing more of the Trombay-designed and developed INDU heavy water moderated natural uranium reactors here in India and to sell these reactors to energy-deficient countries abroad, thereby cultivating an external market for indigenous reactor technology and generating both funds to amortise the investments made in this sector over the last 50-odd years and revenues for the Indian civilian nuclear industry? Dr Anil Kakodkar, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission, could have informed the PM about natural uranium sufficiency and the dangers of buying sensitive technologies abroad. Not only did he fail to do that, he has shown himself to be too weak to protect the integrity of the nuclear energy programme he heads by agreeing to a "separation plan." The Indian nuclear scientists are uniformly against any separation of civilian and military use facilities, materials and manpower because, unlike in other weapon states, in India, owing to the weapons capability being an offshoot of the broad-based civilian nuclear energy programme, these two functions and missions are wholly integrated and inseparable. The point to make is that rather than looking to foreign sources for uranium supply or for nuclear power plants as last resort, the Congress government is reaching for foreign uranium supply and foreign reactors as the preferred policy at the expense of national security, strategic independence, and autonomy of the country's nuclear programme. In the event, this course of action makes no sense and is inherently unjustifiable. Particularly when, as a Planning Commission study has concluded, the projected production of electricity from the country's hugely augmented civilian power sector is expected to account for only 6% of all electricity produced in 2020. The growing unease in official circles is also because of the unexpectedly strong resistance to this deal here as also in the US. With the US Congressional approval difficult at best, the Manmohan Singh regime is clearing an own escape route for itself. It has over the last few weeks changed its stance from initially accepting the American premise that all civilian nuclear power plants would go into the civilian net and under international safeguards — to wit foreign secretary Shyam Saran's speech to IDSA — to now when, a number of these dual-use power plants able to output weapon-use plutonium and tritium for boosted fission and thermonuclear armaments along with all of the breeder programme are sought to be kept within the military ambit. Then again, given the generally weak-kneed posture of the Indian government, this may only be the initial position that will be negotiated away once the American team piles on the pressure and warns of Washington's having to rethink its policy of helping India become "a major power," etc. But according to a stalwart nuclear engineer brought into the loop after criticism that no technically competent person was involved in the negotiations, any insistence by the US that all nuclear power plants be sequestered only for civilian use, would be a "deal breaker." But whether the phrase "deal breaker" merely denotes a hollow threat will soon become evident. With the non-proliferation lobby in Washington too drawing its own red-lines — witness the visiting US Senator John Kerry's statement that it is better to have three-quarters of the Indian nuclear programme in the safeguards net than not to have any of it subject to international monitoring and inspection — the Prime Minister may soon be facing a serious dilemma. Whether President Bush will be able to get the US Congress to okay the deal or not, Dr Manmohan Singh will find getting Parliament to accept it a politically Herculean task. Among his coalition partners, with the election campaign soon getting underway in West Bengal, the Left parties' ideological opposition to having truck with "imperialist" America will grow more vociferous. The Samajwadi Party is stirring things up for a fight and, thanks to an apparently dim-witted law minister, the Bofors bribes controversy is revived, providing the Bharatiya Janata Party combine with the heavy artillery to keep the ruling coalition distracted and on the defensive. Bharat Karnad is Professor in National Security Studies at the Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi http://www.asianage.com/?INA=2:175:175:203367 © 2006 The Asian Age Copyright © 2006 The International News Alliance. ***************************************************************** 35 Bellona: Putin wants renewal of soviet-era nuclear industry complex Russian President Vladimir Putin said in Astana, Kazakhstan, on 12 January after meeting with his Ukrainian and Kazakh counterparts that he wants to restore the kind of nuclear energy ties between the three states that existed under the USSR but based on market lines, "The Moscow Times" reported. 2006-01-16 16:43 He called the prospects for nuclear cooperation with Ukraine "nothing but promising." Sergei Kirienko, who heads the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, or RosAtom, said that he wants to "rebuild the Minsredmash complex," meaning former Soviet ministry that dealt with nuclear power. He will present a plan for cooperation between Kazakhstan and RosAtom at the St. Petersburg summit of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) on 25 January and then go to Kyiv for talks on cooperation with Ukraine. Russia inherited about 80 percent of the nuclear industry of the Soviet Union but has only about half of the uranium ore it needs to make fuel to power it. RosAtom wants to buy uranium from Kazakhstan, which seeks Russian money to finance new nuclear power stations. Publisher: , President: Information: , Technical contact: Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 36 BBC: Britons split on N-power advance Last Updated: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 [Dounreay nuclear power station in Scotland] The government is to review the future of energy A majority of people in Britain would accept new nuclear power stations if they helped fight climate change, a poll suggests. Some 54% said they would accept new stations being built for this reason, the Mori survey of 1,500 people for the University of East Anglia found. But in general, more people were against nuclear power than in favour. Nearly 80% thought renewable technologies and energy efficiency were better ways of tackling global warming. The survey comes ahead of the government's major review on the future of energy. Part of this review will consider whether the UK needs to replace its ageing nuclear power stations as a step towards its climate objectives. Tony Blair has made it clear he believes a new generation of nuclear power stations could be part of that future. 'Better ways' The survey suggested 78% of people believed promoting renewable energy sources was a better way, and 76% thought reducing energy through lifestyle changes and energy efficiency was better, too. Supporters of replacing old nuclear stations say it is not a question of either nuclear or renewables, but that all alternatives to fossil fuels must be exploited to the full. And in terms energy mix, the poll found 63% believed that Britain needed a combination of energy sources, including nuclear and renewables, to ensure a reliable supply of electricity. The BBC's environment correspondent Tim Hirsch said: "The survey does seem to confirm that outright opposition to nuclear power is softening, but it's very far from a ringing endorsement from the public." Complex issues Professor Nick Pidgeon, director of the Centre for Environmental Risk, University of East Anglia, led the survey research team. He said the government had already recognised the need to take public acceptability into account when exploring future energy needs. "However, almost nothing is known about how ordinary people are responding to the new debate about nuclear power and climate change," he said. "This new research helps us to understand public views on this critical question." He added: "There is a powerful message for the government in our findings and it is that the debate should be a mature one; and it should not be framed purely around nuclear versus climate change. "People will be responsive to a debate that looks at both energy demand and supply." Efficient route Dr Kevin Anderson, from the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research at the University of Manchester, appealed for the whole debate to be raised to another level of sophistication. He said discussion about the UK's future energy mix should place far greater emphasis on issues of consumption - of demand. In this context, he said, nuclear was a very small component; accounting for about 3-4% of total energy used. "We could swap out all the nuclear stations for coal or gas and see very marginal increases in our carbon emissions," he argued. Although there were arguments for supporting nuclear for energy security reasons, it was not essential to fight climate change, he said. Far better, he believed, was a policy which sought significant emission reductions through greater efficiency. "Why are we still selling fridges with a B, C, D, and E ratings? An A-rated fridge is a standard and you set it. You make sure all new buildings are well built with very high energy efficiency. "You inform industry that standards will be incrementally increased so that they have market signals. You tell car manufacturers, for example, that to sell a car on a UK forecourt by 2010, it must meet a minimum fuel economy." ***************************************************************** 37 BBC: Nuclear energy 'too uneconomic' Last Updated: Tuesday, 17 January 2006 [Dounreay nuclear power station in Scotland] Lib Dems say nuclear power is 'diverting' resources No more nuclear power stations should be built as they are "hopelessly uneconomic" and would create vast amounts of waste, say the Lib Dems. Environment spokesman Norman Baker said any expansion "would divert essential funding" from renewable sources, such as water and wind farms. The government is conducting a review of the future of the UK's energy. Tony Blair has said more nuclear power stations could be used to help reach targets on pollution. 