*****************************************************************
02/06/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.31
*****************************************************************
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 Annan Hopes For Talks On Iran's Nuclear Ambitions Ahead Of Report To
2 Guardian Unlimited: Oil Prices Rise Over Iran Nuclear Move
3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Tells Nuke Agency to Remove Cameras
4 Guardian Unlimited: Polly Toynbee: Cut a deal with the mullahs
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran taunts west on security council move
6 AFP: US diplomat will not rule out sanctions against Iran -
7 AFP: Russian press warns of escalating Iran crisis -
8 AFP: Iran set to start sensitive nuclear work within days -
9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Official: Iran Can Make Atomic Arms
10 Guardian Unlimited: Israel Hails Decision to Report Iran
11 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Warns Against Conflict With Iran
12 IPS-English POLITICS: Snags Surface in India-US Nuclear Deal
13 US: Boston Globe: A flimsy nuclear shield -
14 Nuclear Proliferation: A Gathering Storm By Conn Hallinan
15 Guardian Unlimited: Winds of climate change are about to make
16 HindustanTimes.com: 'Energy independence should be top priority'
17 Green Left Weekly: FoE relaunched in Adelaide
18 asahi.com: Toshiba finalizes deal to buy Westinghouse
NUCLEAR REACTORS
19 US: AP Wire: NRC meets with Duke Energy about S.C. nuclear plant
20 US: The Herald: No danger that new nuclear reactor would run short o
21 US: Statesman.com: Pulaski: The right energy for Texas
22 US: Clarion-Ledger: Better choices than nuclear power -
23 US: http://www.qando.net/ - Nuclear Energy: The Future is Now
24 US: NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Receipt and
25 US: NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Notice of Receipt and
26 US: NRC: In the Matter of Digirad Imaging Solutions, Inc.; Confirmat
27 US: NRC: Steam Generator Tube Integrity and Associated Technical
28 US: NRC: In the Matter of Alfred C. Burris, Senior, M.D.; Confirmato
29 US: NRC: University of Michigan; University of Michigan Ford Nuclear
30 US: NRC: NRC FY 2007 Budget Reflects Anticipated New Nuclear Power P
31 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
32 US: Wisconsin State Journal: Pro-nuclear campaign coming
33 ITAR-TASS: Kalininskaya nuclear power plant shuts down 1st reactor
34 US: Public Citizen: Bush Administration’s FY 2007 Budget for Nuclear
35 US: NRC: Notice of Environmental Assessment Related to the Issuance
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
36 canada.com: Forces ombudman's office denies Gulf War illnesses
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
37 US: [NukeNet] Deadline for MOX facility is extended
38 Las Vegas SUN: Bush requests $544 million for Yucca Mountain in 2007
39 Las Vegas SUN: Bush requests money for Yucca Mountain, reprocessing
40 Bellona: Bush and Russia wish to join forces in making nuclear fuel
41 AFP: BNFL sells Westinghouse to Toshiba for 5.4 billion dollars -
42 US: LA Daily News: Contamination critical mass
43 US: Quad-City Times: The $30 million temporary solution
44 US: PRN: Louisiana Energy Services Hires Plant Manager for the Natio
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
45 KIFI: Batelle Energy Alliance Looks Back at First Year
46 KIFI: Former Governors Testify on INL Waste
47 KIFI: D.O.E Budget Expands Nuclear Energy
48 DOE: Department of Energy Requests $23.6 Billion for FY 2007
49 DOE: Department of Energy Announces New Nuclear Initiative
50 Hanford News: Battelle 'matchmaker' to advise Oregon on the science
51 San Mateo County Times: 'Exciting time' for H-bomb scientists
52 Newsday.com: BNL to receive federal grant --
53 UPI: DOE budget focused on new energy
54 Rocky Mountain News: Review exposes Flats data as faulty
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Annan Hopes For Talks On Iran's Nuclear Ambitions Ahead Of Report To Security Council
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2006 17:00:15 -0500
New York, Feb 6 2006 5:00PM
With the head of the United Nations International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) preparing to report to the Security Council on Iran,
Secretary-General Kofi Annan today voiced hope that Tehran would
resume talks on the issue in the coming weeks.
On Saturday, the Vienna-based IAEA Board of Governors adopted a resolution
calling for Iran to renew its suspension of uranium enrichment
and reprocessing activities, which Tehran ended last month,
and to take other steps relating to nuclear ambitions.
By asking IAEA Director-General Mohamed ElBaradei to report on the
matter to the Security Council, the Board moved the issue for the
first time to the 15-member body. Iran was requested to “extend
full and prompt cooperation to the Agency, which the Director General
deems indispensable and overdue, and in particular to help
the Agency clarify possible activities which could have a military
nuclear dimension.”
Commenting on this development in remarks to reporters at a press
briefing in Dubai, Secretary-General Kofi Annan said Mr. ElBaradei’s
report is expected by the end of this month. “I hope in between
Iran will take steps that would help create an environment and
confidence building measures that will bring the parties back to
the negotiating table,” he said.
The IAEA Board’s resolution passed by a vote of 27 in favour, with
three against – Cuba, Syria and Venezuela – and five abstentions
– Algeria, Belarus, Indonesia, Libya and South Africa.
2006-02-06 00:00:00.000
________________
For more details go to UN News Centre at http://www.un.org/news
To change your profile or unsubscribe go to:
http://www.un.org/news/dh/latest/subscribe.shtml
*****************************************************************
2 Guardian Unlimited: Oil Prices Rise Over Iran Nuclear Move
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday February 6, 2006 5:01 PM
AP Photo ATH104
By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV
Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's foreign minister warned against
threatening Iran over its nuclear program Monday after Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reportedly agreed with a German
interviewer that all options, including military response,
remained on the table.
Oil prices rose after Iran ended all voluntary cooperation with
the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, saying it would start uranium
enrichment and bar surprise inspections of its facilities.
Traders fear the dispute could disrupt supplies from OPEC's
second-largest oil producer.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for talks to continue with
Tehran, which was reported to the U.N. Security Council on
Saturday by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
``I think that at the current stage, it is important not to make
guesses about what will happen and even more important not to
make threats,'' Lavrov said during a visit to Athens, Greece.
Rumsfeld, in an interview with the German daily newspaper
Handelsblatt, was asked if all options, including the military
one, were on the table with Iran.
``That's right,'' Rumsfeld responded, according to
Handelsblatt's print edition Monday.
Lavrov said the use of force would be possible only if the
United Nations consented.
The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors voted to report Iran to
the Security Council, which has the power to impose economic and
political sanctions. Tehran responded by saying it would start
full-scale uranium enrichment and bar surprise inspections of
its facilities.
In Norway, China's foreign minister urged continued diplomatic
efforts to resolve the standoff.
``A diplomatic solution serves the common interest,'' Li
Zhaoxing said during an official visit. ``We are still working
on our Iranian colleagues to cherish negotiations.''
However, Li warned that time was ``already pressing'' for
efforts to resolve the dispute before it reaches the Security
Council.
Li declined to stay whether China would support sanctions
against Iran.
Meanwhile, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said
Monday a proposed joint venture to enrich Iranian uranium in
Russia would be possible only if Tehran resumed its moratorium
on enrichment activities, Interfax reported.
Despite an earlier threat to the contrary, Iran said Sunday it
was willing to discuss Moscow's proposal to shift large-scale
enrichment operations to Russian territory in an effort to allay
suspicions it is pursuing nuclear weapons.
Talks on the project were scheduled for Feb. 16 in Moscow. The
Bush administration supports the proposal.
Uranium enriched to a low degree can be used for nuclear
reactors, while highly enriched uranium is suitable for
warheads. Iran insists it only wants to generate electricity,
but the United States and some of its allies contend Tehran is
trying to build a bomb.
The Islamic republic also left the door open for further
international negotiations over its program.
Radzhab Safarov, a Moscow-based expert on Iran, said this
month's talks in Moscow could produce a breakthrough because
some Iranian politicians had questioned the wisdom of Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's uncompromising course and had
grown increasingly worried about growing international
isolation.
``There is a strong chance that these talks will lead to a
decision that would help defuse the situation,'' Safarov said at
a news conference.
Safarov said any U.S. or Israeli military action against Iran
would prompt Iran to retaliate by blocking oil deliveries
through the Persian Gulf and throwing the global market into
chaos.
On Monday, light, sweet crude for March delivery on the New York
Mercantile Exchange rose 75 cents to $66.12 a barrel in
electronic trading by afternoon in Europe. Despite relative high
stocks of crude and oil products in the United States, concerns
about Iran reducing exports - either voluntarily or because of
any sanctions imposed - are supporting the market, said Sucden
Commodity brokers.
France's foreign minister told Iranian officials Monday to ``be
careful'' when considering whether to use economic sanctions to
retaliate after the Security Council referral.
``The Iranians should be careful,'' Philippe Douste-Blazy said
on France-Inter radio. ``Isolating themselves would be very
serious for them.''
``They also need economic cooperation for their industries.''
Iran reiterated its stance that it would not negotiate with the
United States.
``There is no debate about relations and negotiation with the
U.S. There has been no change in our policy,'' Gholamhossein
Elham, Iran's government spokesman, said Monday.
---
Associated Press reporter Nicholas Paphitis in Athens, Greece,
contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
3 Guardian Unlimited: Iran Tells Nuke Agency to Remove Cameras
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday February 6, 2006 8:01 PM
By GEORGE JAHN
Associated Press Writer
VIENNA, Austria (AP) - Iran told the International Atomic Energy
Agency to remove surveillance cameras and agency seals from
sites and nuclear equipment by the end of next week, the U.N.
watchdog agency said Monday.
Iran's demands came two days after the IAEA reported Tehran to
the Security Council over its disputed atomic program. The
council has the power to impose economic and political
sanctions.
In a confidential report to the IAEA's 35-member board, agency
head Mohamed ElBaradei said Iran also announced a sharp
reduction in the number and kind of inspections IAEA experts
will be allowed, effective immediately.
The report was dated Monday and made available to The Associated
Press.
The moves were expected. Iranian officials had repeatedly warned
they would stop honoring the so-called ``Additional Protocol''
to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty - an agreement giving
IAEA inspectors greater inspecting authority - if the IAEA board
referred their country to the Security Council.
A diplomat close to the Vienna-based IAEA told the AP that Iran
had also made good on another threat - formally setting a date
for resuming full-scale work on its uranium enrichment program,
which can make either fuel or the nuclear core of warheads.
The diplomat, who spoke to the AP on condition of anonymity
because the matter was confidential, refused to divulge the date
set by Ali Larijani, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator, in a
letter received Monday by ElBaradei.
In Dubai, United Arab Emirates, Secretary-General Kofi Annan
said he was still hopeful that Iran will take
confidence-building measures with the IAEA.
``It's not the end of the road,'' Annan said of the Security
Council referral. ``I hope that in between, Iran will take steps
that will help create an environment and confidence-building
measures that will bring the partners back to the negotiating
table.''
In his brief report, ElBaradei cited E. Khalilipour, vice
president of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, as saying:
``From the date of this letter, all voluntarily suspended
non-legally binding measures including the provisions of the
Additional Protocol and even beyond that will be suspended.''
Calling on the agency to sharply reduce the number of inspectors
in Iran, Khalilipour added: ``All the Agency's containment and
surveillance measures which were in place beyond the normal
Agency safeguards measures should be removed by mid-February
2006.''
Earlier, Russia's foreign minister warned against threatening
Iran over its nuclear program after Defense Secretary Donald H.
Rumsfeld reportedly agreed with a German interviewer that all
options, including military response, remained on the table.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for talks to continue with
Tehran, adding: ``I think that at the current stage, it is
important not to make guesses about what will happen and even
more important not to make threats.''
Lavrov said the use of force would be possible only if the
United Nations consented.
Rumsfeld, in an interview with the German daily newspaper
Handelsblatt, was asked if all options, including the military
one, were on the table with Iran.
``That's right,'' Rumsfeld responded, according to
Handelsblatt's print edition Monday.
In Norway, China's foreign minister urged continued diplomatic
efforts to resolve the standoff.
``A diplomatic solution serves the common interest,'' Li
Zhaoxing said during an official visit. ``We are still working
on our Iranian colleagues to cherish negotiations.''
However, Li warned that time was ``already pressing'' for
efforts to resolve the dispute before it reaches the Security
Council.
Li declined to stay whether China would support sanctions
against Iran.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
4 Guardian Unlimited: Polly Toynbee: Cut a deal with the mullahs
Comment
No more fantasy diplomacy: cut a deal with the mullahs
Iran cannot be prevented from developing nuclear weapons, only
delayed. We must negotiate not ratchet up the rhetoric
Polly Toynbee
Tuesday February 7, 2006
Now the mad mullahs of Iran will soon have nuclear bombs, are we
all doomed? Thumbing his nose at the impotent west, President
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad taunts us: "Our enemies cannot do a damn
thing. We do not need you at all. But you are in need of the
Iranian nation." And he is absolutely right. A frisson of panic
shudders around the globe: he has already threatened to wipe
Israel off the face of the Earth. Do something, someone! But what
and who? And if there is nothing to be done, what then?
The International Atomic Energy Agency has failed to stop Iran
restarting its nuclear programme. The matter has been referred to
the UN, with a decision on any possible action in early March.
But that may be yet another dismal reminder of UN incapacity.
Meanwhile, the Americans are grinding out ritual bellicose
statements, Donald Rumsfeld refusing to rule out air strikes. The
Israelis warn that Iran will pay "a very heavy price" and Iran
replies that if anyone attacks "we will give the enemy a lesson
that will be remembered throughout history". Is this the way the
world ends?
All this suggests that international diplomacy is not one whit
wiser than it ever was. Talking to experts in the field, these
appear to be a few key facts: even if the US or Israel strike
down the sites where they think Iranian nuclear weapons are
being built, that can only delay their development. (How good
are we at finding weapons anyway?) If Iran wants weapons above
all else, it can get them by around 2010. Unlike Libya, Iran may
well put national pride before economic growth, ignoring any
harm sanctions can do them. If the world's fourth largest
producer sends oil prices through the roof, it can cause
near-nuclear damage to the global economy. If this is how the
west wants to play it, then Iran seems to hold some strong cards.
History sheds light, but offers few answers. The Anglo-American
coup knocking over Mossadegh in 1953 to enthrone the shah was
another shining example of how western crusaders for democracy
prop up dictators in exchange for oil, afraid of the elections
they pretend to champion. That is the paradox of the White House
dream of turning Afghanistan and Iraq into "beacons of
democracy" to spread their light across the Middle East. Yet -
at least at first - democracy was always bound to bring mullahs
and religious parties to power in Kabul and Baghdad or the
Muslim Brotherhood's rise in Egypt. More theocratic parties are
the price of free elections, and the west has to accept it.
American pride is easily bruised, unused to taking such
humiliations as the 1979 embassy-hostage crisis that lasted 444
shaming days and the Iran-backed Beirut embassy attack that
slaughtered 241 marines. On its side, Iran will never forgive
the US for backing Iraq in the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq war.
So the two countries have barely attempted to speak in all these
years: admirable EU attempts at peacemaking could not bridge
that historic bile. Without the US at the table, a deal was
impossible.
On the face of it, Iran has every reason to feel insecure. While
America occupies two of Iran's neighbours and Israel's nuclear
weapons point at Tehran, paranoia seems as justified as it is
dangerous. Yet Iran knows its strength. The Iraq adventure has
exposed the painful limits to force, and America can no longer
make a credible threat of invasion: it has forfeited the power
to frighten.
What's more, Iran is the true winner of that war. They only had
to sit tight and smile as the west delivered on a golden plate
all the influence Iran had always sought in the Middle East. The
US and its allies will soon be gone from Afghanistan and Iraq,
leaving Iranian-backed Shias dominant in both countries, their
influence well spread across Syria, a chunk of Saudi Arabia and
other countries for decades to come. Historic Iranian ambitions
have been fulfilled without firing a shot while the US is
reduced to fist-shaking. How foolish was that?
If Iran is determined, no one can stop it becoming a nuclear
power, alongside Israel, Pakistan and India. The crazed dictator
of North Korea shows the way: nuclear weapons make nations
unassailable. Why on earth would Iran not want them too?
It is much odder that Britain demands them. What for? Protection
against whom? John Reid has said Trident will be replaced - and
now Gordon Brown has said he too would renew our nuclear
weapons, despite the Ł20bn price tag and a lack of anyone to
point them at. If we can seriously consider such expensive folly
in pursuit of strutting our stuff and punching above our weight
to buy a UN security council seat, we can hardly pretend outrage
at Iran's ambitions.
But fantasy diplomacy is taking a grip. The pretence is that the
world united can deflect Tehran: there is still a small chance
that Russia's offer to strike a deal could work. But the experts
expect an aggressive stand-off, with a risk of futile air
attacks. Even if no blood is spilt, the west may find itself in
a cold jihad with a God-driven, nuclear-armed adversary, and no
solution in sight. Nothing suggests that sanctions and fiery
words will make the more moderate forces in Iran overthrow their
mullahs and choose westernisation: under external pressure in
this clash of civilisations, history suggests they will close
ranks. Meanwhile, oil-hungry nations will do dirty backdoor
deals: oil tends to trump UN resolutions.
Fantasy diplomacy is ready to fight all the way to stop the
mullahs getting the bomb. Reality suggests there is a difficult
choice: if you cannot win, give up at once to minimise the
damage. Get off the high horse and start to negotiate terms on
which Iran can be allowed to enrich uranium. It amounts to
turning a blind eye to their weapons potential while striking a
deal that saves their face, affords them some dignity and
entices them economically into becoming a more stable force.
It takes some swallowing, but what if there is no alternative?
Either they have nuclear weapons and we are at cold war, or else
they have nuclear weapons and we have an uneasy kind of peace.
But that decision has to be made before UN sanctions ratchet up
the rhetoric to no-turning-back resistance.
It may be beyond the ability of this White House to climb down,
but the US should remember Aesop's fable The Sun and the Wind:
when they competed to get a man's coat off, the full force of a
cold blast only made him hold on to it tighter, but the warmth
of the sun made him take it off by himself. So far US diplomacy
over Iran echoes Louis XVIII's court: they seem to have
forgotten nothing and learned nothing.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
5 Guardian Unlimited: Iran taunts west on security council move
Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Monday February 6, 2006
The Guardian
Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, taunted the west yesterday
after his country was referred to the UN security council over
its suspected nuclear weapons ambitions. As Tehran took swift
retaliatory action, Mr Ahmadinejad told the west there was
nothing it could do to stop Iran.
He said: "Our enemies cannot do a damn thing. We do not need you
at all. But you are in need of the Iranian nation."
His defiant response came after the board of governors of the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the UN's atomic
watchdog, voted on Saturday by 27 to three - Syria, Cuba and
Venezuela - with five abstentions to refer the issue to the
security council, which could impose sanctions. Mr Ahmadinejad's
remarks will add to jitters when the markets open today, with a
possible jump in oil prices.
Article continues
Iran, the world's fourth biggest oil producer, has threatened to
respond to sanctions by pushing up oil prices. Tehran responded
to the security council referral by:
· Stopping IAEA inspectors from carrying out surprise
inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, making it harder for the
international community to police Iran's activities.