'Nuclear tax' The Lib Dems led an opposition debate on nuclear power in the Commons on Tuesday. Mr Baker said: "A new generation of nuclear power stations should not be part of the future UK energy mix. "Nuclear power is hopelessly uneconomic and the commissioning of a new generation would effectively result in a nuclear tax on every household to pay for them. "A new generation of nuclear power stations would generate vast quantities of nuclear waste and divert essential funding away from energy efficiency and renewable sources of energy." Changing opinions? A Mori poll has suggested 54% of people would accept new nuclear power stations if they helped fight climate change. But 78% of the 1,500 people interviewed for the University of East Anglia thought renewable technologies and energy efficiency were better ways of tackling global warming. And 63% believed the UK needed a combination of energy sources, including nuclear and renewables, to ensure a reliable supply of electricity. Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks is leading the government review of UK energy policy, with proposals due by the summer. In the Commons debate, Mr Wicks said it was not a "nuclear review" but the future role of civil nuclear power had to be considered. 'No single answer' Nuclear already part of the energy mix, accounting for about 19% of current electricity generation, said Mr Wicks. "But the current generating plants are ageing and most are scheduled to be decommissioned over the coming 15 years or so. "By 2020, therefore, it is estimated that only about 7% of our electricity might come from nuclear as things stand." Mr Wicks said waste, costs and safety had to be examined. "We also need an evidence-based look at what new nuclear technologies can offer," he said. "And even if new nuclear could provide some of the answers it can never be the whole picture." Claims that building new nuclear plants would rule out everything else were "total nonsense", he added. MPs later rejected the Lib Dem call to oppose a new generation of nuclear power plants by 309 votes to 63. b ***************************************************************** 38 Daily Yomiuri: Review of quake-hit N-plant vital DAILY YOMIURI ONLINE (The Daily Yomiuri) Toshiaki Sato / Yomiuri Shimbun Staff Writer The government has given the green light to partially reopen Tohoku Electric Power Co.'s Onagawa Nuclear Power Station in Miyagi Prefecture, which the power company shut down following a major earthquake last August over fears of the facility's structural integrity. At the time of the earthquake, a seismometer installed at the power station registered a shock that exceeded the highest acceptable level of impact projected when the facility was built. According to specialists, however, it is necessary to scientifically reexamine the government-set safety standards. Operations at all three of Onagawa's nuclear reactors were automatically halted on Aug. 16 after the magnitude 7.2 earthquake struck. There was no damage from the quake severe enough to affect safety at the reactors. But authorities did notice that shaking inside the reactors had exceeded acceptable levels from the original design, despite the fact that the August quake was much smaller than a major earthquake predicted to hit the region within the next 30 years. That quake is expected to have a magnitude of 7.6 or more. After three months of investigation into the cause of the problem, Tohoku Electric found that interplate earthquakes originating off Miyagi Prefecture like the Aug. 16 temblor tend to cause particularly violent jolts. This forced Tohoku Electric officials to reexamine earthquake standards for Onagawa's nuclear reactors. In the first stage of a two-part reexamination, the officials tested if Onagawa's No. 2 reactor could withstand the predicted magnitude 7.6 quake without affecting its major equipment and pipes. They concluded that no damage would occur from such an earthquake. In the second stage of reexaminations, officials analyzed damage that would be caused by an earthquake reaching magnitude 8.2, as well as one of a magnitude of 7.2 occurring directly under the power station. Officials concluded that the No. 2 reactor's equipment and pipe system would be damaged, but the safety mechanism to halt the reactors and contain radiation leakage would be operational. The Nuclear and Industrial Safety Agency (NISA), an affiliate of the Economy, Trade and Industry Ministry, then summoned a group of experts to examine the credibility of the power company's reports. After three sessions, the expert panel requested last month that Tohoku Electric review the investigation with a wider set of variables before receiving approval from the panel. Since then, the governor of Miyagi Prefecture has given his endorsement to the safety report and Onagawa's No. 2 reactor, which is expected to restart by the end of January. But some problems are yet to be reviewed. The safety agency failed to ask the expert panel to take into account the government's safety standards at the time of giving permission to establish the Onagawa power station. It should be noted that the government's safety review system on nuclear power plants does not stipulate what is to be done after a natural disaster or accident occurs that is greater than what original design plans account for. Technically speaking, Tohoku Electric could continue to operate Onagawa's three reactors without conferring with the government's safety agency. NISA head Kenkichi Hirose said there are no concerns over the government's safety review. "The government's review [on building nuclear power plants] has always been done on the basis of the latest data available. There's no need to ask experts to examine whether the review has been done adequately," Hirose said. But doubts linger over whether he is right. The government is reluctant to let experts examine the safety reviews made in the past, partly out of concern that such studies would pave the way for a number of lawsuits against existing nuclear power stations. But there should still be a system to examine the safety reviews from a scientific point of view, if not a judicial one. Another noticeable problem regarding the Onagawa incident has been the absence of the Cabinet Office's Atomic Energy Commission, which is supposed to oversee safety reviews done by NISA. The commission undertook no initiative in the wake of August's earthquake, though it is pursuing a review into earthquake standards in designing nuclear plants. Onagawa's No. 1 and No. 3 reactors are expected to restart eventually after reexaminations similar to those done on the No. 2 reactor are conducted. But it should be noted that the No. 1 reactor had already been operating for more than 20 years at the time of the August quake, and it is believed, for instance, that equipment is more deteriorated than equipment at the No. 2 reactor. Analysis on the safety of the No. 1 and No. 3 should be done in more thoroughly and transparent a manner than in the case of No. 2. (Jan. 18, 2006) The Daily Yomiuri, The Yomiuri Shimbun ***************************************************************** 39 Moscow Times: United Russia Backs More Nuclear Power Wednesday, January 18, 2006. Issue 3333. Page 5. By Yuriy Humber Staff Writer Senior United Russia deputies said Tuesday that the party would make sure that "substantial sums" from the federal budget were directed at the development of Russia's next generation of nuclear reactors. The initial 1 billion rubles ($33 million) allocated from the 2006 budget for the BN-800 fast neutron reactor project will be followed by regular financial backing, with the next installment possible before the end of the year, Viktor Opekunov, head of the State Duma's subcommittee for nuclear energy, said at a news conference Tuesday. United Russia will also use its Duma majority to push for the use of the state investment fund, which is linked to the petrodollar-collecting stabilization fund, for the financing, said Andrei Burenin, a member of the Duma's Budget and Taxes Committee. "In some areas of nuclear energy we have already fallen behind, but with the right support, Russia can maintain leadership in certain parts of it," Opekunov said. Supporting innovation and research, along with diversifying the economy, was one of the main themes of United Russia's year-end congress, at which party leader and Duma Speaker Boris Gryzlov vowed to make sure more budget funding went toward research into nuclear energy, machine-building and space technology. "We want to invest in enterprises that can alter the economic map of our country, … diminishing our country's reliance on natural resources," said Andrei Kokoshin, head of the Duma's CIS Affairs and Relations With Russian Nationals Abroad Committee. In the nuclear sector, backing will primarily go to the development of fast neutron reactors — those that can process relatively highly enriched uranium or plutonium — and floating nuclear energy stations, a technology that Russia has been pioneering, Opekunov said. The first BN-800 fast neutron reactor has been earmarked for the Belayarskaya nuclear power station and requires 46 billion rubles ($1.59 billion) in investment, Sergei Kiriyenko, head of the Federal Atomic Energy Agency, said last month. Although the allocation of 1 billion rubles is barely 2 percent of the required investment, the budget allocation for research and development on such a scale is "unprecedented," agency spokesman Sergei Novikov said Tuesday. If the rate of funding picks up, allowing Russia to build BN-800 reactors within five to six years, the country could maintain a leading position in a niche many industry insiders call the future of nuclear energy, he said. "A lot depends on United Russia's support. They are the controlling party in the parliament, and they are instrumental in allocating budget funds," Novikov said. Nuclear energy has sharply risen to the top of the nation's political agenda, as and President Vladimir Putin met with his Ukrainian and Kazakh counterparts last week to agree on a strategy to unite their efforts in the sector. The political will to develop nuclear energy technology that is both suitable for domestic needs as well as a commercially viable export will be key, Vladimir Orlov, director of the Moscow-based PIR Center, which monitors nuclear policy, said by telephone from Geneva. "The BN-800 project could bring us a lot. Not many people have heard of it, but it is one of Russia's key projects," Orlov said. Potential export markets for fast neutron reactor technology would be China, India, Brazil and Southeast Asia, he said. "These reactors are unique in that they cannot be switched to military use" as they are proliferation-resistant, Orlov said, referring to reactors that have fuel cycles that are almost impossible to turn from civilian aims to military purposes. © Copyright 2006 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 40 toledo blade: Davis-Besse court cases could loom over big step Plant to seek license for 2 more decades toledoblade.com - Article published Monday, January 16, 2006 By BLADE STAFF WRITER OAK HARBOR, Ohio — FirstEnergy Corp.’s pursuit of a 20-year extension for Davis-Besse’s operating license may begin before the final court rulings are made about the Ottawa County nuclear plant’s biggest embarrassment: its record two-year shutdown after the near-rupture of its old reactor head in 2002. The utility has told the Nuclear Regulatory Commission it intends to submit its application for Davis-Besse’s license extension in December, 2008. The agency’s review period for such requests has been averaging about two years and seven months, Jan Strasma, NRC spokesman, said. That leaves open the possibility that NRC officials will be judging Davis-Besse’s suitability for continued operation at the same time state or federal judges — perhaps even other agency officials themselves — are hearing appeals on the alleged roles the company or various individuals may have had in concealing information about the gaping cavity that almost burst open with radioactive steam. The event has been described by several NRC officials as the nuclear industry’s biggest safety lapse since the partial meltdown of the Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear plant in eastern Pennsylvania in 1979. Tuesday, FirstEnergy gave the NRC an update on its timetable for requesting license extensions at Davis-Besse as well as its Perry nuclear plant east of Cleveland and the twin-reactor Beaver Valley complex it owns in western Pennsylvania. The utility also said it plans to seek power upgrades for Davis-Besse this year and for both Beaver Valley units in 2009. Last year, the NRC rejected a proposed extension for Beaver Valley on the grounds that it was insufficient. It was the first such application for a license extension that the NRC had sent back to a utility. Extensions for 39 reactors have been approved so far, Mr. Strasma said. Danny Pace, senior vice president for fleet engineering at FirstEnergy, and Greg Halnon, the utility’s fleet director of regulatory affairs, told the NRC a revised application for Beaver Valley’s license extension would be submitted in 2007. The timetable calls for Perry’s application for a license extension to be submitted in 2010, two years after Davis-Besse’s, Mr. Pace’s presentation said. Davis-Besse went online in April, 1977. Its 40-year operating license expires in April, 2017. With a 20-year extension, the norm sought for existing plants, it would be allowed to continue operating until April, 2037. If the schedule holds, the NRC will decide Davis-Besse’s future in 2011 — a year before the largest capital investment is expected to be made in the plant. FirstEnergy has said it plans to replace Davis-Besse’s massive steam generator in 2012. At Beaver Valley’s Unit 1 reactor, that project is about to be undertaken at a cost of $250 million. Todd Schneider, FirstEnergy spokesman, said the Beaver Valley Unit 1 plant will be shut down for 76 days starting Feb. 13 to install the new equipment. Contact Tom Henry at: thenry@theblade.com or 419-724-6079. The Toledo Blade Company, 541 N. Superior St., Toledo, OH 43660 , (419) 724-6000 ***************************************************************** 41 Rutland Herald: 11 arrested in latest Yankee protest Rutland Vermont News & Information January 17, 2006 By Susan SmallheerHerald Staff Eesha Williams, 31, of Dummerston is arrested by Brattleboro police officer John Waitekus after protesting at Vermont Yankee’s corportate headquarters in Brattleboro on Monday morning. Photo: JON OLENDER / RUTLAND HERALD BRATTLEBORO — Eleven people were arrested for trespassing Monday morning at the front door of Entergy Nuclear, while 100 anti-nuclear supporters cheered their acts of civil disobedience in honor of Martin Luther King Jr. Day. The five Vermonters and six Massachusetts residents included a registered nurse, a Gulf War veteran, retired teachers and a handful of grandmothers in snow pants. The large group of protesters sang Martin Luther King's signature song, "We Shall Overcome," but with some additional anti-nuclear lyrics "We Shall Shut It Down," as the arrests were being made. Monday's demonstration at the offices of the owner of the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant was the third and largest of the most recent string of protests organized by the anti-nuclear group Citizens Awareness Network and the Traprock Peace Center, both Massachusetts-based organizations. The protesters, many of whom carried signs denouncing Vermont Yankee, were bundled up against the biting cold. Deb Katz, executive director of CAN, said the increasing numbers of protesters and the people willing to risk arrest were proof that the region remained deeply concerned about the safety of the 33-year-old reactor in Vernon. "More and more people are outraged by the government's official support," Katz said. Protests are already planned for February and March, she said. "I am here because I have family — children and grandchildren — and I am doing this because I simply don't know what else to do any more," said Jane Newton, 74, of South Londonderry. "Entergy's uprate is like war against our human community." The 11 protesters who were arrested were put into Brattleboro police vehicles and taken to the downtown police station. They received criminal citations for trespassing and were released, according to Brattleboro Police Chief John Martin. Katz said people are increasingly frustrated with the lack of accountability by the federal government and to a lesser extent, the state's Public Service Board and Department of Public Service, which acts as the public advocate in such cases. Katz pointed out that while Entergy's proposed 20 percent power boost at Vermont Yankee is virtually approved by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, appeals are still being heard. Entergy spokesman Robert Williams declined to comment about the protest. "Our focus is on safely operating the plant," he said. One woman who was arrested, 78-year-old Sylvia Pigors of Putney, was loudly cheered when she said that instead of increasing power by 20 percent, Vermont Yankee should be cutting power by 20 percent. Brattleboro Police Capt. Eugene Wrinn and two other officers led the protesters away in handcuffs — until they ran out of handcuffs or restraints. Wrinn appeared frustrated with the continuing protests — and the fact that so far none of the arrested protesters have faced criminal charges after their arrests. Entergy security personnel kept a much lower profile than in the previous protests. In fact, at one point, the Brattleboro police drove off until they were called back by Entergy. "This is a great use of resources," Wrinn said wryly, as he put one protester into the department's large sport utility vehicle and returned to the Entergy front door for three elderly women. Martin, contacted after the protest, said that the protests were beginning to be a burden on the small-town police department. During the morning protest, the chief said, the department had three accidents, one 911 emergency call, and an ambulance call — with only one officer to cover those emergencies while three officers were at Entergy. The prosecutor dismissed charges stemming from the first protest in November. Martin said a snafu had resulted in the paperwork on the second protest in December not being filed on time with Brattleboro District Court. He said he was still waiting to hear back from Windham County State's Attorney Dan Davis to know what to do. Davis, working on the state holiday preparing for two upcoming murder trials, said his office was too swamped with high-priority cases to worry about anti-nuclear activists. "I've not seen any paperwork from the second or third group, so I can't comment," the prosecutor said Monday. "I dismissed the first group for several reasons: the workload in this office and the court. Secondly, the protesters are looking for an avenue to get their political message in the media and the courts aren't really designed to be the place for people to make their political statements." The police chief added his own view: "The entire system is overburdened because it allows people to commit criminal behavior and there's no accountability," Martin said. The Vermonters arrested Monday were Mary Alice Herbert, 69, of Putney; Jane Newton, 73, of South Londonderry; Sylvia Pigors, 78, of Putney; Chris Williams, 51, of Hancock; and Eesha Williams, 31, of Dummerston. The arrested Massachusetts residents included Cory Mathews, 18; Jacquie Dauphinais, 23; Terry Caldwell, 44; Harvey Schaktman, 62; David Detmould, 47; and