· Scrapping a voluntary agreement reached in 2003 that included
not only the surprise inspections but a suspension of uranium
enrichment, a step towards attaining a nuclear weapons
capability.
· Initiating a bill in the Iranian parliament to restrict the
sale of American goods in Iran.
Manouchehr Mottaki, Iran's foreign minister, said yesterday that
the IAEA's decision presented Iran with two options. "One was
the option of resistance and the other was surrender. We chose
resistance," he said.
Although the issue goes to the security council immediately, it
would not make any decision about action against Iran until
after the IAEA meets again on March 6, giving Tehran a month's
breathing space.
Iran sent conflicting signals over the weekend over whether it
would pursue diplomatic options during this period. On Saturday
Javad Vaeidi, deputy head of the powerful National Security
Council, ruled out acceptance of a Russian compromise plan, the
only deal left on the table. But a foreign ministry spokesman,
Hamid Reza Asefi, told a press conference in Tehran yesterday
that Iran would go ahead with talks with Russia on February 16
but Russia's proposal would have to be "adjusted". Sergei
Ivanov, Russia's defence minister, backed Mr Ahmadinejad's view
that there was little the west could do. He said sanctions would
not have much effect.
The US, emboldened by the IAEA's decision, which will give it
more control over the issue, expressed a determination to
prevent Tehran acquiring a weapons capability. President George
Bush said the referral to the security council "sends a clear
message to the regime in Iran that the world will not permit the
Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons".
Ehud Olmert, the acting prime minister of Israel, which Mr
Ahmadinejad has threatened to wipe off the face of the Earth
said Iran would pay "a very heavy price" for resuming full-scale
uranium enrichment.
The US and Israel have refused to rule out air strikes against
Iranian nuclear facilities. Donald Rumsfeld, the US defence
secretary, reiterated this yesterday. He said this was partly
because of Mr Ahmadinejad's approach to Israel. "Any government
that says Israel has no right to exist is making a statement
about its possible behaviour in the future," he said.
But Abdolrahim Moussavi, head of Iran's joint chiefs of staff,
warned that any military strike would be useless. "We are not
seeking a military confrontation, but if that happens we will
give the enemy a lesson that will be remembered throughout
history," he said.
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
6 AFP: US diplomat will not rule out sanctions against Iran -
Mon Feb 6, 9:01 AM ET
BRUSSELS (AFP) - A senior US diplomat refused to rule out
sanctions against Iran
The Islamic republic has said that it will begin
large-scale uranium enrichment, the focus of fears it is seeking
nuclear weapons, in 'due course' in response to being reported to
the UN Security Council.
US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Kurt
Volker said it would be better for the West to work within the
UN, but he left open other options if Tehran continues its
sensitive atomic activities.
'We may get to the stage where we would agree in the UN on
sanctions to apply to Iran, if they continue to reject
cooperation with the international community and continue to
pursue uranium enrichment within Iran, which can really only be
justified as necessary for a nuclear weapons programme,' he said.
'If the UN doesn't do that, I think we will face questions about,
well, what do we do, because it is a very serious threat,' he
said.
Volker suggested that the European Unionor the United States
would be within their rights to apply "sanctions to a country
such as Iran."
"That's a matter of choice that the US has made a long time ago
and that the European Union is perfectly within its rights to
make."
Iran maintains that it only wants to generate atomic energy.
But the process of enrichment, which involves feeding uranium
gas through cascades of centrifuges to make reactor fuel, can be
extended to make the fissile core of a nuclear bomb.
Iran agreed to suspend this work and centrifuge assembly in 2003
and 2004.
The current crisis was sparked by Iran's decision last August to
resume uranium conversion -- which makes the gas fed into
centrifuges -- and start laboratory-scale enrichment on January
10.
Tehran's latest stance comes in response to the International
Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) decision on Saturday to refer Iran to
the UN Security Council.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
7 AFP: Russian press warns of escalating Iran crisis -
Mon Feb 6, 3:25 AM ET
MOSCOW (AFP) - The use of military force to quash Iran " /> 's
nuclear plans appeared more likely after a UN agency resolution
on the issue and amid Tehran's continued resistance to a Russian
compromise solution, Russian media said.
"The US prepares for a new war -- and Iran for a clash of
civilisations," was the headline in Russia's Vremya Novostei
newspaper Monday, reporting a number of belligerent statements
towards Iran made by US politicians.
The Gazeta newspaper reacted in similar fashion to the weekend
resolution by the United Nations
" /> ' nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency
" /> (IAEA), to report Iran to the UN Security Council.
"Iran = Iraq
" /> ?" ran the newspaper's top headline. "The situation is
reminiscent of the situation before the start of the military
campaign in Iraq," Gazeta said, alluding to the US-led invasion
of Iraq in 2003.
Another Russian newspaper, Nezavisimaya, referred to comments by
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld at a weekend security
conference in Munich, interpreting them as hinting "at military
means to solve the Iranian nuclear problem".
Such reports reflected wider Russian concerns about the Middle
East, amid extensive coverage here of the unrest prompted by
cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed published in some European
newspapers.
Russian newspapers noted however that Iran had still not ruled
out a compromise proposed by Russia that has won some Western
support: to establish a joint venture that would enrich uranium
on Russian territory for use by Iran in a civilian nuclear
energy programme.
The Kommersant daily noted that the IAEA resolution "quite
possibly has a military trajectory", but breathed a sigh of
relief that it had taken "only a day to cool the hot heads" --
referring to Iran's angry reaction to the resolution.
After initial angry outbursts, Iran's leadership had voiced
readiness to pursue talks on the Russian compromise proposal
during a visit by Iranian officials to Moscow on January 16,
Kommersant noted.
Russian Defence Minister Sergei Ivanov reflected widespread
concern in Russia about potential US military action, when he
addressed the Munich Conference on Security Policy on Sunday.
"Russia still believes that as long as possible it's better to
keep the matter in the International Atomic Energy Agency's
hands," said Ivanov, seen as one of the most influential figures
in President Vladimir Putin
" /> 's leadership.
But Ivanov also urged Tehran to rapidly address the West's
suspicions that Iran is trying to build a nuclear bomb.
"We expect unequivocal answers" from Iran, Ivanov said. "It is
not in our interests to wait for the deterioration of the
situation in an already explosive region."
The Russian proposal would see enrichment -- to produce reactor
fuel which can also form the core of a nuclear weapon -- carried
out in Russia and then shipped back to Iran.
The United States and some Western powers suspect Iran is trying
to build a nuclear bomb, but Tehran insists it is setting up a
peaceful atomic energy programme.
In the IAEA vote in Vienna, 27 countries including the Security
Council's permanent five -- Britain, China, France, Russia and
the United States -- voted in favour of reporting Iran to the
council, and five abstained. Iran's only support came from Cuba,
Syria " /> and Venezuela.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
8 AFP: Iran set to start sensitive nuclear work within days -
Tuesday February 7, 06:04 AM
TEHRAN (AFP) - Iran said it had formally notified the UN nuclear
watchdog of its decision to restart sensitive nuclear work at
the centre of concerns the hardline regime could acquire nuclear
weapons.
Senior officials also played down the threat of sanctions and
the danger of military strikes, emphasising the Islamic
republic's vast oil wealth and asserting that "nobody would dare
to attack" the country.
"In a letter to the IAEA, we have announced this date," Ali
Larijani was quoted as saying by the ISNA news agency in
response to a question on when uranium enrichment work would
restart.
"Their inspectors will come to Iran for this purpose in the next
few days," said Larijani, apparently referring to the procedure
whereby International Atomic Energy Agency seals are removed in
the presence of its inspectors.
Iran's hardline President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad ordered the
measures in response to Saturday's vote by the IAEA's 35-nation
board of governors to report Tehran to the UN Security Council.
Snap IAEA inspections have also been brought to a halt --
bringing an abrupt end to the "confidence-building" steps agreed
to by Iran with Britain, France and Germany in 2003.
"Those who planned the IAEA's board of governors meeting against
Iran should pay for their behaviour," Larijani said.
Enrichment is a process that involves feeding uranium gas
through cascades of centrifuges. When purified to low levels the
result is reactor fuel, but the process can be extended to make
the fissile core of a nuclear bomb.
The West suspects Iran is using an energy drive as a mask for a
military programme, and has been urging the country to accept a
moratorium on fuel cycle work.
"We will stand firmly on our feet," said Ahmadinejad.
"If they want to pass the case to one another and refer it to
one another so the Iranian nation will give up its right, they
then they can continue doing so for the next 500 years," ISNA
quoted him as saying.
The previous day he dismissed the IAEA resolution as "the
funniest decision I've seen" and said "we thank God that our
enemies are idiots".
Iran argues it only wants to generate atomic energy, and has
long insisted the suspension of fuel work -- a right enshrined
by the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty for peaceful purposes --
was voluntary and temporary.
In August it resumed uranium conversion -- a precursor to
enrichment -- and lab-scale enrichment on January 10, in moves
that prompted the present crisis.
Government spokesman Gholam Hossein Elham said that while "the
door for voluntary measures has been closed, what remains open
is the door of negotiation."
But speaking in Dubai, UN chief Kofi Annan appealed to Iran to
defuse the crisis, saying the country should "take steps that
would help create an environment of confidence-building measures
that would bring back the parties to the negotiating table."
French Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy also warned Iran
that "if they isolate themselves, it will be very serious for
them".
And in an interview with the German financial newspaper
Handelsblatt, US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that
"all options, including the military one, are on the table."
"Time is already pressing," Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing
said, adding that Beijing was "still encouraging and working
(with) Iranian colleagues" in a bid to prevent a further
escalation of tensions.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Moscow's mediation
must be allowed to run its course, referring to an offer to
enrich Iranian uranium on Russian soil and a one-moth window for
talks on this before the Security Council takes up the case.
But Elham said oil-rich Iran still had the upper hand if it came
to enduring any eventual sanctions.
"Energy is a matter for the West, and we are not interested in
causing problems for them. Any decision in this regard will not
hurt us. It will hurt the consumers and not the producers. We
are in a position of power when it comes to energy, and it will
not have any affect on our budget," he said.
When asked if Iran feared military action, Larijani asserted
that "all the experts say there is a minimal possibility for the
option, nobody would dare to attack Iran."
Oil prices rose Monday on supply fears sparked by the Iran
dispute.
New York's main contract, light sweet crude for delivery in
March, gained 67 cents to 66.04 dollars per barrel in electronic
deals on Monday, while in London the price of Brent North Sea
crude for March delivery won 68 cents to 64.07 dollars per
barrel.
Copyright © 2006 AFP. All rights reserved. All information
*****************************************************************
9 Guardian Unlimited: U.S. Official: Iran Can Make Atomic Arms
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday February 6, 2006 11:01 PM
By BARRY SCHWEID
AP Diplomatic Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Iran used negotiations with the European Union
to play for time and has now achieved the ability to both
develop nuclear weapons and deliver them, a senior Bush
administration official said Monday.
At a news conference at the Foreign Press Center, Robert G.
Joseph, the undersecretary of state for arms control, cited
``tremendous resources'' as well as a ``very sophisticated, a
very advanced scientific and technical community'' as helpful to
Iran.
He offered no assessment of how long it might take Iran to
produce nuclear weapons.
President Bush, approving of a decision by the International
Atomic Energy Agency's board of governors to report Iran to the
U.N. Security Council, said in a statement Saturday that Iran
was ``continuing to develop the capability to build nuclear
weapons.''
Joseph took it a step further. ``I would say that Iran does have
the capability to develop nuclear weapons and the means to
deliver them,'' he said in a response to a question.
With the Europeans having declared two years of negotiations
with Iran at a dead-end, Joseph said ``there is no end of
diplomacy'' and that taking Iran to the Security Council was
``moving diplomacy to the next level.''
``We are giving every chance to diplomacy to work,'' Joseph
said.
At the same time, the official said, ``No options are off the
table. We cannot tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran.''
``What is necessary to stop Iran,'' he said, ``is a firm
indication that the international community not only will speak
to the issue but will take whatever measures are necessary to
convince Iran that it is in its interest to forgo a nuclear
weapons capability.''
In a compromise agreement with Russia, the administration has
agreed to delay any proposal for action against Iran, such as
political or economic sanctions, at least until early March.
In the interim, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said,
``We will wait and see what they (Iran) say, and more important,
what they do.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
10 Guardian Unlimited: Israel Hails Decision to Report Iran
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday February 6, 2006 1:16 AM
By AMY TEIBEL
Associated Press Writer
JERUSALEM (AP) - Israel on Sunday welcomed the decision to
report Iran's nuclear program to the U.N. Security Council, but
analysts said Israeli officials were likely less pleased by
wording that alludes to the Jewish state's suspected nuclear
stockpile.
In negotiations over the resolution by the International Atomic
Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog, Egypt sought to link
fears about Tehran's atomic program to a nuclear weapons-free
zone in the Middle East - an indirect reference to Israel.
Compromise wording made no specific reference to Israel, but the
final resolution stated that ``a solution to the Iranian issue
would contribute to global nonproliferation efforts and ... the
objective of a Middle East free of weapons of mass
destruction.''
Experts say Israel has the world's sixth-largest stockpile of
nuclear weapons, but the Jewish state neither acknowledges nor
denies having such a program.
Acting Prime Minister Ehud Olmert on Sunday lauded the IAEA's
decision, saying it was now charged to ``ultimately exact a very
heavy price from Iran if it persists with these plans and tries
to enrich fuel so it can realize its option to build
non-conventional weapons.''
Mark Regev, a Foreign Ministry spokesman, said Israel does not
see a linkage in the decision between the Iranian nuclear
program and Israel.
``On the contrary, we see a resolution that is taking the
Iranian issue to the U.N. Security Council, which is something
we support,'' Regev said.
Analysts said the connection was clear, though they said the
wording would have no effect on Israel.
``What I think Israel is against is linking the very crucial
Iranian nuclear weapons development program with the other
extraneous issues, which have nothing to do with it,'' said
Ephraim Asculai, an analyst at the Jaffee Center for Strategic
Studies.
Emily Landau, director of the arms control and regional security
project at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies in Tel Aviv,
said the wording ``was a concession to Egypt so Egypt would vote
together with the U.S. and Western states: If you're going to
put pressure on Iran, you're going to have to have something
that will relate to Israel.''
Uzi Arad, director of Israel's Institute of Policy and Strategy,
said that with Mideast peace prospects unlikely, pressure on
Israel to eliminate nuclear arms is not on the international
agenda.
He said he expected countries to concentrate on Iran as ``being
by far the most serious and immediate threat to Middle East and
stability.''
Israel has long identified Iran as the greatest threat to the
Jewish state, accusing Tehran of developing nuclear weapons.
Israeli leaders have repeatedly said diplomatic pressure is the
best way to end Iran's nuclear program, with military action to
be considered only as a last resort.
Tehran insists its nuclear program is peaceful and designed only
to produce energy. Israel disputes that, and has grown
especially concerned following Iranian President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad's calls for Israel's destruction.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
11 Guardian Unlimited: Russia Warns Against Conflict With Iran
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Monday February 6, 2006 3:31 PM
AP Photo ATH102 By VLADIMIR ISACHENKOV Associated Press Writer
MOSCOW (AP) - Russia's foreign minister warned against
threatening Iran over its nuclear program Monday after Defense
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld reportedly agreed with a German
interviewer that all options, including military response,
remained on the table.
Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for talks to continue with
Tehran, which was reported to the U.N. Security Council on
Saturday by the International Atomic Energy Agency.
``I think that at the current stage, it is important not to make
guesses about what will happen and even more important not to
make threats,'' Lavrov said during a visit to Athens, Greece.
Rumsfeld, in an interview with the German daily newspaper
Handelsblatt, was asked if all options, including the military
one, were on the table with Iran.
``That's right,'' Rumsfeld responded, according to
Handelsblatt's print edition Monday.
Lavrov said the use of force would be possible only if the
United Nations consented.
The IAEA's 35-nation board of governors voted to report Iran to
the Security Council, which has the power to impose economic and
political sanctions. Tehran responded by saying it would start
full-scale uranium enrichment and bar surprise inspections of
its facilities.
Meanwhile, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said
Monday a proposed joint venture to enrich Iranian uranium in
Russia would be possible only if Tehran resumed its moratorium
on enrichment activities, Interfax reported.
Despite an earlier threat to the contrary, Iran said Sunday it
was willing to discuss Moscow's proposal to shift large-scale
enrichment operations to Russian territory in an effort to allay
suspicions it is pursuing nuclear weapons.
Talks on the project were scheduled for Feb. 16 in Moscow. The
Bush administration supports the proposal.
Uranium enriched to a low degree can be used for nuclear
reactors, while highly enriched uranium is suitable for
warheads. Iran insists it only wants to generate electricity,
but the United States and some of its allies contend Tehran is
trying to build a bomb.
The Islamic republic also left the door open for further
international negotiations over its program.
Radzhab Safarov, a Moscow-based expert on Iran, said this
month's talks in Moscow could produce a breakthrough because
some Iranian politicians had questioned the wisdom of Iranian
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's uncompromising course and had
grown increasingly worried about growing international
isolation.
``There is a strong chance that these talks will lead to a
decision that would help defuse the situation,'' Safarov said at
a news conference.
Safarov said any U.S. or Israeli military action against Iran
would prompt Iran to retaliate by blocking oil deliveries
through the Persian Gulf and throwing the global market into
chaos.
France's foreign minister told Iranian officials Monday to ``be
careful'' when considering whether to use economic sanctions to
retaliate after the Security Council referral.
``The Iranians should be careful,'' Philippe Douste-Blazy said
on France-Inter radio. ``Isolating themselves would be very
serious for them.''
``They also need economic cooperation for their industries.''
Iran reiterated its stance that it would not negotiate with the
United States.
``There is no debate about relations and negotiation with the
U.S. There has been no change in our policy,'' Gholamhossein
Elham, Iran's government spokesman, said Monday.
---
Associated Press reporter Nicholas Paphitis in Athens, Greece,
contributed to this report.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
12 IPS-English POLITICS: Snags Surface in India-US Nuclear Deal
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 15:15:44 -0800
ROMAIPS AP WD DV EN IP ML=20
POLITICS: Snags Surface in India-US Nuclear Deal
Praful Bidwai=20
NEW DELHI, Feb 6 (IPS) - The chairman of India's Atomic Energy Commissio=
n (AEC) has sent shock waves through the Indian establishment by accusing=
the United States of ''changing the goalpost'' while finalising a far-re=
aching, one-of-its-kind nuclear cooperation deal with India, initialled l=
ast July.=20
This appears certain to create major complications for the passage of the=
agreement aimed at restoring India-U.S. civilian nuclear commerce and le=
gitimisation of India's nuclear weapons -- in effect amending the global=
non-proliferation regime with an India-specific exception.