Eric Wasileski, 32. Contact Susan Smallheer at susan.smallheer@rutlandherald.com. © 2006 Rutland Herald ***************************************************************** 42 ePolitix.com: Nuclear power wins public backing [Dounreay nuclear power plant] Most people would support the building of new nuclear power stations provided that it helped to tackle climate change, a new survey has found. Of those asked, 54 per cent said they would back nuclear as a means of tackling the energy crisis. But nuclear power is less popular when climate change is not taken into account, with 59 per cent of respondents saying it should be scrapped. The MORI survey, published on Tuesday, also found however that more than three quarters of people believe promoting renewable energy sources and energy efficiency are better ways to cut carbon dioxide emissions. It suggests 78 per cent of people believe promoting renewable energy sources is a better way, and 76 per cent thought reducing energy through lifestyle changes and was also better. The findings come as the government commences its major review of Britain's energy needs. Part of this review will consider whether the UK needs to replace its ageing nuclear power stations as part of its efforts to cut CO2 emissions. Supporters of a new generation of nuclear stations say it is not a question of either nuclear or renewables, but that all alternatives to fossil fuels must be exploited to the full. In terms energy mix, the poll found that 63 per cent believed that Britain needed a combination of energy sources, including nuclear and renewables, to ensure a reliable supply of electricity. Published: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:51:26 GMT+00 Author: Sally Priestley ©2006 ePolitix.com ***************************************************************** 43 Reuters: UK green lobby girds for nuclear battle over energy Tue 17 Jan 2006 10:24 AM ET By Jeremy Lovell LONDON, Jan 17 (Reuters) - Environmentalists are preparing for a battle with the nuclear industry to persuade the British public that green, not atomic, power is the path to the future. At stake is not just the future mix of electric power sources from nuclear to fossil and wind, but the whole structure of the country's centralised power generation system. And as the government prepares to launch an intensive public consultation on Monday over the future of the power industry in the face of global warming and surging fossil fuel prices, both sides know it will be an epic fight watched by the whole world. "We are going to war with the nuclear industry -- but with a positive not a negative campaign," Tony Juniper, head of Friends of the Earth, told Reuters. "We are not going to repeat the negative messages of the 1970s and 80s. The campaign for us is to show that the alternatives such as renewables and greater energy efficiency can work and nuclear is not necessary," he added. But for its part the nuclear industry, boosted by fears about global warming from burning fossil fuels and worries about energy prices and security, feels it is in the resurgent. "We are confident that we can stand on our own two feet if energy policy is formed in a framework of low carbon emissions, security of supplies and stability of prices," Nuclear Industry Association spokeswoman Ruth Stanway told Reuters. CHERNOBYL LEGACY The industry boasts it has zero carbon emissions and, as fuel can be stored for decades, is not at the mercy of international supply chains such as for oil and gas. And with Prime Minister Tony Blair believed to privately favour new build as the country's ageing stock of nuclear plants come to the end of their already extended lives, the industry got an extra lift on Tuesday from a new opinion poll. Research by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research showed that, seen in terms of the fight to stop catastrophic global warming, 54 percent of Britons would accept nuclear power as part of the energy mix. But with the national energy review taking place over the 20th anniversary of the disastrous April 1986 explosion at Ukraine's Chernobyl nuclear plant, the industry knows it still has some serious arguments to win. "The whole issue of waste, security and safety is very emotive, and while we know we can win the arguments we still have to tackle them," Stanway said. But the environmental lobby insists that improved energy efficiency -- in both usage and generation -- and more investment in renewables like wind and waves can remove the need for any nuclear power let alone new plants. Figures from Greenpeace show that for every 100 units of energy trapped in fossil fuel, 61.5 are lost through inefficient generation and heat wastage, 3.5 are lost in transmission and 13 are wasted through inefficient end usage. "What we do not need is billions of pounds being poured into new nuclear plants that mean continuing with an outdated centralised electricity generation and distribution system," Greenpeace director Stephen Tindale said. "The National Grid is wearing out and now is the chance to replace it with a decentralised system making the best use of local resources and things like combined heat and power plants." Environmentalists also say the nuclear industry has never given a full account of its costs and that steep startup costs mean that new build will have to be subsidised by taxpayers. But the industry counters that it is economic and can raise the necessary money from the investment community without needing to resort to government handouts. © Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved. [ border=] ***************************************************************** 44 NRC: Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc., Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear FR Doc E6-415 [Federal Register: January 17, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 10)] [Notices] [Page 2585-2586] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr17ja06-90] Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 Exemption 1.0 Background The Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (SNC, or the licensee), is the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-57 and NPF-5 which authorizes operation of the Edwin I. Hatch Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2 (Hatch 1 and 2), respectively. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, Commission) now or hereafter in effect. The facility consists of two boiling water reactors located in Appling County, Georgia. 2.0 Request/Action Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix), states the requirements for the examination of metal containments and liners of concrete containments. In particular, Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) requires, in part, that a VT-3 examination method be used to conduct examinations of Item E.20 of Table IWE-2500-1 of Section IX of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code (ASME Code). By letter dated March 30, 2005, as supplemented by letters dated August 2 and 24, 2005, the licensee submitted a request for an exemption from the requirements of Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G). The exemption request would allow the licensee to perform an alternative examination of the accessible surface areas of the containment vessel pressure retaining boundary vent system, in lieu of the VT-3 examination required by the rule. The licensee stated that the alternate examination method is currently in use at Hatch 1 and 2 and has proven to be sufficient to maintain the structural integrity and leak-tightness of the containment surfaces, and, therefore, serves the underlying purpose of the rule. The licensee is currently in its 3rd 10-year inservice inspection (ISI) interval. The licensee's code of record for the 3rd 10-year ISI interval is the 1992 edition through the 1992 addenda of the ASME Code. The code of record contains the requirement to perform a VT-3 examination of the accessible surface areas of the vent system. In Relief Request RR-MC-9 submitted by letter dated July 19, 2000, the licensee requested relief from the requirement to perform a VT-3 examination on nonsubmerged, accessible pressure boundary surfaces, including the vent system, at the end of the 3rd 10-year ISI interval. The licensee explained that the proposed alternative to perform a general visual examination was sufficient to detect the types of corrosion expected in the components covered by the relief. On October 4, 2000, this request was approved by the NRC staff. The licensee's 4th 10-year ISI interval is scheduled to begin in 2006. The licensee's code of record for this interval will be the 2001 edition through the 2003 addenda of the ASME Code. Modifications to the ASME Code and 10 CFR 50.55a since the beginning of the 3rd 10-year ISI interval have relocated the requirement to perform the subject VT-3 examination from the ASME Code to 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix). As a result, licensees wanting relief from the requirement to perform a VT-3 examination for the subject structures must now request an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G). The licensee stated in its August 24, 2005, letter that the examination provisions previously authorized through Relief Request RR- MC-9 have proven to be sufficient to maintain the structural integrity and leak-tightness of the containment surfaces, and, therefore, serve the underlying purpose of the rule. As an alternative to the VT-3 examination, SNC is proposing the examination on all nonsubmerged, accessible pressure boundary surfaces of the vent system. This general visual-type examination will be performed in accordance with the Hatch 1 and 2 Qualified (N) Coatings Program. The licensee indicated that the details of this program were provided in the October 19, 1998, response to NRC Generic Letter 98-04, ``Potential for Degradation of the Emergency Core Cooling System and the Containment Spray System after a Loss-of-Coolant Accident Because of Construction and Protective Coating Deficiencies and Foreign Material in Containment.'' The procedures and personnel qualifications applicable for the coatings program implementation are in compliance with Regulatory Guide 1.54 (1973), and the implementation is based on the following documents: (1) ANSI N 101.2-1972, ``Protective Coatings (Plants) for Light Water Nuclear Reactor Containment Facilities;'' (2) ANSI N101.4-1972, ``Quality Assurance for Protective Coatings Applied to Nuclear Facilities;'' and (3) EPRI Report TR-109937, ``Guideline on Nuclear Safety-Related Coatings.'' This program was approved by the NRC staff in a letter dated November 19, 1999. The licensee further noted that the Qualified (N) Coatings program examination frequency is equivalent to the requirements of Section XI to the ASME Code, and the program requires that when evidence of degradation is detected, a detailed examination and evaluation be performed. The detailed visual examination would be performed in accordance with the provisions of ASME Code, Section XI, paragraph IWE- 2310(c). The exterior surfaces of the vent system that connects the drywell to the suppression pool are located in the reactor building. The reactor building environment does not pose adverse conditions that would promote rapid degradation of the outside pressure boundary surfaces of the vent system. The interior surfaces of the vent system that connect the drywell to the suppression pool and the portions of the vent system located inside the suppression pool are maintained in a nitrogen inerted environment during normal power operation in accordance with technical specification requirements. Operational experience and previous examinations have indicated that this environment does not promote rapid degradation of the surfaces. The licensee stated that the requirements specified for a VT-3 examination were developed for detecting flaws in metal components and are more stringent than those required for detecting corrosion-related degradation. Since corrosion of base metal is the primary issue of concern for [[Page 2586]] containment pressure boundary surface areas, a general visual-type examination, in accordance with the Hatch 1 and 2 Qualified (N) Coatings Program, is sufficient to inspect the subject surface areas of the containment and will provide an acceptable level of quality and safety. In summary, the licensee is proposing an exemption from the requirements of Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) to use an alternate examination method to examine Item E.20 of Table IWE-2500-1 of ASME Code, Section XI, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12(a)(1) and 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii). The licensee stated in its application that compliance with the visual examination requirements of Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) is not necessary for accessible surface areas of the containment vessel pressure retaining boundary Vent System to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule. 3.0 Discussion Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50 when: (1) The exemptions are authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to public health or safety, and are consistent with the common defense and security; and (2) when special circumstances are present. Special circumstances are present whenever, in accordance with 10 CFR Part 50.12(a)(2)(ii), ``Application of the regulation in the particular circumstances would not serve the underlying purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the underlying purpose of the rule * * *.'' Therefore, in determining the acceptability of the licensee's exemption request, the NRC staff has performed the following evaluation to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.12 for granting the exemption. The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G), as it applies to Item E1.20 of Table IWE-2500-1, is to ensure that an examination of the metal containment or the metal liner of a concrete containment is performed to identify corrosion or other degradation that could affect the structural or leak-tight integrity of the structure. The NRC staff examined the licensee's rationale to support the exemption request and concluded that maintaining the integrity of the coating system applied to the Hatch 1 and 2 containment vent system components is a preventive measure that would protect against corrosion of the coated components. As the licensee emphasizes the effectiveness of its coating program, the NRC staff believes that the general visual examination performed as part of maintaining the integrity of the coating system is a proactive action and will ensure the integrity of the coated vent system components. The proposed alternative will provide the quality and safety level similar to the one intended by the use of VT-3 examination of the vent system components, and would meet the underlying purpose of 10 CFR Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G). Based on a consideration of proposed alternatives contained in the licensee's letters dated March 20, and August 2 and 24, 2005, the NRC staff concludes that degradation of the containment structure would be detected using the proposed alternative, thus meeting the underlying purpose of the rule. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption from 10 CFR Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) is acceptable. 4.0 Conclusion Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants SNC an exemption from the requirement of 10 CFR Section 50.55a(b)(2)(ix)(G) to perform a VT-3 examination for Item E1.2 of Table IWE-2500-1, for Hatch 1 and 2, for the 4th 10-year ISI interval. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.32, the Commission has determined that the granting of this exemption will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment (70 FR 76082). This exemption is effective upon issuance. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 6th day of January 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Catherine Haney, Director, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. E6-415 Filed 1-13-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 45 The Moscow Times: Baltics Plan Nuclear Reactor Wednesday, January 18, 2006. Issue 3333. Page 6. Business in Brief The three Baltic states, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, will cooperate in building a nuclear reactor, the Baltic News Service reported Tuesday, citing the Lithuanian Economy Ministry. The reactor will be built in Lithuania, the largest of the three countries. An agreement will be signed in the Lithuanian capital, Vilnius, on Jan. 26-27, BNS said. It gave no details of what each country would contribute to the construction. Lithuania has pledged to close its Soviet-built Ignalina nuclear plant by 2010. It uses the same type of reactors as Ukraine's Chernobyl, the site in 1986 of the world's worst nuclear power plant disaster. (Bloomberg) $5.8Bln on Weapons in '06 Russia's government will spend $5.8 billion buying and maintaining weapons and other military hardware this year, almost 50 percent more than last year, Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said, RIA-Novosti reported. The hardware budget is 48 percent more than last year and about 70 percent of all planned defense spending for 2006, the state-run news service said. The Defense Ministry ordered new fighter jets for the Air Force this year for the first time in a decade as oil prices rose. (Bloomberg) EU, Moldova Talk Energy BRUSSELS -- The European Union said Tuesday that it was sending an expert to Moldova this week to discuss bringing the former Soviet republic into an energy treaty linking 34 nations in what the EU says is already the world's biggest internal market for gas and electricity. Moldova, along with Ukraine and Norway, currently holds observer status under an agreement signed in October. EU spokeswoman Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen said the mission was not directly linked to Monday's deal between Moldova and the Russian state-controlled monopoly Gazprom, which had cut off gas supplies to Moldova in a dispute over prices. (AP) © Copyright 2006 The Moscow Times. All rights reserved. ***************************************************************** 46 asahi.com: Watchdog checks nuclear plant safety 01/17/2006 The Asahi Shimbun An independent organization has started monitoring nuclear power plants to ensure safety following a series of incidents including data falsifications and radiation leakages. Japan Nuclear Technology Institute started its first assessment for Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 plant on Monday. The electric power industry and the institute plan to conduct inspections of all nuclear power plants every six years. The institute was set up in April 2005 by electric power, heavy electric machinery and other industries. Unlike current government inspections based primarily on documents, the institute will conduct on-the-spot checks and give guidance to electric power companies. The inspections cover six areas--corporate governance, operations, maintenance, engineering support, protection from radiation emissions and analysis based on operating experience. The electric power industry aims to make independent inspections a second pillar of the safety management systems for nuclear power plants. The institute sends a 15-member team including two experts from the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations, a U.S. organization that has extensive experience in nuclear power plant assessments. Other inspectors are former employees of electric power companies, who have been trained in procedures modeled after those of the U.S. organization. The electric power industry hopes to regain trust from local governments through the new monitoring system. The Fukushima plant was selected for the first assessment apparently to improve relations with the prefectural government. Governor Eisaku Sato has raised doubts about the safety of TEPCO's pluthermal nuclear fuel recycling program planned at the plant. Some analysts say assessments by Japan Nuclear Technology Institute may be lenient because most inspectors are former employees of electric power companies. Kiyohiko Matsushita, director at the institute, however, said inspectors will critically state what needs to be done and all the inspection results will be made public.