Differences between the U.S. and India mainly pertain to identifying and =
separating civilian nuclear facilities from military ones so that the civ=
ilian installations can be subjected to 'safeguards' or inspections by th=
e International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA). =20
Anil Kakodkar, head of the AEC, which runs both the civilian and military=
nuclear programmes of India, told the 'Indian Express' newspaper in an e=
xclusive interview published Monday that he interprets the Jul. 18 agreem=
ent to mean that the determination of which facilities are civilian and w=
hich are military ''has to be made by the Indians=E0 India's strategic in=
terests will have to be decided by India and not by others.''=20
The U.S., however, wants a say in deciding the civilian-military separati=
on. Negotiators, led by assistant secretary of state Nicholas Burns, have=
told India that for the separation to be 'credible', the civilian list m=
ust include all facilities, including experimental and research installat=
ions, which are not directly related to nuclear weapons.=20
The critical difference centres on a special category called fast-breeder=
reactors, which theoretically yield more nuclear fuel than they consume.=
Fast-breeders are an open-ended source of plutonium for both civilian an=
d military purposes.=20
Kakodkar insists that India's fast-breeder programme must be excluded fro=
m the civilian list. India currently has a tiny fast-breeder under operat=
ion and a mid-sized one (500 megawatts) under construction. India has oft=
en said it plans to build more for civilian use. But Kakodkar now says fa=
st-breeders are needed for the weapons programme too.=20
''The fast-breeder issue is potentially a deal-breaker; unless difference=
s are resolved on it, the entire agreement could collapse,'' says Achin V=
anaik, professor of international relations and global politics at Delhi =
University, and independent nuclear expert. ''Kakodkar's public statement=
has greatly complicated matters and narrowed the Indian government's neg=
otiating options,'' adds Vanaik.=20
Kakodkar made his statement without prior authorisation from the Prime Mi=
nister Manmohan Singh's office, which has been dealing directly with the =
India-US nuclear issue. His interview confirms what has long been known: =
the AEC was extremely uncomfortable with the nuclear deal, and was dragge=
d, kicking and screaming, into endorsing it. It is now confronting Manmoh=
an Singh.=20
This is the first time that an AEC official has said that fast-breeders a=
re necessary for India's nuclear weapons programme. Earlier, they cited t=
heir function only as electricity producers.
Underlying this shift is that AEC's view that the U.S. has reinterpreted =
the nuclear deal after promising that it would be strictly adhered to rec=
iprocally. For instance, the civilian-military separation was meant to be=
'voluntary' and 'phased'. But Washington has disputed India's 'voluntary=
' civilian-military identification. And it is not being done 'in a phased=
manner'. Kakodkar's statement reflects his pique at this.=20
Singh cannot, at this stage, sack Kakodkar for acting unauthorisedly with=
out losing face and attracting the political charge of acting under U.S. =
pressure. Nor can he go along with Kakodkar's line on fast-breeders --unl=
ess Washington gives up insistence on putting breeders in the civilian li=
st.=20
The U.S. administration will not find it easy to exempt fast-breeders and=
convince sceptical senators and nuclear non-proliferation experts of the=
deal's worth in preventing the spread of nuclear weapons. The U.S. and I=
ndian governments may however eventually be able to find an awkward compr=
omise on the issue, such as granting the fast-breeder programme limited e=
xemption from inspections for 10 - 15 years, by which India can stockpile=
enough military plutonium.=20
''Even that won't be easy,'' says Vanaik. ''As things stand, it seems hig=
hly unlikely that the agreement will go through before President George W=
. Bush's coming visit to India in three weeks' time''.=20
If the deal is not sealed soon, the momentum would be lost. The deal face=
s stiff political opposition both from the Indian Left and the Right. The=
Left opposes any India-U.S. strategic alliance. It also opposes the Indi=
an nuclear weapons programme. The Singh government is dependent on the Le=
ft for its parliamentary survival.
The Right staunchly supports India's nuclear weapons but claims the deal =
is a U.S. attempt to limit India's nuclear arsenal and compromise her sov=
ereignty.=20
The deal is controversial in the U.S. as well. Many policy-makers and sha=
pers, especially the Democrats, have criticised it. Yet, fast-breeders ar=
e not the only issue on which there are sharp India-U.S. differences.=20
Kakodkar also demands exception for all facilities at the Bhabha Atomic R=
esearch Centre in Mumbai, which include a wide range of civilian research=
laboratories beside plants producing military plutonium and its fabricat=
ion into warheads.=20
The site also houses CIRUS, a reactor built in 1960 with Canadian and U.S=
. design and material assistance, under India's pledge that it would be u=
sed only for 'peaceful purposes'. =20
In addition, Kakodkar says India must include in the military list a few =
power reactors, which might be needed to fuel fast-breeders. This too mig=
ht not be easy to sell. Power-generating reactors are by definition civil=
ian. The U.S. would have to make a special exception for India.=20
Whether the U.S. does so or not would be a political decision about rewar=
ding India for loyalty. ''India has been desperately wooing Washington,''=
says Anil Choudhary of the Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace (=
India). ''Last Saturday, India voted for a Western-sponsored resolution a=
t the IAEA reporting Iran to the United Nations Security Council for poss=
ible sanctions. This was against the public interest as well as broad pol=
itical consensus.''=20
India's recent anti-Iran votes were criticised as being part of attempts =
to please the U.S. and save the nuclear deal, on which Manmohan Singh pla=
ces a high value. But the ballots are no guarantee that the deal will be =
firmed up and implemented.=20
For the 'pragmatists' in India's pro-bomb lobby, the deal is an opportuni=
ty to get India recognised as a nuclear weapons-state and for nuclear ult=
ra-nationalists, it is a disaster.=20
''The growing peace movement views the issue differently,'' says Choudhar=
y. ''We support the separation of civilian and military facilities and fu=
ll transparency and public oversight of all civilian installations, to be=
gin with. But we don't believe nuclear weapons have any positive aspect o=
r impact. They are irrelevant to security. We are opposed to their existe=
nce and legitimisation everywhere.''=20
If the nuclear deal falls through because of the conflict between nuclear=
ultra-nationalists and pragmatists, the peace movement would become an u=
nintended beneficiary of its collapse. (END/IPS/AP/WD/IP/DV/ML/EN/PB/RDR/=
06)=20
=20
=3D 02061455 ORP006
NNNN
*****************************************************************
13 Boston Globe: A flimsy nuclear shield -
>GLOBE EDITORIAL
February 6, 2006
AS THINGS stand now, the public is largely defenseless against a
terrorist's nuclear bomb or a catastrophic accident at a nuclear
power plant. Near the plants, there are supplies of potassium
iodide pills to protect exposed children from future thyroid
cancer, but there are few options outside of evacuation for the
radiation sickness that would threaten anyone who survives the
initial explosion.
A small California biotech company has a drug that could save
millions from the infections and internal bleeding of radiation
sickness, but the Project Bioshield office in the US Department
of Health and Human Services won't commit to purchase enough
doses to make investment in the drug attractive. The issue has
cast a spotlight on an agency that critics say could be the Bush
administration's next FEMA.
The plight of the company Hollis-Eden and its Neumune drug was
the subject of a recent ''60 Minutes" report. With encouragement
from the Defense Department, Hollis-Eden has been developing the
drug as a treatment for radiation sickness that could be
administered outside hospitals, many of which would likely be
destroyed in a nuclear attack.
To be most effective, the drug has to be injected within four to
six hours of exposure to the radioactive cloud of a nuclear
explosion. This puts a premium on having the drug readily
available in a crisis. The company envisions that millions of
doses of Neumune would become part of the National Strategic
Stockpiles of pharmaceuticals, with special allocations for all
the largest cities. Storable at room temperature, Neumune could
even be stocked in firehouses.
Then last fall, HHS announced it was interested in buying the
best radiation drug available, Neumune or another, but only
100,000 doses of it, a laughably inadequate supply. Congress
should summon the HHS official responsible for Project
Bioshield, Stewart Simonson, to explain this decision.
President Bush proposed Project Bioshield in 2003 to enlist the
biotech industry in the effort against bioterrorism. The bigger
pharmaceutical companies, which profit handsomely from everyday
drugs like statins for cholesterol, have little interest in the
specialized vaccines and radiological countermeasures needed to
respond to a terrorist attack. Project Bioshield will inevitably
deal with small or mid-size companies that can attract and hold
investors only if there is the incentive of substantial
guaranteed markets.
Previously, Simonson had come under fire for granting a contract
for an anthrax vaccine to a company that had failed with an AIDS
vaccine and is now behind schedule on the new vaccine. Congress
should find out if the nation's shield against terrorist threats
is as flimsy as it looks.[ /]
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company. More:
*****************************************************************
14 Nuclear Proliferation: A Gathering Storm By Conn Hallinan
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 15:25:04 -0800
From: Apollo
Subject: Nuclear Proliferation: A Gathering Storm
Nuclear Proliferation: A Gathering Storm
By Conn Hallinan
'Each of the Parties to the Treaty undertakes to pursue
negotiations in good faith on effective measures
relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an
early date and to nuclear disarmament, and a Treaty on
general and complete disarmament under strict and
effective international control.' Article VI, Treaty on
the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, 1968
'The United States will not use nuclear weapons against
any non-nuclear weapon party state to the Non-
Proliferation Treaty - except in the case of an attack on
the United States, its territories or armed forces, or
its allies, by such a state allied to a nuclear weapon
state.' Addendum to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation
of Nuclear Weapons, 1978, agreed to by the United
Kingdom, the Soviet Union, and endorsed by France.
Reaffirmed in 1980 and 1995.
'The leaders of states who use terrorist means against
us, as well as those who would consider using, in one
way or another, weapons of mass destruction, must
understand that they would lay themselves open to a
firm and adapted response on our part. This response
could be a conventional one. It could be of a different
kind.' French President Jacques Chirac visiting the
nuclear submarine Vigilant, Jan. 19, 2006.
Treaties are rarely scintillating, but the 30-y ear
old Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)has a
certain sparseness of language and precision of meaning
that makes it an engaging read. Boiled down, it commits
the 177 non-nuclear nations that signed it not to acquire
nuclear weapons and the Big Five nuclear powers-the
U.S. Britain, France, China and the USSR-to dismantle
theirs.
The theory behind it was simple: non-nuclear weapons
states would forgo developing nukes on the conditions
that, 1) they are never blackmailed with nuclear weapons,
2) the Big Five get rid of their arsenals.
All of this seems to have gotten lost in the recent
uproar over Iran. While Tehran is being accused of
trying to scam the NPT by secretly developing nuclear
weapons, the open flaunting of the Treaty by the major
nuclear powers is simply ignored.
For almost 38 years the vast majority of the world's
nations have adhered to the NPT. Only India, Pakistan,
Israel, and possibly North Korea have joined the Big
Five, although, at the time the Treaty was signed, a
dozen more were on the verge of developing them. In
short, the vast bulk of the signers have held to what
they agreed to.
The Big Five, however, have ignored the obligation to
dismantle their nuclear arsenals or to even discuss
general disarmament. At the NPT Review Conference last
summer the issue did not even come up, a shortcoming
which UN General Secretary Kofi Annan called a
'disgrace.'
Not only have the Big Five refused to consider
eliminating their nuclear arsenals, in 2002 the Bush
Administration's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR)
unilaterally overturned the 1978 pledge, and the White
House threatened to use nukes on Syria, Iran and Iraq,
all non-nuclear states. The Administration's rationale
is that the NPT is not just about nuclear weapons, but
'weapons of mass destruction,' which it argues,
includes chemical and biological weapons. It is a re-
interpretation the French appear to embrace as well.
But chemical and biological weapons were specifically
excluded from the NPT for the very good reason that
they are not weapons of mass destruction.
Chemical weapons are certainly nasty, but generals in
World War I found them more an annoyance than a
serious threat. While artillery (the big killer),
machine guns and rifles inflicted 8.5 million deaths
from 1914-1918, gas only killed about 100,000.
Chemicals are simply too difficult to deliver and too
volatile to do much damage.
Bacteriological warfare is spooky, but even more
difficult to make effective. Anthrax may have shut down
Washington, but it only killed five people.
Nuclear weapons are quite another matter, although as
memories of World War II grow dim, it is easy to fall
into the equivalence trap.
A brief reminder:
The fireball that consumed Hiroshima reached 18
million degrees in one millionth of a second. It
evaporated 68 percent of the city, demolishing
structures built to withstand an 8.5 earthquake. It
charred trees five miles from ground zero, blew out
windows 17 miles from the city's center, and killed
100,000 people in a single blow. Another 100,000 plus
would follow in the months ahead.
The bomb that flattened Hiroshima was 15 kilotons. The
standard warhead in the U.S. arsenal today-the W-76-is
100 kilotons. A substantial number of our weapons are
250 kilotons, and they range as high as five megatons.
One of the latter can eliminate a small country.
According to the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), there are presently about 27,000 such warheads
in the world, many of them capable of being launched
within a half hour. In accepting the 2005 Nobel Peace
Prize, Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the IAEA, said 'More
than 15 years after the Cold War, it is
incomprehensible to many that the major nuclear weapons
states operate with their weapons on hair-trigger
alert.'
This is the price the world is paying for not insisting
that the Big Five do what they agreed to do.
And the danger is getting worse. Not from countries
like Iran, but from the nuclear weapons
establishment-particularly in the U.S.-that is
systematically trying to dismantle the fragile barrier
of treaties that hold the beast in check.
One of the key threads in this increasingly tattered
web is the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).
The theory behind the CTBT was that banning tests would
prevent any further developments in nuclear weapons
technology, particularly the miniaturization of
warheads. It was also assumed that no one would risk
deploying a weapon which had not been tested. Nuclear
devices are tricky and a substantial number of designs
produce duds.
A side benefit to the CTBT was that it would also
prevent the nuclear powers from randomly pulling
warheads off line and testing them to make sure they
still worked. The Treaty designers hoped that a lack of
confidence in a weapon's reliability was all to the
good. If you are not sure something will work, you may
be more reluctant to use it.
But the ink was hardly dry when the U.S.-and, it would
appear, France-figured out how to redesign weapons
without actually setting them off. Using sophisticated
computers, weapon labs in France, and at Livermore, Los
Alamos and Sandia in the U.S., began to configure a new
generation of nuclear weapons.
Indeed, India pointed to this computer-based U.S.
weapons program as one of the reasons why it initiated
a round of nuclear tests in 1998, although New Delhi's
accusations received virtually no ink in the states.
Last year, Congress launched the Reliable Warhead
Replacement (RWR) program purportedly to insure that
the U.S. nuclear arsenal would continue to work. One
could certainly make an argument that RWR was a
violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the
CTBT.
But according to the Northern California anti-nuclear
group Tri-Valley CARE, the program is also retooling
warheads to make them smaller in yield (and therefore
more likely to be used), capable of taking out deeply
buried targets, and able to destroy chemical and
biological weapons.
This redesign effort was revealed in a report by
William Schneider Jr., chair of the Defense Science
Board, who wrote in 2004 that the U.S.must not just
simply improve nuclear weapons capacity 'on the
margins,' but must develop 'weapons more relevant to
the future threat environment.'
It is possible the U.S. could accomplish this without
resuming testing (although Secretary of Defense Donald
Rumsfeld has openly talked about violating the test
ban). But even if the U.S. doesn't test, other nations
will certainly not allow themselves to fall behind just
because they don't have fancy computers. If the U.S.
continues on this path, other nations will resume
testing, which will, in turn, encourage non-nuclear
nations to begin their own programs. It is estimated
that up to 40 nations could manufacture nuclear weapons.
'The most important thing,' ElBaradei told the Financial
Times, 'is to make the big boys understand that the major
league is not an exclusive club. If you are not going to
dissolve that club, others are going to join it. A world
of haves and have nots is not
sustainable.'
The major danger in the world today comes not from
countries like Iran and North Korea, but from the
unwillingness of the major nuclear powers to live up
to the promise they made back in 1968.
'The central problem in halting nuclear proliferation,'
says Selig Harrison, director of the Asia Program of
the Center for International Policy and a former India
bureau chief for the Washington Post, 'lies in the
failure of the original nuclear powers that signed the
NPT to live up to Article 6, in which they pledged to
phase out their nuclear weapons.'
--
"No sage or savior has ever endorsed greed and gluttony as a path toward
social justice or personal fulfillment. These sane and enlightened people
come to us from all cultures and all eras, sometimes knowing of each other
but more often not. Socrates and Jesus, Lao Tzu and Tolstoi, Gandhi and
Martin Buber -- no one can find in their lives and words a jot of support
for a political and economic regime that encourages the acquisition of
wealth far beyond what is needed for the necessaries -- or even the
restorative pleasures -- of life while consigning the masses to live and
work in squalor."
-Stephen J. Fortunato, Associate Justice, Rhode Island Supreme Court.
"Music is prophecy, its style and economic organization are ahead of the
rest of society. It makes audible the new world that will gradually become
visible."
-Jacques Attali in his seminal text "Noise"
*****************************************************************
15 Guardian Unlimited: Winds of climate change are about to make
their impact felt in many a boardroom
Top science adviser sounds death knell for theory that
insists growth is good
Larry Elliott, economics editor
Monday February 6, 2006
The Guardian
The old economics is dead. Its death knell was sounded last week,
not by a practitioner of the dismal science but by Tony Blair's
chief scientific adviser. Sir David King said concentrations of
greenhouse gases were already at a level where the warning signs
were flashing red: a comment that starkly illustrates the
impending clash between economic orthodoxy and environmental
sustainability.
Economics is a discipline in which the factors of production -
capital and labour - are supposed to be harnessed to maximise
production at the cheapest price. By this yardstick, an economy
is doing twice as well if it is growing at 4% rather than 2% and
disastrously badly if consumers are not in the shops from dawn
till dusk. Globalisation is seen as the ultimate form of a
market economy, according to the prevailing model, because a
more efficient use of the factors of production leads to lower
prices and therefore permits higher levels of consumption. In a
globalised world, you're only as good as your last GDP number.
But think about it for a minute. Concerns are frequently being
raised about the fact that many developed countries are about to
see - or are already seeing - a decline in their populations.
This will have an impact on their trend rate of growth, which is
a function of population and productivity. Stories about falling
population are always couched in terms of demographic time bombs,
suggesting that they are clearly a bad thing. But fewer people in
Germany, Italy or Japan will mean more space, less pressure on
resources and a more pleasant life.
Take another example. Globalisation has meant clothes in the UK
are cheap. The inflation figures show that women's outerwear is
less expensive now than it was in the late 1980s. And we're not
talking about the inflation-adjusted price either; the average
sterling price of a skirt or a dress is lower than it was two
decades ago.
There's no longer the need to wear a top several times to get
your money's worth: they can be worn once and tossed in the bin.
Likewise, stores now sell jeans at below Ł5 a pair and market
them to manual workers on the basis that if they get them filthy
in the course of a week they can simply throw them away and buy
anew. According to the present model of economics, this is
progress, just as it is to be welcomed that flights as low as
Ł2.50 mean stag and hen weekends in Tallinn or Prague.
But are these developments really positive? Orthodox economics
says they are, because they raise the real incomes of consumers.
But, according to Sir David's analysis, they are potentially
very bad indeed. Currently, greenhouse gas concentrations in the
atmosphere are around 380 parts per million, compared with
around 220 ppm during the last ice age. Climatologists estimate
that 400ppm - of thereabouts - is the tipping point and if we
push concentrations much above that the process of climate
change could become irreversible.
Seduced
Sir David says climate change is a threat to our civilisation,
and he's right about that. There is no cast-iron guarantee that
societies - no matter how smart or technologically advanced -
persist. Think of the Romans in the last days before the
collapse of the empire ushered in the Dark Ages. But Sir David
thinks it is unrealistic to limit concentrations to the levels
that scientists say would be safe. He thinks about 550 ppm is
the limit and, sadly, given the current configuration of
politics - domestically and globally - he is probably right
about that too.
One problem is that as individuals we lack the incentives to do
the sensible thing. If you are seduced by the idea of a
cut-price flight, you get 100% of the benefit but only assume a
tiny fraction of the cost to the environment. Another problem is
that we lack the institutional framework for coping with climate
change; instead, we have national governments fearful of doing
anything that would damage international competitiveness. A more
damaging mindset you could not hope to find, since it sends out
the clear message that action on the environment comes a long
way second to policies that foster growth.
The attempt in Britain to have our cake and eat it will mean -
almost inevitably - that the government goes ahead with its plan
to build more nuclear power stations. The expertise of John
Browne, the chief executive of BP, is interesting here, though.
Browne says that building enough capacity to deliver seven
gigawatts of energy could put a ceiling on emissions at around
500 ppm. That doesn't sound much, but one gigawatt is the
equivalent of 700 nuclear power stations. That's a heck of a lot
of nukes, and by the time we've built them rising sea levels may
mean they're a few feet under water. At the very best, it will
mean that the lights stay on in the UK as darkness descends in
the rest of the world.
Nor will the technical solution to climate change be feasible
unless governments use their power to change behaviour. That
means tougher building regulations, emission controls that force
car manufacturers to get serious about vehicles that don't run
on petrol, a range of new economic indicators that look beyond
traditional methods of assessing growth, subsidies for
environmental industries. The argument that business would not
be able to cope with curbs on greenhouse gases is a fallacy; the
longevity of capitalism is due almost entirely to its ability to
adapt to any regime. What business lacks now is a clear steer;
it has the expertise.
Peet Osta, the author of The Winds of Change: Climate, Weather
and the Destruction of Civilisations, puts it this way: "Once
government at all levels commits to purchasing clean
technologies, making efficiency improvements, and using
alternative energy where possible, this massive spending would
provide economies of scale that would help speed the
commercialisation of new technologies as well as prepare society
for the shift away from fossil fuels. Such proposals have been
on the table since the early 1960s. By not taking action on
greenhouse emissions, we are betting our wellbeing that climate
change poses little threat. If we are wrong, we will meet our
fate."
Unleashing
Governments are almost certainly wrong to believe that action on
climate change means economic stagnation. On the contrary, it
would probably lead to an unleashing of a new clean industrial
revolution based on green technology. They are also wrong to
believe that the Kyoto process - rather than a new,
comprehensive global solution - is the way to cut carbon
emissions in any meaningful way.
If the initiative does not come from governments, it may
eventually come from business itself. In particular, the
insurance industry sees itself facing ruin if climate change
leads to more hurricanes on the scale of Katrina. The executives
of companies in the US have what is known as directors' -and
officers' - insurance, which indemnifies them against lawsuits
arising from their companies' actions. But they are going to be
very wary indeed about writing insurance for companies that are
at risk from lawsuits arising from climate change.
Exxon Mobil looks vulnerable in this respect. It accounts for
around 1% of carbon emissions globally but has lobbied long and
hard against efforts to combat greenhouse gas emissions.
Christopher Walker, head of the greenhouse gas risk solutions
unit at Swiss Re, says his company may be forced to approach
Exxon Mobil and say: "Since you don't think climate change is a
problem, and you're betting your stockholders' assets on that,
we're sure you won't mind if we exclude climate-related lawsuits
from your D insurance." That sort of talk, you can be sure,
tends to concentrate minds in the boardroom.
Mamma may not know best
The myth of Italian men being mamma's boys is not such a myth
after all, it appears. Where five out of every 10 men in Britain
aged between 18 and 30 live with their parents, in Italy eight
out of 10 men in the 18-30 group are expected home for a bowl of
pasta every night.
It has been assumed that Italian parents are simply being
altruistic: they allow their offspring to stay at home because
they are unemployed or moving from one lowly paid, insecure job
to another.
Research published by the Centre for Economic Performance at the
London School of Economics suggests an alternative explanation;
the Italians love having their children around them so much that
they are prepared to bribe them to stay at home.
The study showed that an increase of 10% in the parents' income
resulted in a 10% increase in the proportion of children living
at home: the authors of the study, Marco Manacorda at Queen Mary
College and Enrico Moretti at the University of California,
Berkeley, say Italians give money to their children in the hope
that they will stick around. Many do, but it is the cohabitation
- paradoxically - that leads to higher youth unemployment
because the children have less incentive to make their own way
in the labour market.
· Email: larry.elliott@guardian.co.uk
Interactive guides
Global warming
The slowdown of the Gulf Stream
Useful links
IPCC
UN framework convention on climate change
[UP]
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
16 HindustanTimes.com: 'Energy independence should be top priority'
Pallab Bhattacharya (PTI)
Manila, February 6, 2006
With complexity gripping talks between India and the US on the
nuclear deal, President APJ Abdul Kalam has said energy
independence should be the country's top priority and suggested
development of nuclear power using thorium which is abundantly
available at home.
"Nuclear power generation has been given a thrust by the use of
uranium-based fuel (which US is set to supply to India if the
deal comes through). However, there would be a requirement for
ten-fold increase in nuclear power generation even to attain a
reasonable degree of energy self-sufficiency for our country,"
Kalam said at the Asiatic Society gathering in Manila on Sunday
night.
"Therefore, it is essential to pursue the development of nuclear
power using thorium reserves which are abundant in the country,"
he said adding "technology development has to be accelerated for
thorium-based reactors".
Kalam said one of the two pillars on which energy security rests
is securing access to all sources of energy.
At the same time "we should access technologies to provide a
diverse supply of reliable, affordable and environmentally
sustainable energy," he said.
"India must achieve the real goal -- that is Energy Independence
or an economy which will function well within total freedom from
oil, gas or coal imports," Kalam said.
"Hence, energy independence has to be India's top priority and
highest priority. We must be determined to achieve this within
the next 25 years, that is by the year 2030 -- a 25-year
national mission must be formulated, funds guaranteed and
leadership entrusted without delay," the President said.
He also urged banks to come out with financial support for these
programmes.
Kalam said that while energy security, which means ensuring
India getting its citizens a supply of lifeline energy at
affordable costs, is a very important need, "it must be
considered as a transition strategy" as the "real goal is energy
independence".
Setting a target of around $200 billion by 2008 for India's
market share in IT services, IT enabled services and Business
Process Outsourcing, Kalam said the target was an achievable one.
"Since our university system is contributing over three million
graduates every year, this is a vital resource needed for growth
in the IT services, IT enabled services and BPO," he said.
According to Kalam, India needed infrastructural establishments
like IT parks, including call centres in large numbers, to
achieve its goal.
*****************************************************************
17 Green Left Weekly: FoE relaunched in Adelaide
www.greenleft.org.au
Jim Green, Adelaide
Friends of the Earth (FoE) is being relaunched in South
Australia with a focus on promoting sustainable, socially and
ecologically conscious technologies as an alternative to the
nuclear industry.
FoE Adelaide will also be linking up with local and national
groups to support Indigenous communities adversely affected by
the uranium industry, as well as continuing to raise public
awareness around nuclear issues and monitoring the activities of
the nuclear industry.
“Back in 1972, Adelaide was the first city in Australia to form
a FoE group. It's been wonderful how many people have thrown
their support behind the organisation becoming active in South
Australia again”, FoE Adelaide campaigner Sophie Green told
Green Left Weekly.
In recent years FoE has worked with the Kupa Piti Kungka Tjuta —
a senior Indigenous women's council — to halt the proposed
national radioactive waste dump in northern SA, and supported
the Mirrar in their campaign against the Jabiluka uranium mine.
Nationally, FoE's Climate Justice campaign has been crucial in
raising awareness about the growing human cost of climate
change.
Adelaide's Campaign Against Nuclear Dumping has decided to
become an affiliate group of FoE Adelaide and is now called the
Clean Futures Collective.
To contact FoE Adelaide, phone Sophie Green on 0422 487 219 or
Joel Catchlove on 0403 886 951. The Clean Futures Collective
meets each Tuesday, 5.30pm, at the Conservation Centre, 120
Wakefield Street.
From Green Left Weekly, February 8, 2006.
Visit the Green Left Weekly home page.
glw@greenleft.org.au
Authorised by K. Miller, 23 Abercrombie St, Chippendale, NSW
*****************************************************************
18 asahi.com: Toshiba finalizes deal to buy Westinghouse
02/06/2006
The Asahi Shimbun
Toshiba Corp. on Monday signed an agreement to buy Westinghouse
Electric Co. from British Nuclear Fuels PLC (BNFL) for $5.4
billion (641 billion yen).
The acquisition of the U.S.-based power plant contractor will
give Toshiba capability in pressurized-water reactors (PWRs),
the most common type worldwide.
Toshiba and its allies will acquire Westinghouse shares from
BNFL USA Group Inc. and Westinghouse Electric UK Ltd.
More than half the equity in Westinghouse will be held by
Toshiba with the remainder shared by trading houses Marubeni
Corp. and Mitsui &Co. and other companies.
The acquisition of the Westinghouse group will give Toshiba an
advantage in expanding overseas in such markets as China, where
PWRs have dominance over boiling-water reactors (BWRs).
BWRs are more common in Japan but the domestic market has
stalled, prompting nuclear power plant manufacturers to seek
business abroad through sales of PWRs.
China plans to build about 30 nuclear reactors by 2020, which
would increase its total nuclear power capacity to about 36
million kilowatts from the current 7 million kw.
The country has 10 reactors under construction or in the
planning stage. All will employ pressurized-water designs.
In a policy reversal, the U.S. government is promoting nuclear
energy, and a nuclear plant is scheduled for completion by 2010.
Of the 57 light-water reactors planned or under construction
across the world at the end of 2004, 48 were PWRs while the
remaining nine were BWRs.
Industry watchers say PWRs will continue to be the mainstream
technology overseas.
Of the 356 light-water reactors worldwide at the end of 2004,
about three-fourths were pressurized-water types while the
remainder were boiling-water types. In Japan, there were 29 BWRs
and 23 PWRs at the end of 2004.
The government is considering development of next-generation
nuclear power technology by around 2030 when many of the
existing nuclear power plants will have to be closed.
However, only five nuclear reactors are scheduled for completion
in Japan by 2010.
Electric power suppliers expect Toshiba's acquisition of
Westinghouse to improve domestic technologies through overseas
operations.
A senior official of Tokyo Electric Power Co., which has adopted
boiling-water reactors, said the company might start using
pressurized-water reactors if Toshiba enhances its PWR
technology.
A Toshiba executive said acquisition of Westinghouse was
indispensable for the company.
However, some analysts express concern over the high purchase
price, which could affect Toshiba's financial standing as the
company spent about 600 billion yen between fiscal 2003 and
fiscal 2005 to upgrade production of flash memory chips used in
portable music players.
Standard &Poor's, a U.S. credit rating company, started to
review Toshiba's rating for possible downgrading.
Toshiba obtained priority in the buyout negotiations on Jan. 24,
outbidding domestic rivals--Mitsubishi Heavy Industries Ltd. and
Hitachi Ltd.
Toshiba's purchase of the Westinghouse group will threaten MHI,
which has worked with Westinghouse for more than 40 years in PWR
operations.(IHT/Asahi: February 6,2006)
+ The Asahi Shimbun Company
[Copyright Asahi Shimbun. All rights reserved. No reproduction
*****************************************************************
19 AP Wire: NRC meets with Duke Energy about S.C. nuclear plant
| 02/06/2006 |
Associated Press
COLUMBIA, S.C. - Duke Energy officials met with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission in Atlanta on Monday to talk about safety
concerns found during an inspection of the company's Oconee
Nuclear power plant near Seneca.
The commission found Charlotte, N.C.-based Duke did not promptly
identify and correct a discrepancy with part of an exterior wall
of the control room at the Oconee Nuclear Station. The agency
has questioned whether the control room can withstand damage
from a tornado.
Duke officials presented an analysis to the commission Monday
and answered a few clarifying questions, Oconee spokeswoman
Dayle Stewart said.
"At this point, we will await further information from them,"
Stewart said. "We believe that the risk related to this segment
of the wall is very, very low."
The commission said previously it would not make decisions about
the safety significance, violations or possible enforcement
action at the meeting.
The commission did not return several phone messages left by The
Associated Press.
*****************************************************************
20 The Herald: No danger that new nuclear reactor would run short of uranium
Web Issue 2458 February 06 2006
Your Letters February 06 2006
David McEwan Hill has no need to be so concerned that new
nuclear reactors will run short of uranium for fuel (Letters,
January 30). No company is going to make the substantial
investment in new capacity unless they can be sure of being able
to fuel it at reasonable cost, and, if they were even to think
of doing so, the rating agencies' assessments would have such a
drastic effect on their share price that they would be unable to
secure the finance.
So, far from uranium being a scarce resource, it is estimated
to amount to some 2.7 parts per million of the earth's crust. As
with other minerals, it is widely disbursed but also in
considerable concentrations. These have easily provided the
modest annual world requirement of 68,000 tons compare this
with coal-fired generation; Longannet requires some five million
tons of coal a year. With coal or oil/gas generation, the fuel
accounts for some 60% of the electricity cost. With nuclear the
uranium is only 2% so there is plenty of scope for developing
lower-concentration ores without significant cost penalty. Nor
is the energy balance for milling and treating even low-grade
ores significant in terms of the output from the reactors and
this is to discount advances in mining techniques such as
leaching now being trialled in the vast Athabasca sands of
Canada.
No other significant power source can match nuclear costs. For
wind, adding to the energy purchase price, the Renewables and
Climate Change Levy subsidies, the costs of providing stand-by
generation as well as the extra transmission (Ł6bn in Scotland
alone), the Scottish consumer is paying four times the cost of
power from British Energy's Scottish reactors and that includes
provision for eventual decommissioning and waste disposal.
Unlike nuclear, wind and marine have little scope for reducing
costs. It is easy to be misled into thinking that the tides of
the Pentland Firth have huge potential for cheap energy but the
facts are otherwise. The energy density (kw/sq m) is
proportional to the cube of the velocity so that even at peak it
is rather low, not much more than wind, and of course very much
less for most of the time. This is a fact of nature leading to
high costs and will not change with technological developments.
Add to that the high costs of operating in a hostile marine
environment and it is easy to see why the Pentland Firth and
similar schemes do not figure in any list of potential sites for
marine energy. All those that do have tidal ranges in the
20-to-40ft mark.
By comparison nuclear has good scope for development, as for
example the new AP1000 British-owned reactor design presently
being sold off cheap by government to Japanese interests House
of Lords debate, January 30 and France has just announced a
new design study by their joint company with Germany into a
fourth-generation design. These represent a considerable advance
on existing designs, with lower costs, shorter construction
times and make even better use of their uranium fuel. All this
without even deploying the fast reactor which increases uranium
reserves 60 times.
Sir Donald Miller, Puldohran, Gryffe Road, Kilmacolm.
Copyright © Newsquest (Herald & Times) Limited. All Rights
*****************************************************************
21 Statesman.com: Pulaski: The right energy for Texas
COMMENTARY
Jane Pulaski, SOLAR AUSTIN
Monday, February 06, 2006
A column written by Bill Peacock of the Texas Public Policy
Foundation and published in this newspaper casts a skeptical eye
on the public's support for more renewable energy ("Renewable
energy's real cost," Jan. 31).
Unfortunately, Peacock and others like him are playing loose
with the facts on renewable energy so they can push old energy
programs with clever names like "clean coal" or "safe nuclear."
Oxymorons like these would be laughable if the outcome of making
the wrong energy decision were not so dire.
Indeed, 2006 started out very well for the Texas renewable
energy industry, with renewable energy now cheaper to buy than
conventional power, record consumer demand and new wind and
solar projects planned. Recent Energy Information Administration
and Electrical Power Research Institute studies affirm that wind
is now cheaper than other sources of electrical power.
This is great news, not only for renewable producers, but for
all Texans.
As the state with the greatest renewable energy potential, Texas
stands to expand its economy with new jobs and income from a
burgeoning renewable energy industry using homegrown sources
such as wind and solar. With a mature renewable energy industry,
Texas can turn around its energy trade deficit and become an
energy exporter.
The economic benefit of renewable energy helps the consumer
directly. Recently, Austin Energy increased its fuel rate over
25 percent for customers not subscribing to its Green Choice
program to reflect the growing cost of fossil fuels. These
annual increases are becoming a regular occurrence, and as we
learned last fall, we need only one hurricane headed in the
wrong direction to play havoc with energy markets.
Renewable energy is the only energy source that consumers can
rely on if they want to avoid chaotic spikes in the market. No
wonder organizations such as the Austin Independent School
District, Whole Foods and Samsung are turning to Green Choice
for their energy needs. Stable, dependable energy costs mean a
more robust bottom line for business. In fact, demand for Green
Choice is outstripping the supply so quickly that Austin Energy
is resorting to a raffle to determine who can subscribe to this
hugely successful program.
Peacock seems fixated on tax subsidies for renewable energy,
which he claims make renewable power much more expensive. This
is simply not true. Federal and state tax subsidies for
renewable energy pale in comparison to tax subsidies enjoyed for
decades by the fossil fuels industry.
In fact, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 signed into law by
President Bush tells the real story of subsidy winners. Fossil
and nuclear energy resources walked away with a whopping 80
percent of the subsidies in that bill, while renewable energy
came in a distant second, capturing some 11 percent of that
subsidy pie.
Peacock observes correctly that when looking at any energy
source, we should consider not only the benefits and costs at
the point of generation, but also the entire manufacturing
process. Coal mining and oil and gas exploration produce water
and air pollution. The construction of nuclear power includes
the mining of uranium and other radioactive by-products. These
industries produce hazardous, industrial and radioactive wastes
that still have no long-term management solution.
While wind and solar power have up-front costs, they have
comparatively modest lifetime maintenance costs and none of the
pollution costs.
Currently, Texas leads the nation in carbon dioxide and mercury
emissions from coal plants. In fact, Texas' coal plants emit
more than 10 percent of the nation's power plant mercury. Unlike
fossil fuels, renewable energy is a clean energy source.
In his recent State of the Union address, the president said our
country must break its addiction to foreign oil and diversify
our energy industry. We couldn't agree more. Delays in using
homegrown wind, biomass and solar energy have long-term negative
consequences on our security, environment, health and
pocketbooks.
Why not make investments in energy sources we can rely on for
long-term independence, security and a vibrant economy? What are
we waiting for?