(IHT/Asahi: January 17,2006) + The Asahi Shimbun Company ***************************************************************** 47 UPI: U.S. pushes for more nuclear power United Press International - Security &Terrorism - 1/17/2006 4:47:00 PM -0500 By BRANDON THURNER UPI Correspondent WASHINGTON, Jan. 17 (UPI) -- With energy demand spiraling and markets volatile, the U.S. administration and the energy industry are looking to nuclear power to lessen dependency on traditional fuel sources. "I think we have a tremendous need and responsibility to provide nuclear power," White House Chief of Staff Andy Card said in a speech at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce last week. Card also said that only part of the responsibility for reducing dependence on foreign sources of energy lay with the government. "We also have an obligation to pay attention to the private sector," he said. Last year's energy act provides a series of incentives and federal subventions for companies building nuclear power facilities in an effort to end what amounts to a 20-year moratorium on new plants. Officials said the Card speech was part of drive by the administration to highlight the potential for nuclear power to reduce dependence on sources of energy -- like Middle Eastern oil -- that are both subject to potential supply disruption because of political instability, and produce greenhouse gases which may contribute to climate change. "This administration has been clear on the need to expand the use of nuclear power," Craig Stevens, press secretary for the Department of Energy, told United Press International, adding that only 20 percent of the nation's energy supply currently comes from nuclear power. "The need is to expand the use of nuclear energy and lessen dependence on fossil fuels such as coal and natural gas," Stevens said. David Slump, chief marketing officer for General Electric Energy, believes a diverse energy supply is "very important" due to the sheer growth in U.S. power requirements along with the inherent volatility in energy markets. "The trick is finding a way to make matters balance using coal, gas and nuclear" options, said Slump. He estimated 50 percent of U.S. energy comes from coal, which is not subject to supply disruption, and the environmental impact of which can be lessened by the use of clean coal technology in the future. Slump said that though no new nuclear facilities have been brought on-line in the last 20 years, the industry had added output equivalent to a whole new plant by "uprating," or upgrading existing equipment. "Nuclear modernizations and upgrades are providing significant capacity increases at existing facilities," agreed John Wilson, vice president of group strategy at Siemens. "Life extensions of the existing nuclear fleet, beyond their original lifespan are also a significant source of capacity to that balance portfolio," he added. But the capacity limit for expanding output in this way may have been reached, according to Dr. Robert Peltier writing in the journal Platts Power. He says the average nuclear plant capacity factor reached a record high of 91 percent in 2004. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 offers several incentives to entice nuclear developers and operators to build new reactors. Two such offers include federal insurance and tax credits for generating new nuclear power. According to Peltier, the act provides federal "insurance" for the first six new nuclear reactors on a decreasing scale. The first two reactors would have 100 percent coverage against delay costs of up to $500 million each while the last four plants would receive 50 percent coverage of up to $250 million each, after a 180-day "deductible." The production tax credit for nuclear power currently stands at 1.8 cents per kilowatt hour for the first eight years of generation, according to Peltier. This is in comparison to other sources of energy such as wind, which enjoys a 1.5 cent per kilowatt hour subsidy over a 10 year period. With six new reactors, officials estimate a total capacity of 6,000 megawatts, which would lead to a total annual subsidy of $750 million, according to Peltier. On the issue of the costs of energy production, Slump told UPI that nuclear energy is the least expensive source of energy to produce -- at $1 per kilowatt hour once the plant is up and running. However, nuclear power is capital intensive making the sunk capital costs in designing and constructing new nuclear facilities much higher than for other energy options. But critics of nuclear power say that those figures don't take into account the costs of dealing with and storing radioactive waste byproducts and other cost measures from generating electricity in this manner. "Nuclear power is too expensive, too dangerous and generates nuclear waste with no good disposal options," said Anna Aurilio, legislative director of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. Aurilio argued the nuclear industry should not be getting subsidized with federal dollars when other vital programs such as student aid and Medicare are being cut and believes nuclear power as an industry cannot survive without government funding. "I'd be happy to see a program where nuclear power plants compete on the market without government subsidies," she added. Public opposition to new reactors -- disparaged by critics as NIMBYism, "Not In My Back Yard" -- has also been a factor in the absence of new plant starts, say observers. But Stevens said that communities with existing facilities in their neighborhoods are much less opposed to new plants. He said opinion poll data gathered by the nuclear industry backed him up. A survey conducted last August by Bisconti Research, Inc. with Quest Global Research Group found that 83 percent of Americans living in the vicinity of nuclear power plants favor it as an energy source and 76 percent would be willing to see a new reactor built near them. The telephone survey of 1,152 randomly selected plant neighbors has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points and was commissioned by the Nuclear Energy Institute, which represents the industry. With a renewed push this year to expand nuclear facilities, Stevens said the administration needed to turn the tide of public perception, and "beat back the erroneous mystique of having nuclear reactors in a community." © Copyright 2006 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 48 [du-list] Warning to SE ASian countries about Iran war and Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 15:11:04 -0800 For Immediate Release Rrquest Wide Distribution Contact: Bob Nichols bob.bobnichols@gmail.com Or, Leuren Moret leurenmoret@yahoo.com This is a deadly message to Southeastern Asian Countries about the upcoming IRAN War and the monsoon rains depositing deadly radiation in the environment. The message is from Leuren Moret, a world famous geoscientist and radiation expert and myself, Bob Nichols, newspaper correspondent and writer. I request that you send this to everyone in your address book and that you "Be the Media". Help us stop the Fifth US Nuclear War in 15 years from even starting. Thank you, Bob Nichols Project Censored Award Winner Correspondent, San Francisco Bay View newspaper To: All People concerned about American Wars Worldwide From: Leuren Moret Subject: Warning to SE Asian countries about Iran war and monsoon rains depositing radiation in environment Dear Editor and staff - The United states has now caused depleted uranium illnesses in more than 50% of our soldiers who have served on the depleted uranium battlefields in Iraq, Yugoslavia and Afghanistan. "Depleted Uranium: Dirty Bombs, Dirty Missiles, Dirty Bullets" http://www.sfbayview.com /081804/Depleteduranium081804.shtml People at the top of the US govt and Military know this: "Terrell E. Arnold, who has been responsible for training our most senior and most promising military officers as chairman of the Department of International Studies at the U.S. National War College in Washington, reports that Coalition dead and wounded may actually be twice what the US government admits and that, including the effects of our use of depleted uranium and other toxic weapons, "a long-term casualty rate for American forces of 40-50 percent appears realistic."" The US and Israel are threatening nuclear war on Iran. The Chinese intelligence have already warned countries that will be contaminated with radiation from monsoon rainout of nuclear materials: http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/dec30-jan606.htm Page Down the page for the article on Chinese Intelligence. "Southeast Asian intelligence sources report that Burma's (Myanmar's) recent abrupt decision to move its capital from Rangoon (Yangon) to remote Pyinmana, 200 miles to the north, is a result of Chinese intelligence warnings to its Burmese allies about the effects of radiation resulting from a U.S. conventional or tactical nuclear attack on Iranian nuclear facilities." "There is concern that a series of attacks on Iranian nuclear installations will create a Chernobyl-like radioactive cloud that would be caught up in monsoon weather in the Indian Ocean." "Reports from Yemen indicate that western oil companies are concerned about U.S. intentions in Iran since the southern Arabian country catches the edge of the monsoon rains that could contain radioactive fallout from an attack, endangering their workers in the country." "Low-lying