Encourage the City of Austin to buy more wind power and install
more solar panels. Ask the State of Texas and the federal
government to keep investing in renewable energy. And as
consumers, let our dollars do our talking by buying Green Choice
and taking advantage of the solar rebate program to install
solar electricity in our community.
We have an obligation to lend a hand to our leaders when it
comes to kicking the oil addiction. Remember our children and
grandchildren are counting on us.
Pulaski is the co-chair of Solar Austin, a community based
renewable energy advocacy group, (www.solaraustin.org.)
Presented by The Austin American-Statesman. Contact us.
Corrections. Site Requirements.
Copyright 2001-2006 Cox Texas Newspapers, L.P. All rights
reserved.
*****************************************************************
22 Clarion-Ledger: Better choices than nuclear power -
February 6, 2006
In his letter, C.T. Carley says, "Nuclear power is so perfect
that it is hard to understand why anyone would oppose it"
("Nuclear power only 'rational answer' to energy shortage," Jan.
26).
The reasons are numerous: The partial fuel meltdown at Three
Mile Island and the serious fire at Chernobyl are good reasons
for opposition. In fact, no new plants have been ordered in the
United States for 29 years, and even though President Bush says
new designs will make the plants safer, the U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission has not approved any of these.
Several companies would love to build plants if they can
convince us taxpayers to put up billions to subsidize them. But
private utility companies aren't interested in participation
because of the legal, financial, and regulatory problems which
they experienced in the 1970s.
Even nuclear industry executives acknowledge that nuclear plants
won't reduce our dependence on foreign fuels because nuclear
power generates electricity and oil is used to generate only 2.8
percent of all the electricity in the U.S. So, building nuclear
power plants will not reduce that dependence.
Furthermore, shoddy work on the plants, mismanagement which has
"lost" plutonium. and evidence of radioactive water appearing in
storm sewer lines in New York causes concern.
And with all this, we still haven't been able to find a way to
dispose of nuclear waste.
So far the U.S. has produced 59,000 tons of high-level
radioactive wastes with most of it sitting in pools close to the
reactors that produced it.
The Natural Academy of Sciences confirms that these spent fuel
pools are sitting ducks for terrorists or fires which would
spread radioactivity into the air.
No state wants to be a repository for these wastes and many
states have refused to allow them to be transported thru their
highway systems.
With our current fuel crisis, we have had a wake-up call which
can cause us to make better choices. The challenge is for us to
go beyond current thinking. We need to develop public
transportation, drive hybrid vehicles, ride bikes and walk. We
need continued development of solar and wind power.
Katy White Madison
©2006 The Clarion-Ledger
*****************************************************************
23 http://www.qando.net/ - Nuclear Energy: The Future is Now
New Libertarian NN
Posted by: Dale Franks on Sunday, February 05, 2006
I've mentioned the Chinese pebble bed nuclear reactor project
before, and the designis essentially fail-safe. So much so that
South Africa has jumped into a similar campaign to build them.
And I've also written on the Luddismassociated with nuclear
power generation fears. Still, some things need to be repeated.
I'm prompted to do so today by the new articlein Newsweek,
updating the Chinese pebble bed reactor program.Nuclear
scientist Chang Wei pointed at the model, which looked like a
basement furnace split down the middle, and explained how the
design—including 27,000 balls of uranium wrapped in layers of
super-strong silicon carbide, ceramic material and
graphite—makes it physically impossible for the reactor to do
anything but shut down if something goes wrong; the dangerous
uranium would be trapped inside the spheres, which have a
melting point much higher than the temperature inside the
reactor could ever reach...
What makes the pebblebed technology so important is its
fail-safe design—it would not be possible for the reactor to
melt down or explode like Chernobyl or Three Mile Island. The
uranium in each sphere can't get hot enough to melt the casing
and escape. Also, the main coolant for the system is inert
helium, not water, as is used in other types of reactors (water,
of course, contains oxygen, which is combustible). As global
warming and politics render the world's reliance on fossil fuels
problematic, China may in a few short years hold the key to a
renaissance in nuclear power.Granted, China, being an
authoritarian society, can ignore public fears of nucelar power
in a way the western world cannot. But, that doesn't mean the
Chinese government is wrong in this case. In fact, quite the
opposite.
With the pebble bed reactor, nearly every single argument
against nuclear power evaporates. No meltdowns. No "China
Syndrome"a particularly ironic term in this caseno horrific
release of radioactive coolant to seep into ground water.
The only objection that remains is how to deal with spent
nuclear waste. But, as I wrote previously:The amount of waste
generated by nuclear power generation is, while dangerous,
compact and solid. Compared to the hundreds of thousands of tons
of pollution generated by oil and gas generators, it is
infinitesimal. A 1000-megawatt plant produces 1 cubic yard of
radioactive waste per year. Compare that to a coal plant of
similar capacity, which would produce 10 tons of waste per
minute.
The waste itself is solid, and would be placed in sealed
containers under thousands of feet of solid rock. The opposition
to Yucca Mountain, like the opposition to nuclear power itself,
is pure, unalloyed Luddism.
Now, the waste that we would produce all over the country would
be radioactive enough to kill 10 billion people, if they were
exposed to it. Yet somehow, every year we produce enough barium
to kill 100 billion people, enough ammonia and hydrogen cyanide
to kill 20 trillion people, and enough chlorine to kill 400
trillion. Somehow, we manage to do that without killing anyone.
With nuclear waste, ground into power, fused with glass, placed
in steel containers, and put in a concrete bunker several
hundred feet underground, there's not much chance of anyone
being exposed to it.Additionally, the bottom line is that our
refusal to use nuclear power is killing peopleevery year in the
United States right now. A single 1,000 Megawatt coal plant
releases something like 600lb carbon dioxide and 30lb sulfur
dioxide into the atmosphere per second, and as much nitrogen
oxides as 200,000 automobiles, all of which is estimated to
cause 25 premature fatalities and 60,000 cases of respiratory
complaints per year, per plant. In addition, it has to get rid
of 30,000 truck-loads of ash annuallyenough to cover a square
mile sixty feet deepfull of carcinogens, highly acidic or highly
alkaline depending on the kind of coal, and, ironically,
emitting more radiation from trace uranium than a nuke is
permitted to. That's a real waste-disposal nightmare for you.
The hysteria about toxicity is not justified by anything
factual. After its initial on-site cooling-off period (i.e. at
the point where it would be transported to a deep-burial site as
currently proposed) high-level wastes would be about as toxic as
barium or arsenic if ingested, and 1/10th that of ammonia or
1/1000th that of chlorinewhich we use liberally to clean our
bathtubs and swimming pools if inhaled.In addition, the
government's Oak Ridge National Laboratory itself reportsthat:*
Coal-fired generating plants worldwide expose the average person
to over 100 times the radioactivity experienced from the nuclear
operations. Comparable amounts released by nuclear plants would
produce a public outcry.
* If the same standards for containing radioactive releases that
are demanded from the nuclear industry were required of
coal-burning utilities, coal-burning would cease to be an
economic alternative. Coal ash qualifies as radioactive waste
but isn't regulated as such.
* Far more nuclear fuel is contained in coal waste than the fuel
burned by the nuclear industry (!).
* Coal burning wastes more energy in the form of unrecovered
nuclear material than it generates.Not to mention, of course,
the huge amounts of greenhouse gases that coal plantsand natural
gas plantsput into ther atmoshphere. And then, of course,
there's the millions of tons of solid waste, most of it either
highly alkaline, or highly acidic, that pile up every year. And
that leaches into ground water, too.
And let's not pretend that there's some other "renewable energy
source" like solar power that can replace coal, natural gas, or
nuclear power. At sea level, the earth receives 833 watts of
energy per square meter. That's it. No matter how efficient your
solar collectors are, no matter how much solar energy you can
conduct or store, the sun only gives us 833 watts per m2. By
contrast, the state of California uses 36 trillion watts of
energy at peak usage. Wanna make a guess at the size of the
solar power plant it would take to provide that much power?
As it stands now, we can create clean, safe, nuclear power
plants, that will eliminate a huge environmental burden. If you
are truly an environmentalist, then you have no choice but to
support a massively increased nuclear power generating program.
UPDATE: A commenter writes:Great essay, but are you sure on your
solar power generation? I knew the power they generated wasn’t
worth the real estate (I live near Altamont Pass), but your
analysis sounds extreme. What’s your source? (or show your
work!) Yeah. I'm sure. Actually, I overestimated the amount of
energy. I can't show you a single source. This is one of those
things you have to know. And you have to do math.
Outside the earth's atmoshphere, when measured on a surface at a
right angle to the sun, solar energy provides 1370 W/m2. At the
earth's surface, 31% of that energy is reflected back into
space, which means that, at peak times of sunlight, at the
equator, 943.23 W/m2 hits the earth's surface. But, as the
curvature of the earth increases, the amount of energy that
reaches the surface of the earth decreases. So, in Southern
California, you get a peak of over 800 W/m2. In Oregon, at 40°
lattitude, that drops to 600 W/m2. And, of course, those are
peak measurements. Over the course of a 24-hour day, the amount
of sun that actually reaches the earth's surface at the equator
comes out to about 380 W/m2, per day, on average (Remember,
you've got your night, then you've got your long periods in the
morning and evening when energy is less than peak, because thr
surface isn't perpendicular to the sun). In more northern
lattitudes, it's south of 200 W/m2 per day.
But, in Oregon, over an 8-hour summer day, that 600 W/m2
provides the same amount of energy as 0.13 gallons of gasoline.
In Southern California, that would be the equivalent of getting
0.2 gallons of gasoline per m2 per day.
Interestingly, there is actually an online, real-time Solar
Insolation report for Annandale, VA online here. At the time of
this writing, today's high solar radiation rate was 334 W/m2. So
far, the maximum insolation recorded has been 373 W/m2.
So, that's about the energy equivalent of 0.07 gallons of
gasoline per meter over an 8 hour day.
Solar energy might, assuming current costs per kilowatt/hour
were halved, be a feasible method of generating some power. But
the land requirements still make it prohibitive, and, compared
to nuclear, it's just a non-starter.
If you are truly an environmentalist, then you have no choice
but to support a massively increased nuclear power generating
program.Yes, but if instead you belong to the Church of
Environmentalism, then it is written in your holy tracts that
any use of nuclear power is an offense against Gaia. It does not
matter how safe it is, or how dangerous other alternatives are.
Let us all chant together: "No nukes!! No nukes!!"
*****************************************************************
24 NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Notice of Receipt and
FR Doc E6-1566
[Federal Register: February 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 24)]
[Notices] [Page 6101-6102] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06fe06-84]
Availability of Application for Renewal of Pilgrim Nuclear Power
Station Facility Operating License No. DPR-35 for an Additional
20-Year Period The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or
Commission) has received an application, dated January 25, 2006,
from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., filed pursuant to Section
104b (DPR-35) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and
10 CFR part 54, to renew the operating license for the Pilgrim
Nuclear Power Station. Renewal of the license would authorize the
applicant to operate the facility for an additional 20-year
period beyond the period specified in the current operating
license. The current operating license for the Pilgrim Nuclear
Power Station (DPR-35) expires on June 8, 2012. The Pilgrim
Nuclear Power Station is a Boiling Water Reactor designed by
General Electric. The unit is located in Plymouth, MA. The
acceptability of the tendered application for docketing, and
other matters including an opportunity to request a hearing, will
be the subject of subsequent Federal Register notices.
Copies of the application are available for public inspection at
the
[[Page 6102]] Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at
One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland 20582 or electronically from the NRC's
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room under accession number ML060300024. The
ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC's
Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html In addition,
the application is available at http://.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons.html, on the NRC's Web page, while the application is under
review.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the
NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, extension
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. A copy of the license
renewal application for the Pilgrim Nuclear Power Station is also
available to local residents near the Pilgrim Nuclear Power
Station at the Plymouth Public Library, 132 South Street,
Plymouth, MA 02360.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of January, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frank P. Gillespie, Director, Division of License Renewal, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-1566 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
25 NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. Notice of Receipt and
FR Doc E6-1567
[Federal Register: February 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 24)]
[Notices] [Page 6102] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06fe06-85]
Availability of Application for Renewal of Vermont Yankee Nuclear
Power Station Facility Operating License No. Dpr-28 for an
Additional 20-Year Period The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC or Commission) has received an application, dated January
25, 2006, from Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., filed pursuant
to Section 104b (DPR-28) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended, and 10 CFR part 54, to renew the operating license for
the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station.
Renewal of the license would authorize the applicant to operate
the facility for an additional 20-year period beyond the period
specified in the current operating license. The current operating
license for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station (DPR-28)
expires on March 21, 2012. The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power
Station is a Boiling Water Reactor designed by General Electric.
The unit is located in Vernon, VT. The acceptability of the
tendered application for docketing, and other matters including
an opportunity to request a hearing, will be the subject of
subsequent Federal Register notices.
Copies of the application are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland, 20582 or electronically from the NRC's Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic
Reading Room under accession number ML060300078. The ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC's Web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html In addition, the
application is available at http://.
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati
ons.html, on the NRC's Web page, while the application is under
review.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems
in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the
NRC's PDR Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, extension
301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. A copy of the license
renewal application for the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station
is also available to local residents near the Vermont Yankee
Nuclear Power Station at the following four public libraries:
Vernon Free Library, 567 Governor Hunt Rd, Vernon, VT 05354;
Brooks Memorial Library, 224 Main Street, Brattleboro, VT 05301;
Hinsdale Public Library, 122 Brattleboro Rd, Hinsdale, NH 03451;
and Dickinson Memorial Library, 115 Main St, Northfield, MA
01360.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st day of January, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frank P. Gillespie, Director, Division of License Renewal, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-1567 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
26 NRC: In the Matter of Digirad Imaging Solutions, Inc.; Confirmatory
FR Doc E6-1568
[Federal Register: February 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 24)]
[Notices] [Page 6100-6101] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06fe06-83]
Order (Effective Immediately) Digirad Imaging Solutions,
Incorporated (DIGIRAD or Licensee) is the holder of Byproduct
Material License 31-30666-01 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or Commission) pursuant to 10 CFR Parts 30 and
35. This mobile medical license authorizes possession of
radionuclides for medical diagnosis, including uptake, dilution
and excretion studies permitted by 10 CFR 35.100; and imaging and
localization studies permitted by 10 CFR 35.200. The license
further authorizes possession and use of byproduct material at
specified facilities located in Indiana, Michigan, Missouri, New
Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. The license
also authorizes use of byproduct material at temporary jobsites
of the licensee anywhere in the United States where the NRC
maintains jurisdiction for regulating the use of licensed
material, including areas of exclusive Federal jurisdiction
within Agreement States. The license was originally issued on
August 21, 2001, was due to expire on July 31, 2005, and is
currently under timely renewal pursuant to 10 CFR 30.36(a)(1). On
August 6, 2004, the NRC Office of Investigations (OI) initiated
an investigation (OI Case No. 1-2004-034) to determine if a
physician listed on the DIGIRAD NRC license submitted false
information to DIGIRAD in October 2003 to become an Authorized
User (AU) on its existing NRC license. Based on the evidence
developed during its investigations, OI substantiated that false
and/or inaccurate information was submitted to DIGIRAD by the
physician for the purpose of adding that physician as an AU on
the existing DIGIRAD NRC license. The results of the
investigation completed on June 15, 2005, were sent to DIGIRAD in
a letter dated September 15, 2005. This letter stated that a
physician listed as an AU on DIGIRAD's NRC license deliberately
provided inaccurate information to DIGIRAD to become an AU on
DIGIRAD's license, but that DIGIRAD did not knowingly submit the
false information to the NRC in an amendment request dated
October 16, 2003, that it submitted to the NRC to add the
physician to the list of AUs on the license.
Subsequent to becoming aware of the NRC investigation and of the
apparent violation, DIGIRAD took several actions to assure that
these events would not recur. These actions included: (a)
Immediately removing two AUs from its license; (b) cancelling a
contract it had with one of the physicians; (c) attaching to
physicians and preceptors statement form a notice equivalent to
the following: ``Notice to Physician and Preceptor: 10 CFR
30.9(a) and 30.10(a) require that all information provided to the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission by a licensee or its agents shall
be complete and accurate in all material respects. The submission
of false information constitutes a serious violation of
applicable regulations and may cause you or us to be fined, to
lose licensing privileges, or to suffer other significant
penalties.''; and (d) requiring any physician that is added to
its license to sign and date a document containing a statement
equivalent to the following: ``In connection with my application
to be named as an Authorized User on Digirad Imaging Solution's
(``DIS'') radioactive materials license, I am aware that the
submission of information that is not complete and accurate in
all material respects is a violation of 10 CFR Sections 30.9(a)
and 30.10(a). I hereby represent and warrant that, to the best of
my knowledge, the information I have submitted to DIS in
connection with my application to be named as an Authorized User
is complete and accurate in all material respects.'' Also, in
response to the NRC's September 15, 2005, letter, DIGIRAD
requested the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) to
resolve this apparent violation and pending enforcement action.
ADR is a process in which a neutral mediator, with no
decision-making authority, assists the NRC and DIGIRAD to resolve
any disagreements on whether a violation occurred, the
appropriate enforcement action, and the appropriate corrective
actions. An ADR session was held between DIGIRAD and the NRC in
King of Prussia, PA, on November 14, 2005, and was mediated by a
professional mediator, arranged through Cornell University's
Institute of Conflict Management. Based on discussions at the ADR
mediation session, as well as subsequent discussions held on
December 14 and 15, 2005, between Vera Pardee, Vice President and
General Counsel for DIGIRAD, and Karl Farrar, Region I Counsel, a
settlement agreement was reached. The elements of the settlement
agreement consisted of the following: 1. The NRC and DIGIRAD
agreed to disagree on the violation being in careless disregard
of NRC requirements.
2. DIGIRAD took the corrective actions described in Section II
above prior to attending the ADR Mediation Session on November
14, 2005.
3. As a means to provide added assurance to meet the requirements
of 10 CFR 30.9(a) and 30.10(a), DIGIRAD agreed that for all
future NRC AU applicants, on a yearly basis, it will audit the
training and experience credentials of the first 10 AU applicants
and 25% of any applications received after the first 10. DIGIRAD
will audit by endeavoring to locate and call preceptors as well
as Continuing Medical Education providers to verify the
information given by the AU applicants. This does not eliminate
the requirement that DIGIRAD provide complete and accurate
information to the NRC on all AU applicants. The
[[Page 6101]] results of this audit will be documented and
submitted to the NRC at the end of a two-year period. However,
DIGIRAD will notify the NRC as soon as practicable after
identification of any discrepancies identified as a result of the
audit. If no falsifications are uncovered during the two-year
period, DIGIRAD will discontinue the practice.
4. In addition, DIGIRAD will take other actions to ensure that
similar violations will not recur. These actions will include the
Vice President and Corporate Radiation Safety Officer preparing
and submitting a commentary to (a) the Journal of Nuclear
Medicine, (b) the Journal of Nuclear Medicine Technology, and (c)
the Journal of Medical Physics to provide an opportunity for
other licensees in the industry to learn from this incident.
DIGIRAD will advise NRC upon completion of these items and not
later than one year from the date of this agreement.