Rangoon lies in the path of monsoon rains that would continue to carry radioactive fallout from Iran over South and Southeast Asia between May and October." "Coastal Indian Ocean cities like Rangoon, Dhaka, Calcutta, Mumbai, Chennai, and Colombo would be affected by the radioactive fallout more than higher elevation cities since humidity intensifies the effects of the fallout. Thousands of government workers were given only two days' notice to pack up and leave Rangoon for the higher (and dryer) mountainous Pyinmana." Moret continues: I have been on SAHAR TV - Teheran Office - warning about this radiation and discussing other issues. Please contact Afsaneh Ostovar, the Producer of the programs if you would like more information. You should do a big story on this coming nightmare from the "Infidels". I have lived in Iran briefly. I love Iran and the people. This cannot be allowed to happen to Iran by the people of the world. It will make the country radioactive forever. Please do what you can to help. Here is an article I wrote for the World Affairs Journal. Look at the map and see where Iran is in this nuclear war: "Depleted Uranium: The Trojan Horse of Nuclear War" http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs /2004/DU-Trojan-Horse1jul04 .htm Or, *http://tinyurl.com/7dydm* Here is a Letter to the Editor for you to post everywhere: BATTLE CREEK ENQUIRER ­ Letter to Editor/Opinion, August 9, 2005 Depleted uranium is WMD by Leuren Moret http://www.battlecreekenquirer .com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID =/20050809/OPINION02/508090332/1014/OPINION Or, *http://tinyurl.com/87crs* Thank you, Leuren Moret LeurenMoret@yahoo.com [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] To unsubscribe from this groups send a message to du-list-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com. In the body of the message type unsubscribe and send. ***************************************************************** 49 CCT: Search for barrels said to contain radioactive matter turns up empty Posted on Tue, Jan. 17, 2006 By John Geluardi CONTRA COSTA TIMES An excavation on a south Richmond beach failed to verify an informant's claim that barrels of radioactive materials were buried there 40 years ago. Rick Alcaraz told authorities last year that when he was a UC Berkeley groundskeeper in the 1960s, he was directed to collect 55-gallon drums loaded with radioactive material from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and dispose of them in a marshy area known as Meeker Beach. A radiation survey and extensive excavation of the site failed to verify Alcaraz's claims, a Department of Toxic Substance Control spokesperson said last week. "A contractor dug two trenches 12 feet deep and 30 feet long," said Barbara Cook, chief of the toxic control department's Northern California coastal cleanup operations. "We found some buried metal items, but we were very happy to find no barrels or any indication of radioactivity." A full report on the excavation and other radiation surveys is being prepared by Engineering/Remediation Resources Group. Cook said the cost of the one-day excavation and related reports would cost between $10,000 and $20,000. Meeker Beach, which is owned by the Richmond Redevelopment Agency, is located between the UC Berkeley Field Station and Promontory Point, a gated community within the Marina Bay Development. It is also near the Zeneca site, which is highly contaminated from more than 100 years of chemical and pesticide manufacturing. In an interview with radio station KPFA last year, Alcaraz said he opened one of the barrels and discovered an ore-like material. He said he handled some of the material until a co-worker warned him that it was "live." That night, Alcaraz said he experienced bleeding from his nose, ears and eyes. Contact John Geluardi at 510-262-2787 ***************************************************************** 50 Deseret News: Downwinder group upset with Leavitt [deseretnews.com] Tuesday, January 17, 2006 He hasn't released nuclear test report despite requests By Joe Bauman Deseret Morning News A group concerned about injuries from nuclear-weapons testing is disappointed that former Utah Gov. Mike Leavitt has not released a study concerning fallout damage. "We had hoped that when Gov. Leavitt became secretary of Health and Human Services he would intervene to make the final report public, because of Utahns' long-term concern about this issue," said Bob Schaeffer, public education consultant for the national group, Alliance for Nuclear Accountability. Based in Washington, D.C., he was interviewed by telephone on Thursday. The alliance announced that it filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services on Thursday, seeking release of the final version of a report by the agency's Centers for Disease Control. Titled "Feasibility Study of the Health Consequences to American People from Nuclear Weapons Tests Conducted by the United States and Other Nations," the final report has not been released, years after a draft copy was made public. By coincidence, the group's action came two days after the Deseret Morning News had filed its own FOIA request for the same final report. The newspaper also requested all correspondence, including e-mail, that could show why the report's release has been delayed. Schaeffer said the alliance has been "trying to press the government to make increasingly detailed information available to the public and policymakers about the health consequences of nuclear weapons." The reasons are dual, he said: First, Americans have the right to know what happened concerning nuclear-weapons testing, and "we are eager to see federal compensation programs extended to all those who were damaged by testing and related activity." A draft report on the feasibility of studying health consequences was completed more than four years ago, he said. "We kind of forced it into the public domain," Schaeffer added. Then federal officials said they would not make recommendations on the report until it had undergone technical review by the National Academy of Sciences, he said. The review was completed in 2003, but the final report has not been released, he said. The group had hoped Leavitt would dislodge the report after he became head of the Department of Health and Human Services in February 2005. But that didn't happen, he said. "It was a frustrating experience with no response," he said of attempts to get Leavitt to act. In addition to the FOIA request, the alliance sent a letter to Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, along with copies to members of the Utah delegation. "It is long past time for the government to be forthcoming in releasing the CDC-NCI (Centers for Disease Control-National Cancer Institute) report," says the letter, signed by Susan Gordon, director of the alliance. "We will keep you informed as our FOIA request moves forward, and would appreciate any assistance you can offer this report to finally see the light of day." © 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company [ /] ***************************************************************** 51 Sydney Morning Herald: Speculation drives uranium miners as Gallop goes - By Jamie Freed January 18, 2006 SHARES in West Australian uranium explorers rocketed up to 32 per cent higher yesterday in response to the shock resignation of the state's staunchly anti-nuclear premier, Dr Geoff Gallop, on Monday. Dr Gallop's fierce opposition to uranium mining has hampered opportunities for companies such as Rio Tinto, Paladin Resources, Redport Limited, Nova Energy and Uranex to make progress on their projects in WA. In an interview with the Herald last month, Dr Gallop insisted WA's uranium deposits would remain in the ground as long as he remained premier. But with Energy and State Development Minister, Alan Carpenter, tipped as the favourite to replace Dr Gallop, uranium explorers believe a more constructive debate on the merits of yellowcake mining could occur. "Geoff Gallop appeared to be committed to the notion that uranium mining is a no-go zone in Western Australia," Redport executive chairman Richard Homsany said. "It's too early to call whether the way will be open for uranium mining, but what this may do is … open the issue up for proper debate and investigation in WA." Paladin managing director John Borshoff said the change in state leadership could spark an industry lobbying campaign. He said the appeal of uranium would give it a high profile in the state. The state's opposition leader, Matt Birney, has voiced Liberal Party support for uranium mining in the state, and Labor's Federal resources spokesman, Martin Ferguson, has also encouraged WA to examine its uranium mining policy. Mr Carpenter's views on the issue remain unknown, as he was overseas and unavailable to comment yesterday. Industry sources, however, believe he might view the issue more pragmatically than Dr Gallop. But former WA Greens MP Robin Chapple, who represents the Anti-Nuclear Alliance of WA, warned yesterday's share price gains might be premature because the new premier would face fierce opposition to uranium mining from within his own party. "I don't think we'll be seeing any change in policy," he said. "The leader has a view. That view can only ever be supported or not supported by the majority of the caucus - and the [WA Labor] caucus is dominated by the Left." In an interview with ABC Radio yesterday, Acting Premier Eric Ripper noted there was "virtually unanimous support" for Dr Gallop's uranium mining ban at the most recent state ALP conference in WA. Uranex shares closed 6c, or 32 per cent, higher at 25c yesterday, and Nova Energy shares closed 9c, or 14 per cent, higher at 72c. Redport shares closed 0.6c, or 7 per cent, higher at 9c, and Paladin shares closed 8c, or 3 per cent, higher at $2.55. | Copyright © 2006. The Sydney Morning Herald. NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net) On the management contract for Livermore Lab. --Marylia The original article can be found on SFGate.com here: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/01/15/BAG3PGNKDF1.DTL --------------------------------------------------------------------- Sunday, January 15, 2006 (SF Chronicle) LIVERMORE/U.C. must bid to run Lawrence laboratory/No challengers to university have surfaced so far Patrick Hoge, Chronicle Staff Writer The exclusive contract the University of California has to operate the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is in jeopardy now that the federal government has opened the competition to manage the facility in eastern Alameda County. The University of California has run the 8,500-employee lab since it opened in 1952. The competition is one of a series ordered by the federal Department of Energy and Congress in 2003 after a string of accounting, security and safety lapses at the Livermore lab and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. The Livermore lab is responsible for testing the nation's nuclear weapons for safety and reliability without exploding nuclear bombs. It has spent more than $3 billion developing the National Ignition Facility on a still unsuccessful effort to generate thermonuclear fusion by using laser beams to blast and super-compress pellets of nuclear fuel. It is also involved in numerous other types of research ranging from advanced defense technologies, nuclear nonproliferation, homeland security, energy, environment, biosciences and biotechnology. Last month, UC and engineering giant Bechtel Corp. won a government contract to run the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, beating out a competing partnership between the University of Texas and defense contractor Lockheed Martin. In April of 2005, UC also held on to its contract to run Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The Livermore lab contract is set to expire in 2007. The National Nuclear Security Administration on Friday invited "expressions of interest" to run the lab. No challenger for the Livermore contract has yet emerged, but a formal request for proposals is not scheduled for release until late summer, said Al Stotts, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, a quasi-independent arm of the Department of Energy. UC is expected to submit a bid, either alone or as in some kind of partnership. "The regents have authorized the university to begin preparations for the competition, and we are doing so in earnest," UC president Robert Dynes said in a statement Friday. "Should we compete, we will do so vigorously and with the firm belief that excellence in science and technology is critical to the mission of the laboratory." The lab occupies a one-square-mile site in Livermore and a 10-square mile site 18 miles to the east. Marylia Kelley, executive director of the nonprofit Tri-Valley CAREs, or Communities Against a Radioactive Environment, said she hoped the contract competition process would provide a chance to move the Livermore lab's mission away from nuclear weapons testing. "Livermore is the obvious choice as the first lab that should transition to be a green lab," she said. Such a decision would have to come from elected officials, however, Stotts said. In late November, Energy Department officials decided to double the amount of radioactive plutonium that can be stored at Lawrence Livermore, enough for as many as 300 nuclear bombs. E-mail Patrick Hoge at phoge@sfchronicle.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Copyright 2006 SF Chronicle Marylia Kelley Executive Director Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) 2582 Old First Street Livermore, CA USA 94551 - is our web site address. Please visit us there! (925) 443-7148 - is our phone (925) 443-0177 - is our fax _______________________________________________________________________ Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/ Change your settings or access the archives at: http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net ***************************************************************** 58 Hanford News: AdvanceMed Hanford receives accreditation This story was published Tuesday, January 17th, 2006 By the Herald staff AdvanceMed Corp., which provides occupational medicine services at the Hanford nuclear reservation as AdvanceMed Hanford, has been awarded accreditation. Becoming accredited was one of the Department of Energy's requirements when it awarded a contract to AdvanceMed to replace the Hanford Environmental Health Foundation in early 2004. AdvanceMed had two years from the start of operations at Hanford in June 2004 to become accredited, but finished the process sooner. It is accredited for three years by the Accreditation Association for Ambulatory Health Care Inc. "The dedication and effort necessary for an organization to be accredited is substantial, and your organization is to be commended," the association wrote in a letter to AdvanceMed. © 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed ***************************************************************** 59 Tri-Valley Herald: Los Alamos pension plan underfunded Article Last Updated: 01/17/2006 03:40:30 AM Once-strong program now running short By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER The plush University of California pension that kept thousands of scientists working on U.S. nuclear weapons is losing its gold-plated luster, posting its first shortfall in decades. From the latter days of the Cold War until recently, the university's retirement plan of more than $40 billion has been one of the nation's largest and healthiest, with a sufficient surplus of assets over liabilities so that employees have not had to contribute to their retirement for 15 years. But this week, as the university's governing Board of Regents considers carving out a separate, "cloned" pension plan for employees at Los Alamos National Laboratory, one of two nuclear-weapons labs run by the university, a report prepared for the university shows that such a plan would start out underfunded by $54 million. Only a year before, the portion of the university retirement plan attributable to Los Alamos workers was overfunded by $265.7 million. Pension managers at the university were not available Friday or Monday to explain a roughly $300 million decline in net assets from 2004 to 2005 for the Los Alamos portion of the plan. The report, delivered by outside actuaries last summer, suggests that while assets in the Los Alamos portion have shown modest gains, the anticipated payouts to retirees have been climbing steadily. The lab's retirees and workers were enraged to learn their new pension plan, to be taken over in June and administered by a private entity known as Los Alamos National Security LLC, would not be as healthy and well-funded as they had come to expect. Weekend postings to a Web log hosted by former Los Alamos computer scientist Douglas Roberts are full of suggestions for lawsuits and warnings to colleagues at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. "You have exactly 5 months, 12 days, 15 hours, 50 minutes and 41 seconds to determine your future," wrote one lab worker in an anonymous posting. "You can do nothing and become part of the food chain, or you can be the one sitting at the head of the table waiting to be served. It's your choice." Weaponeers say the rich pension benefits kept many of them from hiring out to Silicon Valley and academia after the Cold War, indirectly preserving bomb design knowledge and intuition from the days of explosive testing. Federal weapons officials at the U.S. Department of Energy argued in the 1980s and 1990s that the federal government erroneously had overpaid more than $1 billion into the University of California retirement plan on behalf of workers at the two bomb labs. But getting any of the money back would have required cooperation from the university, and the school disagreed that the federal government had overpaid, leaving the money in place. The retirement plan was flush, university officials said, because it was well managed as the stock market soared in the 1990s — and it remained prudent, they said, to keep a surplus against leaner times. Last year, as the Energy Department opened the contract for managing Los Alamos to competitive bid, federal officials insisted on more influence over pension expenses and called for separating lab workers from the university's huge retirement plan. For years, the overarching UC retirement plan has been overfunded, with 110 percent of assets over liabilities for last year, down from 125 percent in 2003. So was the Los Alamos portion, which at more than $4 billion in assets, was 107 percent funded in 2004 and 137 percent in 2001. By last summer, however, a consultant for the university found the Los Alamos portion had dropped to 99 percent funded. © 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers ***************************************************************** 60 lamonitor.com: LANL pension proposal goes to regents The Online News Source for Los Alamos The University of California will seek approval from the board of regents for setting up a separate pension plan for Los Alamos National Laboratory employees, retirees and inactive members according to UC announcement. In keeping with the provisions of the new contract, a site-specific pension plan must be established. President Robert C. Dynes, will be recommending a plan for placing the University of California Retirement Plan (UCRP) assets and liabilities of the LANL account into a separate UC-sponsored plan, the UC-UCRP Plan. "No benefits will be reduced under the UCRP-LANL Plan," the announcement stated, and many other aspects of administering the current plan will continue. If the regents approve the proposal at their meeting next week, it must also be approved by the Department of Energy. © 2003 Los Alamos Monitor All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************