5. In light of the corrective actions that DIGIRAD has taken or
has committed to take as described in Items 2, 3 and 4, the NRC
agreed to issue a Severity Level III Notice of Violation to
DIGIRAD (10 CFR 30.9(a)), but to not issue a Civil Penalty. This
action will be publicly available in ADAMS and on the NRC
``Significant Enforcement Actions'' Web site, and the NRC will
issue a press release announcing this action, as well as the
actions DIGIRAD has taken and committed to take to address the
violation.
6. DIGIRAD agreed to issuance of a Confirmatory Order confirming
this agreement.
In light of the actions DIGIRAD has taken and agreed to take to
correct the violation and prevent recurrence, as set forth in
section III above, the NRC has concluded that its concerns
regarding the violation can be resolved through the NRC's
confirmation of the commitments as outlined in this Confirmatory
Order.
I find that DIGIRAD's commitments as set forth in section III
above are acceptable. However, in view of the foregoing, I have
determined that these commitments shall be confirmed by this
Confirmatory Order. Based on the above and DIGIRAD's consent,
this Confirmatory Order is immediately effective upon issuance.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and
186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 30 and
35, it is hereby ordered, that by August 23, 2006: 1. DIGIRAD
will audit, for all future NRC AU applicants, on a yearly basis,
the training and experience credentials of the first 10 AU
applicants and 25% of any applications received after the first
10. DIGIRAD will audit by endeavoring to locate and call
preceptors as well as Continuing Medical Education providers to
verify the information given by the AU applicants. This does not
eliminate the requirement that DIGIRAD provide complete and
accurate information to the NRC on all AU applicants. The results
of this audit will be documented and submitted to the NRC at the
end of a two-year period. However, DIGIRAD will notify the NRC as
soon as practicable after identification of any discrepancies
identified as a result of the audit. If no falsifications are
uncovered during the two-year period, DIGIRAD will discontinue
the practice.
2. The DIGIRAD Vice President and Corporate Radiation Safety
Officer will prepare and submit a commentary regarding this
violation to the Journals of Nuclear Medicine, Nuclear Medicine
Technology, and Medical Physics to provide an opportunity for
other licensees in the industry to learn from this incident.
3. DIGIRAD will advise NRC upon completion of these items and not
later than one year from the date of this agreement.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may relax or rescind, in
writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by DIGIRAD of
good cause.
Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other
than DIGIRAD, may request a hearing within 20 days of its
issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given
to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for
extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555, and must include a statement of good cause for the
extension. Any request for a hearing shall be submitted to the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Chief,
Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies
of the hearing request shall also be sent to the Director, Office
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials
Litigation and Enforcement, to the Director of the Division of
Regulatory Improvement Programs at the same address, and to
MSHMC. 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 by means of facsimile transmission to
301-415-3725 or e-mail to .
If such a person requests a hearing, that person shall set forth
with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely
affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth
in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by a person whose
interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an
Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing
is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be
whether this Confirmatory Order shall be sustained. An answer or
a request for a hearing shall not stay the effectiveness date of
this order.
Dated this 27th day of January 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael Johnson, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-1568 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
27 NRC: Steam Generator Tube Integrity and Associated Technical
FR Doc E6-1569
[Federal Register: February 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 24)]
[Notices] [Page 6105-6106] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06fe06-88]
Specifications AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Notice of issuance.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued
Generic Letter (GL) 2006-01 to all holders of operating licenses
for pressurized water reactors, except those who have permanently
ceased operation and have certified that fuel has been removed
from the reactor vessel. A response to this GL is not needed for
the following units since they have revised their technical
specifications (TS) to be conceptually similar to the TS
discussed in this GL: Arkansas Nuclear One Unit 1, Callaway,
Catawba Units 1 and 2, Farley Units 1 and 2, Salem Unit 1, and
South Texas Project Units 1 and 2. The NRC is issuing this
generic letter to: 1. Request that addressees either submit a
description of their program for ensuring steam generator (SG)
tube
[[Page 6106]] integrity for the interval between inspections or
adopt alternative TS requirements for ensuring SG tube integrity,
and 2. Require addressees to provide a written response to the
NRC in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Section 50.54(f). This Federal Register notice is
available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) under accession number ML060240020.
DATES: The GL was issued on January 20, 2006.
ADDRESSES: Not applicable.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kenneth Karwoski at 301-415-2752
or by e-mail kjk1@nrc.gov or David Beaulieu at 301-415-3243 or
e-mail dpb@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NRC GL 2006-01 may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room at One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the
Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html. The ADAMS number for the
generic letter is ML060200385.
If you do not have access to ADAMS or if you have problems in
accessing the documents in ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document
Room (PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or
by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th
day of January, 2006.
For The Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Christopher I. Grimes, Director, Division of Policy and
Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-1569 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
28 NRC: In the Matter of Alfred C. Burris, Senior, M.D.; Confirmatory
FR Doc E6-1570
[Federal Register: February 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 24)]
[Notices] [Page 6098-6100] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06fe06-82]
Order (Effective Immediately) Alfred C. Burris, Senior, M.D. (Dr.
Burris) is a self-employed cardiologist, who is licensed to
practice medicine in the State of Maryland and the District of
Columbia. Dr. Burris submitted an application for an NRC license
dated February 2, 2004, to authorize use of byproduct material
for diagnostic nuclear medicine.
An investigation was initiated by the NRC Office of
Investigations (OI) on May 24, 2004, (OI Case No. 1-2004-028) to
determine if Dr. Burris submitted inaccurate and/or misleading
information to the NRC in his NRC application to be the sole
authorized user (AU) as well as the Radiation Safety Officer
(RSO) on a license for use of byproduct material for medical
imaging and diagnostic purposes. During the course of this
investigation, OI identified that an NRC licensee, a mobile
cardiac imaging company, may have provided the same inaccurate
information in support of their amendment request to add Dr.
Burris and another physician to its NRC materials license as
Authorized Users. On August 6, 2004, OI initiated a separate
investigation (OI Case No. 1- 2004-034) to determine if Dr.
Burris submitted false information to an NRC
[[Page 6099]] licensee to become an AU on their existing NRC
license. Based on the evidence developed during its
investigations, OI concluded that Dr. Burris deliberately
submitted false and/or inaccurate information (1) to the NRC as
an applicant for an NRC license and (2) to an NRC licensee with
the purpose to become an AU on their existing NRC license. The
results of the two investigations were completed by OI on April
15, 2005 and June 15, 2005, and were sent to Dr. Burris in two
letters dated September 15, 2005.
Subsequent to becoming aware of the details of the apparent
violation, Dr. Burris took several prompt actions to assure that
these events would not recur. These actions included: (a)
Correcting inaccurate information for the record in a letter
dated July 26, 2004; (b) providing details of the violation to
associates in the process of getting character references; (c)
supplementing his work experience in May 2004, when he began
working with the nuclear medicine technologists at Greater
Southeast Community Hospital; and (d) undertaking efforts to
better understand regulatory requirements through self study and
review of his consultant's letter of May 4, 2004.
In response to the NRC's September 15, 2005 letters, Dr.
Burris requested the use of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)
to resolve this apparent violation and pending enforcement
action. ADR is a process in which a neutral mediator, with no
decision-making authority, assists the NRC and the individual to
resolve any disagreements on whether a violation occurred, the
appropriate enforcement action, and the appropriate corrective
actions. An ADR session was held between Dr. Burris and the NRC
in Rockville, MD, on December 1, 2005, and was mediated by a
professional mediator, arranged through Cornell University's
Institute of Conflict Management. During that ADR session, a
settlement agreement was reached. The elements of the settlement
agreement consisted of the following: 1. Dr. Burris agreed that
he was in violation of NRC requirements when, in an application
for a new NRC license, dated February 2, 2004, Dr. Burris
submitted inaccurate information contrary to 10 CFR 30.9(a).
Specifically, his application indicated that Dr. Burris was
listed as an authorized user (AU) on the Greater Southeast
Community Hospital license, when he was not. In addition, the
preceptor statement, prepared by a radiologist and attached to
his application, inaccurately described required supervised work
experience in handling nuclear materials.
2. While NRC and Dr. Burris agreed the violation was not
deliberate, NRC maintained that it was in careless disregard of
NRC's regulation.
3. Dr. Burris, subsequent to becoming aware of the details of the
violation, took prompt actions to assure that he learned from
this violation and provided the NRC with assurance that it would
not recur. These actions included: (a) Correcting inaccurate
information for the record in a letter dated July 26, 2004; (b)
providing details of the violation to associates in the process
of getting character references; (c) supplementing his work
experience in May 2004, when Dr.
Burris began working with the nuclear medicine technologists at
Greater Southeast Community Hospital; and (d) undertaking efforts
to better understand regulatory requirements through self study
and review of his consultant's letter of May 4, 2004.
4. During the ADR mediation session, Dr. Burris recognized an
opportunity for other potential Authorized Users/Radiation Safety
Officers in the industry to learn from his participation in the
NRC enforcement process and his experiences regarding the
necessity to provide complete and accurate information to the
NRC. Therefore, Dr. Burris agreed to take the following future
corrective actions: (a) Submit an article for consideration to an
appropriate medical journal that reaches an audience of
cardiologists; (b) offer to speak at a training session at a
meeting of the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, a similar
society, or at a Nuclear Cardiology symposium; and (c) write a
letter to local cardiologists describing his experiences. In
addition, Dr. Burris agreed to meet with a hospital RSO who has a
knowledge of imaging and localization studies in order to review
NRC requirements.
5. Dr. Burris agreed to complete the additional actions in Item 4
within 12 months of the date of the Order, and send a letter to
the NRC informing the NRC that these actions are completed. Dr.
Burris agreed to send this letter to the NRC within 30 days of
completion of all actions.
6. In light of the actions Dr. Burris took as described in Item
3, those actions Dr. Burris has committed to take as described in
Item 4, and his cooperation in providing information during the
ADR session, the NRC agreed to issue a Severity Level III Notice
of Violation (10 CFR 30.9) to Dr. Burris with no civil penalty.
This action will be publicly available in ADAMS, will appear on
the NRC ``Significant Enforcement Actions--Individuals'' Web site
for a period of 1 year, and will be discussed in a press release
announcing the ADR agreement between Dr. Burris and the NRC. 7.
Any license application received from Dr. Burris will be reviewed
without prejudice.
8. Dr. Burris agreed to issuance of a Confirmatory Order
confirming this agreement.
In light of the actions Dr. Burris has taken and agreed to take
to correct the violation and prevent recurrence, as set forth in
Section III above, the NRC has concluded that its concerns
regarding the violation can be resolved through the NRC's
confirmation of the commitments as outlined in this Confirmatory
Order.
I find that Dr. Burris' commitments as set forth in Section III
above are acceptable. However, in view of the foregoing, I have
determined that these commitments shall be confirmed by this
Confirmatory Order. Based on the above, and Dr. Burris' consent,
this Confirmatory Order is immediately effective upon issuance.
Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182, and
186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the
Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR part 30 and
35, it is hereby ordered, that: 1. Dr. Burris will (a) submit an
article for consideration to an appropriate medical journal that
reaches an audience of cardiologists; (b) offer to speak at a
training session at a meeting of the American Society of Nuclear
Cardiology, a similar society, or at a Nuclear Cardiology
symposium; and (c) write a letter to local cardiologists
describing his experiences. In addition, Dr. Burris agreed to
meet with a hospital RSO who has a knowledge of imaging and
localization studies in order to review NRC requirements.
2. Dr. Burris will complete the actions in Section V.1 within 12
months of the date of this Order, and send a letter to the NRC
informing the NRC that these actions are completed within 30 days
of completion of all actions.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, may relax or rescind, in
writing, any of the above conditions upon a showing by Dr.
Burris of good cause.
Any person adversely affected by this Confirmatory Order, other
than Dr. Burris, may request a hearing within 20 days of its
issuance. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given
to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for
extension of time must be made in writing to the Director, Office
of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555, and must include a statement of good cause for the
extension. Any request for
[[Page 6100]] a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Chief, Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies of the hearing
request shall also be sent to the Director, Office of
Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation
and Enforcement, and to the Director of the Division of
Regulatory Improvement Programs at the same address. Because of
continuing disruptions in delivery of mail to United States
Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for
hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either
by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101 or by e-mail
to
hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General
Counsel by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725 or
e-mail to
OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If such a person requests a hearing, that
person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his
interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address
the criteria set forth in 10 CFR Sec. 2.309(d) and (f). If a
hearing is requested by a person whose interest is adversely
affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time
and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be
considered at such hearing shall be whether this Confirmatory
Order shall be sustained. An answer or a request for a hearing
shall not stay the effectiveness date of this order.
Dated this 27th day of January, 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Michael Johnson, Director, Office of Enforcement.
[FR Doc. E6-1570 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
29 NRC: University of Michigan; University of Michigan Ford Nuclear
FR Doc E6-1571
[Federal Register: February 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 24)]
[Notices] [Page 6104-6105] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06fe06-87]
Reactor; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is
considering the issuance of a license amendment to Facility
Operating License No. R-28, issued to the University of Michigan
(UM or the licensee), that would allow decommissioning of the UM
Ford Nuclear Reactor (FNR) located at the North Campus in Ann
Arbor, Washtenaw County, Michigan.
Environmental Assessment Identification of the Proposed Action By
letter dated June 18, 2004, the licensee submitted a
decommissioning plan in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulation Part 50.82(b)(5) (10 CFR 50.82(b)(5)) in order
to dismantle the 2 megawatts thermal (MWt) FNR, to dispose of its
component parts and radioactive material, and to decontaminate
the facility in accordance with the proposed dismantling plan to
meet the Commission's unrestricted release criteria. After the
Commission verifies that the release criteria have been met,
Facility Operating License No.
R-28 would be terminated. The licensee submitted an Environmental
Report on June 18, 2004, that addressed the estimated
environmental impacts resulting from decommissioning the UM FNR.
A ``Notice and Solicitation of Comments Pursuant to 10 CFR
20.1405 and 10 CFR 50.82(b)(5) Concerning Proposed Action to
Decommission the University of Michigan Ford Nuclear Reactor
(FNR)'' was published in the Federal Register on September 8,
2004 (69 FR 54326). No comments were received during the comment
period.
Need for the Proposed Action The proposed action is necessary to
permanently cease operations of UM FNR. The licensee needs this
license change because it no longer plans to conduct licensed
activities at the UM FNR. As specified in 10 CFR 50.82, any
licensee may apply to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for
authority to surrender a license voluntarily and to decommission
the affected facility. Additionally, 10 CFR 51.53(d) stipulates
that each applicant for a license amendment to authorize
decommissioning of a production or utilization facility shall
submit with its application an environmental report that reflects
any new information or significant environmental change
associated with the proposed decommissioning activities. Upon
completion of the decommissioning activities, UM is planning to
use the area that would be released for other academic purposes.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action Residual radioactive
contamination resulting from past reactor operations is contained
in the FNR facility. All decontamination will be performed by
trained personnel in accordance with previously reviewed
procedures, and will be overseen by experienced health physics
staff. Solid and liquid waste will be removed from the facility
and managed in accordance with NRC regulations. The operations
are calculated to result in a total occupational radiation
exposure of about 4.8 person-rem. Radiation exposure to the
general public during decommissioning is expected to be
negligible. This will be accomplished by keeping the public at a
safe distance and by meeting NRC requirements for effluent
releases during decommissioning.
Occupational and public exposure may result from offsite disposal
of the low-level residual radioactive material from the FNR. The
handling, storage, and shipment of this radioactive material are
to meet the requirements of 10 CFR 20.2006, ``Transfer for
Disposal and Manifest,'' and 49 CFR Parts 100-177,
``Transportation of Hazardous Materials.'' It is anticipated that
about 112 ft3 of irradiated hardware will be shipped during one
truck shipment in Type B shipping casks to a waste processor. A
volume of 11,000 ft3 of other waste in strong tight containers
will be shipped during 27 truck shipments to the Envirocare of
Utah facility. Included in the other waste shipment is mixed
waste consisting primarily of activated and/or contaminated lead
with a volume of 43 ft3 and cadmium with a volume of 1 ft3.
Radiation exposure to the general public during waste shipments
is expected to be negligible. In addition, Liquid waste that is
generated during the decommissioning activities will be released
to the environment in accordance with the regulations in 10 CFR
Part 20, Subpart K, ``Waste Disposal,'' or will be solidified and
disposed of as solid waste in accordance with state and Federal
guidelines.
The licensee analyzed accidents applicable to decommissioning
activities. These accidents involve inhalation of hazardous or
radioactive materials, confined space issues, heavy equipment
movement, external radiation exposure, and dermal contact with
radioactive and hazardous materials. To minimize the risk from
identified hazards, procedures and conformance with FNR license
and regulatory requirements will be used.
Based on the review of the specific proposed activities
associated with the dismantling and decontamination of the UM FNR
facility, the staff has determined that the proposed action will
not increase the probability or consequences of accidents, change
any effluents that may be released off site,
[[Page 6105]] and cause any significant increase in occupational
or public radiation exposure. Therefore, the staff concludes that
there are no significant radiological environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed
action does not involve any historic sites. In addition to the
lead and cadmium discussed above, asbestos is present at the UM
FNR facility. Asbestos will be removed by a licensed asbestos
abatement contractor. Decommissioning activities will not affect
non-radiological facility effluents and have no other
environmental impact. The licensee states that there are no
significant plant communities and no wetlands within the site.
There are three species listed as threatened or endangered under
the Federal ESA within Washtenaw County. These are Indiana bat
(Myotis sodalis), the Mitchell's satyr butterfly (Neonympha
mitchellii mitchellii), and the Eastern prairie fringed orchid
(Platanthera leucophaea). There are no records of any of these
three species on the UM FNR site. Therefore, the staff concludes
that there are no significant non-radiological environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action. Accordingly, the NRC
staff concludes that there are no significant environmental
impacts associated with the proposed action.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action The licensee has proposed to
use the DECON alternative for the UM FNR facility. The DECON
alternative is where the equipment, structures, and portions of
the facility containing radioactive contaminants are removed or
decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be
released for unrestricted use. As a first alternative to the
proposed DECON method, SAFSTOR will be used. In SAFSTOR, the
nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that
allows the nuclear facility to be safely stored and subsequently
decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to levels that permit
release for unrestricted use. As a second alternative, the ENTOMB
alternative is where radioactive contaminants are encased in a
structurally long-lived material, such as concrete; the entombed
structure is appropriately maintained; and continued surveillance
is carried out until the radioactivity decays to a level
permitting release of the property for unrestricted use.
The SAFSTOR, ENTOMB, and no-action alternatives would entail
continued surveillance and physical security measures to be in
place and continued monitoring by licensee personnel. The SAFSTOR
and no- action alternatives would also require continued
maintenance of the facility. The radiological impacts of SAFSTOR
would be less than the DECON option because of radioactive decay
prior to the start of decommissioning activities. However, this
option involves the continued use of resources during the SAFSTOR
period. The ENTOMB option would also result in lower radiological
exposure than the DECON option but would involve the continued
use of resources. UM FNR has determined that the proposed action
(DECON) is the most efficient use of the existing facility, since
it proposes to use the space that will become available for other
academic purposes. These alternatives would have no significant
environmental impact. In addition, the regulations in 10 CFR
50.82(b)(4)(i) only allow an alternative if it provides for
completion of decommissioning without significant delay.
Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use
of any resources not previously considered in the Environmental
Report submitted on June 18, 2004, for the UM FNR facility.
Agencies and Persons Contacted In accordance with the NRC staff's
stated policy, on November 22, 2005, the NRC staff consulted with
the Michigan State official, Chris Antieau, Department of
Environmental Quality, Land and Water Management Division,
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action on the
Coastal Zone Management Act. The state official stated that he
concurred with the environmental assessment and had no comments.
In addition, the staff contacted U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action
to threatened or endangered species. The FWS provided the NRC
staff with a list of threatened and endangered species to assist
the NRC staff to determine if the UM FNR proposed action would
cause any environmental impact in reference to the Endangered
Species Act. On December 2, 2005, the NRC staff also consulted
with the Michigan State Official, Robert D. Skowronek, Department
of Environmental Quality, Waste and Hazardous Materials Division.
Mr. Skowronek had no comments. Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the Commission
concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant
effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact
statement for the proposed action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated June 18, 2004, which is available for
public inspection, and can be copied for a fee, at the U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first
floor), Rockville, Maryland.
The NRC maintains an Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's
public documents.
These documents may be accessed through the NRC's Public
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at http://www.nrc.gov.
Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who have problems in
accessing the documents located in ADAMS may contact the PDR
reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301- 415-4737 or by e-mail at
pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of
January 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brian E. Thomas, Branch Chief, Research and Test Reactors Branch,
Division of Policy and Rulemaking, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-1571 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
30 NRC: NRC FY 2007 Budget Reflects Anticipated New Nuclear Power Plant License Applications
News Release - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office
of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC
20555-0001 E-mail: No. 06-016 February 6, 2006
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission released its proposed
budget for Fiscal Year 2007 today, requesting $777 million an
increase of $35 million over its FY 2006 budget. The agencys
Nuclear Reactor Safety program, which includes review of new
power plant license applications, saw an increase of $22 million.
Appropriate funding allows the NRC to carry out its vital
longstanding mission to protect public health and safety as well
as the new responsibilities and requirements in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005, said NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz. This budget
continues the preparation we are making to review and decide, in
a timely manner, the expected requests for new reactor licenses.
The budget reflects a decrease of about $18 million for the
Nuclear Materials and Waste Safety program in light of the
potential delay in the Department of Energys application for the
high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain, and other program
changes. The proposed budget also includes an increase of
approximately $10 million to fund federal pay raises and other
compensation and benefits increases, and an increase of $21
million for the agencys infrastructure and support activities.
Specific funding levels include:
$341.3 million for reactor licensing, including security
reviews and activities;
$222 million for reactor inspection, including security
oversight;
$205.1 million for nuclear materials and waste safety; and
$8.1 million for the Inspector General.
The proposed budget is offset by $627.7 million from fees the
NRC collects from its licensees and $41 million from the Nuclear
Waste Fund, resulting in a request from the General Fund of
$107.9 million.
More details of the NRC proposed 2007 budget can be found on the
Web site, at www.nrc.gov.
Note to Editors: A phone press briefing with NRC Deputy Chief
Financial Officer Peter Rabideau will be held for reporters from
2 to 3 p.m. today. Reporters can call 301-231-5539 or
800-638-8081. The passcode is 1240.
Last revised Monday, February 06, 2006
*****************************************************************
31 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
FR Doc E6-1586
[Federal Register: February 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 24)]
[Notices] [Page 6098] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06fe06-81]
Comment Request AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
ACTION: Notice of pending NRC action to submit an information
collection request to OMB and solicitation of public comment.
SUMMARY: The NRC is preparing a submittal to OMB for review of
continued approval of information collections under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.
Chapter 35). Information pertaining to the requirement to be
submitted:
1. The title of the information collection: 10 CFR Part 55,
Operators Licenses.
2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0018.
3. How often the collection is required: As necessary for NRC to
meet its responsibilities to determine the eligibility of
applicants for operators' licenses, prepare or review initial
operator licensing and requalification examinations, and review
applications for and performance of simulation facilities.
4. Who is required or asked to report: Holders of and applicants
for facility (i.e., nuclear power, research, and test reactor)
operating licenses and individual operators' licenses.
5. The number of annual respondents: 240. 6. The number of hours
needed annually to complete the requirement or request: 67,060.
7. Abstract: 10 CFR Part 55, ``Operators' Licenses,'' of the
NRC's regulations, specifies information and data to be provided
by applicants and facility licenses so that the NRC may make
determinations concerning the licensing and requalification of
operators for nuclear reactors, as necessary to promote public
health and safety. The reporting and recordkeeping requirements
contained in 10 CFR Part 55 are mandatory for the licensees and
applicants affected.
Submit, by April 7, 2006, comments that address the following
questions: 1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary
for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the
information have practical utility? 2. Is the burden estimate
accurate? 3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be collected? 4. How can the burden
of the information collection be minimized, including the use of
automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology? A copy of the draft supporting statement may be
viewed free of charge at the NRC Public Document Room, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O-1 F21, Rockville, MD
20852. OMB clearance requests are available at the NRC worldwide
Web site:
http://www.nrc.gov/public-involve/doc-comment/omb/index.html. The
document will be available on the NRC home page site for 60 days
after the signature date of this notice.
Comments and questions about the information collection
requirements may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda
Jo. Shelton (T-5 F53), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by
Internet electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS@NRC.GOV. Dated at
Rockville, Maryland, this 30th day of January 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton, NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information
Services.
[FR Doc. E6-1586 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
32 Wisconsin State Journal: Pro-nuclear campaign coming
MON., FEB 6, 2006 - 9:18 PM
JOHN J. FIALKA
The nation's nuclear-power industry is set to roll out a
multiyear advertising campaign to build public support for a
generation of new plants and federal policies needed to help them
succeed.
The campaign, based around a theme of "nuclear renaissance," is
timed to support President Bush's nuclear- energy initiative,
unveiled with his 2007 budget request. The plan will sponsor
research in technology to safely reprocess spent nuclear fuel so
that long- term storage space for waste might be reduced.
"We want to build a broader base of bipartisan support, both in
Washington and across the country," said Scott Peterson, a vice
president of the Nuclear Energy Institute. The trade group
represents owners of the 103 nuclear-power plants that provide
20 percent of the nation's electricity.
The group also is gearing up to be heard on Capitol Hill. Last
week, the institute's board selected a top aide on the Senate
Energy and Natural Resources Committee to be its senior vice
president for governmental affairs. Alex Flint, the Senate
panel's majority staff director since 2003 and an expert on
nuclear- energy issues, will remain in his current post until
becoming the institute's top lobbyist in late April.
The main goal of the ad campaign will be to bolster public
support for as many as four proposals for nuclear plants that
are expected to enter the licensing process at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission next year.
No nuclear plant has been proposed in the U.S. since the 1970s.
The first plants in the new generation will have simpler and
safer operating technology and will be watched by the power
industry and Wall Street, which will have to raise billions of
dollars to finance them. The licensing process probably will
last until 2010 and only then will utilities know whether they
can start construction.
In Washington, the industry will push Bush-administration
proposals to move nuclear waste from storage near power plants
to Yucca Mountain in Nevada, or to alternative sites on
government land. Companies wanting to build plants will have to
show there is adequate storage space for the waste they will
generate.
According to the industry, nuclear-power plants operated at 89.7
percent of their capacity in 2005, just under the industry's
record. As costs for coal and natural gas rise, the cost of
nuclear-generated power is attractive to utilities. The fact
that nuclear energy doesn't generate carbon dioxide and other
"greenhouse gases" believed to be warming the atmosphere will be
featured in the campaign.
Copyright © 2005 Wisconsin State Journal
*****************************************************************
33 ITAR-TASS: Kalininskaya nuclear power plant shuts down 1st reactor
06.02.2006, 21.13
UDOMLYA /Tver region/, February 6 (Itar-Tass) - An accident
protection system at the Kalininskaya nuclear power plant shut
down the first reactor on Monday afternoon, the plant's
information department told Itar-Tass.
The cause is being investigated. The radiation level on the
plant's premises matches natural radiation figures.
The reactor was deactivated at 17:15, Moscow time, on Monday.
The plant continues to operate the 2nd and 3rd reactors with a
rated capacity of 2,030 mW.
The plant is located in northern Tver region, 330 kilometers
from Moscow. It operates VVER-1000 reactors and supplies
electricity to eight Russian regions.
The first reactor was brought to rated capacity in June 1985.
© ITAR-TASS. All rights reserved. You undertake not to copy,
*****************************************************************
34 Public Citizen: Bush Administration’s FY 2007 Budget for Nuclear
Power Is Waste of Taxpayer Money, Threatens Global Security
Feb. 6, 2006
Statement of Tyson Slocum, Director, Public Citizens Critical
Mass Energy Program
The Bush administrations Fiscal Year 2007 budget request for
the U.S. Department of Energys (DOE) nuclear power programs
squanders vast amounts of taxpayer dollars in pursuit of
policies that further subsidize the 50-year-old nuclear
industry, threaten global security and fail to solve the
radioactive waste problem.
The White House is asking for $347 million for nuclear power
research and development, a 55 percent increase over last years
budget. The budget includes $54 million for the Nuclear Power
2010 program, which pays the wealthy nuclear industry for half
the cost of applying for new reactors. Within the Nuclear Power
2010 program, $1.8 million is allocated to developing the
regulations, criteria and process by which DOE would provide
risk insurance to pay the industry for delays in obtaining an
operating license caused by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission or
by litigation. This is one of the most egregious subsidies
slipped into the Energy Policy Act of 2005 during 11th hour
negotiations.
The budget request includes another $32 million for developing
the next generation of nuclear reactors a drop in the bucket
for designs that are estimated to range in cost from $610
million to $1 billion. None the proposed designs will solve the
cost, waste, safety and security problems of the current
generation of reactors.
It simply does not make sense to continue to dump money into
expensive and dangerous nuclear technology. According to the
credit rating agency Standard & Poors in a January report, the
$13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks passed in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 may still not be enough to prevent the credit
downgrading of a company that decides to build one or more new
nuclear reactors.
New reactors, of course, mean more radioactive waste, but the
Bush administration has no solution. The budget proposes to dump
another $544.5 million into the proposed high-level waste
repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada, which if ever licensed
cannot legally hold waste produced after 2010. The DOEs Yucca
Mountain Project is in complete disarray. The DOE recently went
back to the drawing board on its design for the site, because it
failed to acknowledge the long-standing issue of contamination
in the fuel handling building on the surface. The DOE also
recently stopped work on key areas of the site because of
additional quality assurance problems the same problems that
have been occurring since the 1980s.
In addition to pursuing Yucca Mountain, the Bush administration
is proposing $250 million for a new program to promote
reprocessing, called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership
(GNEP). But GNEP cannot accomplish the administrations
proliferation or waste management goals. The reprocessing (or
separation) technologies that DOE is currently researching are
far from proliferation-resistant and are decades from
commercialization. The available reprocessing technology (as is
currently used in France) results in irradiated fuel that is
hotter than our current spent fuel, cannot be reused and must be
kept away from the public and environment. No country in the
world has been able to operate the fast reactors that reduce the
long-lived radionuclides in a safe or economically viable
manner.
The full cost of the GNEP program will break the national
budget. According to the National Academy of Sciences,
reprocessing and transmutation of irradiated fuel from
existing U.S. reactors would easily cost more than $100
billion (1996 dollars). This estimate does not include the costs
of reprocessing and managing imported foreign irradiated fuel,
as the Bush administration is proposing.
This budget proposal is only the tip of the iceberg for what
taxpayers and ratepayers are on the hook if plans for new
reactors and for reprocessing are pursued.
###
Public Citizen
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: Notice of Environmental Assessment Related to the Issuance of a
FR Doc 06-1043
[Federal Register: February 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 24)]
[Notices] [Page 6102-6104] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06fe06-86]
License Amendment to Byproduct Material License No. 24-00196-07,
for Unrestricted Release of a Facility for Saint Louis
University, St. Louis, MO AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Issuance of environmental assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact for license amendment.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George M. McCann, Senior Health
Physicist, Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials
Safety, Region III, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2443
Warrenville Road, Lisle, Illinois 60532-4352; telephone: (630)
829- 9856; or by e-mail at gmm@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) is considering the issuance of an amendment to NRC
Byproduct Materials License No. 24-00196-07, which is held by
Saint Louis University (licensee). The amendment would authorize
the unrestricted release of the licensee's former Radioactive
Waste Storage Facility, located at 1008 South Spring Avenue, St.
Louis, Missouri. The NRC has prepared an Environmental Assessment
in support of this action in accordance with the requirements of
10 CFR part 51. Based on the Environmental Assessment, the NRC
has determined that a Finding of No Significant Impact is
appropriate. The amendment to Saint Louis University's license
will be issued following the publication of this Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact.
I. Environmental Assessment Identification of Proposed Action The
proposed action would approve St. Louis University's request to
amend its license and release the licensee's former waste storage
facility for unrestricted use in accordance with 10 CFR part 20,
subpart E. The proposed action is in accordance with the Saint
Louis University's request to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) to amend its NRC Byproduct Material License by
letters dated October 31, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060180319),
and January 13, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060170694). Saint
Louis University is licensed as an
[[Page 6103]] NRC broad scope licensee and was first licensed to
use byproduct materials for broad scope uses on January 19, 1976.
The licensee is authorized to use byproduct materials for broad
scope activities involving medical research, diagnostic and
therapeutic medical procedures, laboratory studies and
educational programs. The licensee is authorized to possess and
use curie quantities of byproduct materials atomic number 1
through 83, inclusive.
The licensee's Radioactive Waste Storage Facility located at 1008
South Spring Avenue, St. Louis, Missouri, was designed to receive
and process the licensee's research and laboratory wastes for
disposal to authorized recipients. The use of the Radioactive
Waste Storage Facility for waste processing activities was first
authorized for use by the NRC in License No. 24-00196-07,
Amendment No. 25, dated March 19, 1999. According to the
licensee, use and storage of radioactive material in the
Radioactive Waste Storage Facility ceased on August 12, 2005.
The licensee conducted surveys of the facility and provided this
information to the NRC to demonstrate that the radiological
conditions of former waste processing and storage areas, and
offices located in the Radioactive Waste Storage Facility are
consistent with radiological criteria for unrestricted use in 10
CFR part 20, subpart E. No radiological remediation activities
are required to complete the proposed action. The NRC completed a
closeout inspection and survey of the licensee's activities,
which are the subject of this license amendment, on January 18,
2006 (NRC Inspection Report No.
030-11789/05- 002 (DNMS) (ADAMS Accession No. ML060200576)), to
conduct independent radiological surveys and to verify the
licensee's survey findings.
Need for the Proposed Action The licensee is requesting this
license amendment because it no longer plans to use the
Radioactive Waste Storage Facility for NRC- licensed activities
at Saint Louis University. The NRC is fulfilling its
responsibilities under the Atomic Energy Act to make a decision
on the proposed action for decommissioning that ensures that
residual radioactivity is reduced to a level that is protective
of the public health and safety and the environment, and allows
the Radioactive Waste Storage Facility to be released for
unrestricted use.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action The NRC staff
reviewed the information provided and surveys performed by the
licensee to demonstrate that the release of the Radioactive Waste
Storage Facility located at 1008 South Spring Avenue, St. Louis,
Missouri, are consistent with the radiological criteria for
unrestricted use specified in 10 CFR 20.1402. The NRC performed a
closeout inspection and survey to confirm the licensee's
findings. Based on its review, the staff determined that there
were no radiological impacts associated with the proposed action
because no radiological remediation activities were required to
complete the proposed action, and that the radiological criteria
for unrestricted use in Sec. 20.1402 have been met. Based on its
review, the staff determined that the radiological environmental
impacts from the proposed action for the former Radioactive Waste
Storage Facility are bounded by the ``Generic Environmental
Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological
Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear
Facilities'' (NUREG-1496). Additionally, no non-radiological or
cumulative impacts were identified. Therefore, the NRC has
determined that the proposed action will not have a significant
effect on the quality of the human environment.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action The only alternative to the
proposed action of releasing the licensee's former Radioactive
Waste Storage Facility for unrestricted use is to take no action.
Under the no-action alternative, the licensee's facility would
remain under an NRC license and would not be released for
unrestricted use. Denial of the license amendment request would
result in no change to current conditions at the University. The
no-action alternative is not acceptable because it is
inconsistent with 10 CFR 30.36, which requires licensees who have
ceased licensed activities to request termination of their
radioactive material license. This alternative would impose an
unnecessary regulatory burden in controlling access to the
facility, and limit potential benefits from the future use of the
facility.
Conclusion The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action is
consistent with the NRC's unrestricted release criteria specified
in 10 CFR 20.1402. Because the proposed action will not
significantly impact the quality of the human environment, the
NRC staff concludes that the proposed action is the preferred
alternative.
Agencies and Persons Consulted The NRC staff has determined that
the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical
habitats. Therefore, no further consultation is required under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff
has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity
that has potential to cause effect on historic properties.
Therefore, consultation under Section 106 of the National
Historic Preservation Act is not required.
The NRC consulted with the Missouri Department of Health and
Senior Services. The Missouri Department of Health and Senior
Services, Division of Community and Public Health, Office of
Emergency Coordination was provided the draft EA for comment on
January 19, 2006. Mr. Keith Henke, Planner III, with the Missouri
Office of Emergency Coordination, responded to the NRC by
telephone on January 19, 2006, indicating that the State had no
comments regarding the NRC Environmental Assessment for the
release of the Saint Louis University facility.
II. Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the EA in
support of the proposed license amendment to release the site for
unrestricted use, the NRC has determined that the proposed action
will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. Thus, the NRC has not prepared an environmental
impact statement for the proposed action.
III. Further Information Documents related to this action,
including the application for amendment and supporting
documentation, are available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this site, you can
access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's
public documents. If you do not have access to ADAMS, or if there
are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, contact
the NRC Public Document Room (PDR) Reference staff at 1-
800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. The
documents and ADAMS accession numbers related to this notice are:
1. Haenchen, Mark, M.S., J.D., Director and Radiation Safety
Officer, Office of Environmental Safety & Services,
[[Page 6104]] Saint Louis University, October 31, 2005 letter to
the NRC requesting a license amendment for the release of the
former Radioactive Waste Storage Facility (ML060180319).
2. Bachmann, Kenneth, M.S., Health Physicist, Saint Louis
University consultant, letter dated January 13, 2006, to the NRC
(ML060170694).
3. NRC Inspection Report No. 030-11789/05-002 (DNMS) dated
January 20, 2006 (ML060200576).
4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental Review
Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,''
NUREG-1748, August 2003.
5. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Environmental Review
Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,''
NUREG-1748, August 2003.
6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Generic Environmental
Impact Statement in Support of Rulemaking on Radiological
Criteria for License Termination of NRC-Licensed Nuclear
Facilities,'' NUREG-1496, August 1994.
7. NRC, NUREG-1757, ``Consolidated NMSS Decommissioning
Guidance,'' Volumes 1-3, September 2003.
Documents may also be viewed electronically on the public
computers located at the NRC's PDR, O 1 F21, One White Flint
North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. The PDR
reproduction contractor will copy documents for a fee.
Dated at Lisle, Illinois, this 27th day of January 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Jamnes L. Cameron, Chief,
Decommissioning Branch, Division of Nuclear Materials Safety,
Region III.
[FR Doc. 06-1043 Filed 2-3-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
36 canada.com: Forces ombudman's office denies Gulf War illnesses
canada.com
One in five veterans has reported ailment
David Pugliese, The Ottawa Citizen
Published: Monday, February 06, 2006
The office of the Canadian Forces ombudsman has concluded that
engineering troops who served in the Persian Gulf and were
thought to have been exposed to various contaminants aren't
suffering any greater rate of illnesses than other veterans,
according to a document leaked to the Citizen.
The conclusion, in a letter produced by the office of ombudsman
Yves Cote, comes despite complaints that one in five soldiers
from the unit has reported some kind of illness since returning
from the 1991 mission.
Sixty-two of the approximately 300 soldiers who served in the
Persian Gulf with 1 Combat Engineer Regiment have come down with
various ailments, many involving kidney and respiratory
problems, says their former deputy commanding officer, Fred
Kaustinen.
Two of the men, healthy and in their early 20s when they
originally went to Kuwait to clear landmines and other
explosives, suffered brain tumours. One died from that
condition. Another died from Hodgkin's disease.
Another 21-year-old soldier came down with multiple sclerosis a
year after he returned from Kuwait, said Mr. Kaustinen, a
retired major who has monitored the health of his former
comrades.
The men, many now in their 30s, helped save hundreds of U.S.
soldiers when the American ammunition dump at Doha, Kuwait, blew
up in July 1991. They were hailed as heroes by a U.S. general,
but there were allegations the senior leadership at National
Defence headquarters suppressed the story of the unit's bravery
because the destruction of a main U.S. base in Kuwait and
millions of dollars' worth of equipment was too embarrassing to
our American allies.
There were also concerns that the ammunition facility contained
radioactive depleted uranium warheads and other toxic chemicals
and both U.S. and Canadian soldiers may have been exposed to
contaminants. Some have suggested the men might have been
exposed to pollutants from oil fires ignited by retreating Iraqi
troops.
Mr. Kaustinen asked the ombudsman's office to investigate how
his men were treated by the military.
A copy of the letter produced by the ombudsman's office praises
the military leadership and the Defence Department for ensuring
the health and well-being of Canadian soldiers. It also suggests
there are no major problems with the health of the men of 1 CER.
"We were able to establish that the members of the unit most
concerned about their exposure do not appear to be suffering any
greater rate of illness than those not deployed to the area,"
the letter to be signed by Mr. Cote states. It will be sent to
the new defence minister, who is to be named today.
The letter, however, acknowledges that "sufficient time has not
elapsed to allow this conclusion to be drawn definitely, so
ongoing monitoring of the health of this group will be
necessary." It suggests waiting another 14 years until further
followup data can be obtained on the soldiers' health.
Ombudsman spokesman Darren Gibb said the document is a draft
letter that has not yet been seen by Mr. Cote, or signed by him.
He said changes will be made before it is sent, although he
declined to get into details as the investigation is ongoing. A
report is expected to be finalized in the coming months.
© 2006 CanWest Interactive, a division of CanWest
*****************************************************************
37 [NukeNet] Deadline for MOX facility is extended
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2006 15:20:50 -0800
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
MOX, three years behind schedule and $2.5 Billion cost overrun,
construction scheduled to begin, even though plans not yet complete. See
report from Augusta Chronicle, below.
>Deadline for MOX facility is extended
>
>By Josh Gelinas | South Carolina Bureau Chief
>
>Thursday, February 2, 2006
>
>http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/020306/met_6424168.shtml
>
>AIKEN - The MOX plant at Savannah River Site that was supposed to start
>converting weapons-grade plutonium into nuclear reactor fuel by the end of
>2009 or face daily fines of $1 million, has been given a three-year
>extension.
>
>The U.S. Senate's Water and Energy Appropriations bill that passed in
>November included a line item providing the extra time, a move that was
>overshadowed by big spending plans at the site.
>
>The issue is resurfacing because of complications the extra time has created
>for Aiken County, which sued the U.S. Energy Department in September.
>
>The county contends in its lawsuit that Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman
>violated the law by saying the mixed-oxide, or MOX, plant would not be ready
>by 2009 without stating how to right its course.
>
>The county also asked the Energy Department to stop shipping plutonium to
>SRS.
>
>The federal agency was supposed to respond to the lawsuit by Thursday, but
>attorneys for both sides agreed to extend that deadline until March 20.
>
>"We're both studying the impact of the statute on the DOE's responsibility
>coming forward," said Bob Daley Jr., a lawyer in the U.S. Attorney's Office
>in Columbia who represents the DOE.
>
>The lawsuit could be dismissed because of amended MOX production deadlines,
>attorneys state in court documents.
>
>The MOX program is a cornerstone of the U.S.-Russian nonproliferation
>agreement signed in 2000. The two nations agreed to build identical plants
>simultaneously and turn 34 tons of weapons-grade plutonium from each nation
>into reactor fuel.
>
>The goal is to make the world safer by keeping radioactive plutonium out of
>the wrong hands. But some argue the plan comes at a cost to South Carolina,
>which could end up storing plutonium from across the nation.
>
>To dampen such fears, U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., then a
>representative, and the late U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond drafted legislation
>that said MOX had to create at least one ton of fuel by Dec. 31, 2009, or
>pay fines to the state.
>
>The extension granted in November, which Mr. Graham pushed, has only stoked
>the concerns.
>
>"It was really, I think, a Trojan horse to begin with," Aiken County
>Councilman Chuck Smith said of the 2009 deadline. "I don't think the DOE
>ever intended to honor that commitment, and when they had an opportunity to
>move the goal line they did."
>
>The MOX program has continuously been delayed, largely because of liability
>issues in Russia. Construction is supposed to begin in May, though designs
>remain incomplete. And as time as has passed, associated costs have
>increased.
>
>A federal report released in December scolded energy officials for
>mismanagement and revealed that estimated MOX costs had risen to $3.5
>billion, $2.5 billion more than first anticipated.
>
>Still, Mr. Graham defended the extension and said Russia was to blame for
>the delays.
>
>"We don't want the penalties. We want the program," he said. "I am trying to
>keep the program not only on track but make it reality. I don't mind being
>reasonable with the Department of Energy when it's out of their control."
>
>
>Reach Josh Gelinas at (803) 648-1395, ext. 110, or
>josh.gelinas@augustachronicle.com.
>
>
>U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman is due to file a progress report later
>this month on a plutonium conversion plant at Savannah River Site called
>MOX, or mixed-oxide fuel fabrication.
>
>
>From the Friday, February 3, 2006 printed edition of the Augusta Chronicle
>
>© 2006 The Augusta Chronicle
>
>
>
>Posted for SRS Action:
>--
>Glenn Carroll
>Coordinator
>NUCLEAR WATCH SOUTH
>(aka GANE - Georgians Against Nuclear Energy)
>P.O. Box 8574
>Atlanta, GA 31106
>PHONE/FAX: 404-378-4263
>atom.girl@mindspring.com
>
>STOP PLUTONIUM! GANE ON THE WEB --
>http://www.greenpeace.fr/stop-plutonium/en/20050301_en.php3
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
><*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/srs-action/
>
><*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> srs-action-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
><*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
38 Las Vegas SUN: Bush requests $544 million for Yucca Mountain in 2007 budget
Today: February 06, 2006 at 11:22:3 PST
By ERICA WERNER ASSOCIATED PRESS
Bush requests $544 million for Yucca Mountain in 2007 budget
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush's $2.77 trillion budget
proposal for 2007 seeks $544 million to continue work licensing
a proposed nuclear waste dump at Yucca Mountain.
Congress approved $450 million for the project in 2006 - less
than Bush's $650 million request.
The budget for Yucca Mountain was $577 million in 2004 and 2005.
Bush's budget request for the fiscal year beginning next Oct. 1
also proposes $250 million as downpayment on a multiyear program
to resume commercial nuclear fuel reprocessing, which was
abandoned in the 1970s over proliferation fears. The aim is to
reduce volumes of waste from commercial power reactors and
develop international program to control civilian nuclear
material.
A series of setbacks - including a required rewrite of radiation
safety standards for the dump - has slowed spending on Yucca
Mountain. It's not clear when the Energy Department will submit
its license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and
the projected opening date has slipped to 2012, at the earliest.
--
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
39 Las Vegas SUN: Bush requests money for Yucca Mountain, reprocessing in budget
Today: February 06, 2006 at 15:19:23 PST
By ERICA WERNER ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush asked Congress Monday to
increase spending on the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste dump, and
requested $250 million for a new nuclear fuel reprocessing
initiative.
Energy Department officials said the new focus on reprocessing -
which this country abandoned in the 1970s over fears of nuclear
proliferation - would not detract from their commitment to
completing the Yucca Mountain dump 90 miles northwest of Las
Vegas.
"It is our great desire, and it is in the nation's interest, and
it is in the interest of facilitating a nuclear renaissance,
which we greatly need, that we get Yucca Mountain licensed and
we get it open," Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell told
reporters during a briefing on Bush's $2.77 trillion 2007 budget
plan.
Sell said the administration would be supporting legislation to
speed construction of Yucca, which has stumbled over funding
shortfalls, a controversy over fabricated scientific data, and a
court's rejection of the government's original radiation safety
standard.
Sell didn't elaborate, but congressional staffers said they
expected the proposal to include funding changes for the
project. The Bush administration has tried in the past, without
success, to spend money on Yucca from a dedicated account that
utilities pay into.
Monday's $544 million request for Yucca Mountain in 2007 was
$100 million more than Congress approved for 2006, but less than
Bush's $650 million 2006 request. The budget for Yucca Mountain
was $577 million in 2004 and 2005.
The money for nuclear fuel reprocessing is the first step in a
new administration effort to take a fresh look at how to deal
with the thousands of tons of used reactor fuel piling up at
U.S. commercial power plants, while also gaining control over
future nuclear materials in developing countries where the
demand for nuclear energy is expected to grow.
The plan calls for stepped up research into a "more
proliferation resistant" type of reprocessing that proponents
say will reduce dramatically the likelihood of theft or
diversion.
The process would not produce pure plutonium, but a mixture of
plutonium and neptunium that would make the separated elements
more difficult to handle and, therefore, more secure.
The Bush proposal, called the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership,
envisions that U.S. companies eventually will sell reactors and
fuel to developing countries with the stipulation that the fuel
would be returned to the United States for reprocessing.
Nuclear scientists say that up to 90 percent of spent fuel can
be recycled for reuse, reducing dramatically the need for
geological disposal. But Sell said Yucca Mountain still will be
necessary, and that recycled fuel that can't be used will be
entombed in the repository, which is meant to hold 77,000 tons
of nuclear waste.
Recycled fuel will be less radioactive, but Paul Golan, acting
director of the Energy Department's Office of Civilian
Radioactive Waste Management, said Yucca Mountain's design would
not need to change to accommodate it.
"Reprocessing nuclear waste raises giant red flags for two
reasons," said Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev. "One is that the
plan still calls for Yucca Mountain to be built, and two, it
creates dangerous leftovers that terrorists could easily steal
to make nuclear weapons or dirty bombs. The nuclear industry is
desperately peddling reprocessing as a solution for dealing with
radioactive waste, but at the end of the day, all roads still
lead back to Yucca Mountain."
The Energy Department still must apply to the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission for a license to operate the dump, and the facility's
projected opening date has slipped to 2012, at the earliest.
Bush's budget plan still must be approved by Congress.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
40 Bellona: Bush and Russia wish to join forces in making nuclear fuel
The Bush administration will propose in the budget it hands down
today the creation of an atomic energy partnership with Russia,
offering countries around the world a supply of fuel for their
reactors under restrictions intended to prevent them from
developing nuclear weapons, according to administration
officials in Washington, D.C.
The White House budget to be handed down today includes a
$250m deal for Russia and the United States to join forces and
produce nuclear fuel for nations that do not have nuclear
weapons programmes.
photo.net
Charles Digges, 2006-02-06 12:06
Under the proposal, the United States and Russia will provide
reactor fuel to other countries and take back the spent fuel
afterward to prevent its use in weaponry. The plan will be valid
for those countries that do not already possess a nuclear
weapons programme.
President Bush called for a similar plan two years ago, and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has recommended an
international fuel system in which it would control custody of
nuclear fuel, The New York Times reported.
Bush's new budget includes about $250m to continue research on
two new technologies that are intended to significantly reduce
the amount of nuclear waste requiring long-term disposal.
The plan dovetails with the administration’s initiative—which is
also expected to appear in today’s budget—to break a nearly
30-year-old ban on reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel in the
United States to study how the technology could cut down on
spent nuclear waste (SNF). The original ban, which came under
the Carter Administration, was installed to prevent
proliferation risks.
Bush budget earmarks $250M for nuclear fuel-reprocessing in US
The US administration is making plans to revive civilian
nuclear fuel-reprocessing after almost three decades of its
cessation, including a long-term proposal to provide reactor
fuel to foreign countries if they return it to the United States
to be recycled, authorities here have said.
President George Bush will include a request for $250 million in
his budget to be released next week as a first step toward
reversing the decades-long US policy against
nuclear-reprocessing, congressional and administration officials
said last week.
One senior official called the technological techniques "a long
way away," and Bush's own concerns about the plan, some
officials say, explained why he did not include it in his State
of the Union address on Tuesday, said US media outlets.
The American programme, once called the Global Nuclear Energy
Initiative, will now be called an energy "partnership" to
reflect the role of Russia and, eventually, other nations,
namely France.
Neither the White House press service nor authorities in Russia
were available for comment on the plan.
The Iran uranium enrichment plan with Russia
The timing of the Bush budget is critical, because Russia is
already negotiating with Iran on a deal to provide it with
reactor fuel that—if the Iranians consent—could become a
blueprint for part of the new White House fuel manufacturing
programme, thus keeping the fuel technology out of the hands of
countries that do not already have nuclear weapons.
Elements of the plan have been reported in The Washington Post,
The Wall Street Journal and the New York Times.
Environmental reaction
The leader of the Bellona Foundation’s Russian Programme’s
group, Nils Boehmer, called the Bush Administration “naďve.”
Because of the Bush plan’s stipulation that it will enrich fuel
only for those countries that do not have nuclear weapons
already, “the plan only helps the good guys and not the bad guys
who pose the biggest proliferation risks,” said Boehmer in an
interview with Bellona Web.
“You have to take all the countries that want to reprocess
nuclear fuel and do it in America or Russia,” he said. “If Iran
want’s to process fuel, it will.”
Bush insists it will curb proliferation
But the administration sees it differently. In addition to
curbing the spread of nuclear weapons, the administration sees
the plan as a way to promote the use of nuclear power at home by
solving America’s already significant problems with the disposal
of radioactive waste.
Energy Secretary Sam Bodman is supposed to tell Congress next
year whether a second dump, beyond the Yucca Mountain geological
repository site near Las Vegas, Nevada, will be needed. But it
is not clear when even the Yucca site can be opened. Most
experts agree, however, that, if it is ever ready to receive
fuel, it will already be fully booked, necessitating the need
for a second geological repository.
Plan to include fast reactor research
The new plan to be forwarded by the Bush administration today
relies on an experimental "fast" reactor that has been tried in
France and Japan and found to be prone to catching fire and not
cost-effective.
They are also, according to Boehmer, a huge proliferation risk
within themselves.
“Having a fast reactor economy would imply a lot of transport of
plutonium fuel, thus creating a proliferation risk larger than
the one that Bush and Russia intend to stem,” he said.”
Changes in American law needed to facilitate plan
The programme would also require changes in American law to
allow the dumping of foreign-generated waste at Yucca, and it
would face fierce domestic opposition because it would create a
fuel processing industry that, because it converts solid waste
into liquids that could leak, would be potentially more
polluting than the current industry.
Frank von Hippel, a physicist at Princeton and a sceptic about
the proposed technology, said the United States would probably
have to volunteer to keep the unusable end-product wastes to
induce countries to participate. "If they get the high-level
waste back, what do they gain?" he told The New York Times.
People who have been briefed on the plan say it will be included
in the Department of Energy’s (DOE) budget, expanding a year-old
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative at Los Alamos National
Laboratory, for which $79.2m was appropriated. In addition, last
year Congress gave the DOE $50m to find a site for storing
nuclear waste and building a reprocessing factory, but the
department does not appear to have begun significant work on
that, the Times reported.
Part of Bush Clean Energy plan
The proposal would take years to bear fruit, and some experts
doubt that it is workable. But like the idea for hydrogen cars,
it fits the Bush administration's preference for long-term,
high-technology approaches to major energy problems. But
reprocessing, in the opinion of The Bellona Foundation, will
only create more problems than it solves, especially relative to
the storage of low-level radioactive (LRW) waste that it
produces—both in Russian and the United States.
One expert, though, told the New York Times that an advantage of
having Russia as a partner, and possibly signing up France
later, was that these two countries already had conventional
reprocessing industries, while the new American system would be
decades in the future.
It is arguable, however, how effective Russia’ reprocessing
system is. At present, it only has one site, the Mayak Chemical
Combine in the southern Urals, which reprocessed only fuel of
the Soviet era VVER-440 light water reactors and naval fuel. It
has a theoretical yearly output 400 tonnes of fuel but in
reality produces only a quarter of that, meaning the rest
languished awaiting reprocessing. As a result of its
reprocessing works, Mayak is the most radioactively contaminated
place in Russia.
“This plan will effectively turn Russia into a nuclear waste
dump,” said Boehmer. “The way Russia stores its nuclear waste
does not preclude environmental or proliferation problems.
America’s new reprocessing technologies
In the conventional system, used commercially in this country in
the late 1960's and early 70's, fuel was taken out of a reactor
and dissolved in acid to separate usable material, leaving
behind a very large residue that will be radioactive for a very
long time. Russia still reprocesses like this.
In the new version, the tank would have two giant electrodes
that would sort the contents into material that could be reused,
some of it with radioactive lifetimes measured in millennia, and
material that could not be reused, most of which would lose its
radioactivity in a few hundred years, the paper reported.
The volume of waste requiring long-term disposal would be
reduced by 99 percent, according to advocates. But part of the
volume reduction includes building a new class of reactors, not
commercially demonstrated, that could use the most common form
of uranium—uranium-238—as fuel. At present uranium-238 is used
in making plutonium, which is used as fuel.
A Congressional aide who specialises in the field told the Times
he was anticipating a request for an "industrial-scale
demonstration" of the separation technology.
Scientists differ about whether fuel made through the new
separation system would increase the risk of material being
diverted for nuclear weapons.
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
*****************************************************************
41 AFP: BNFL sells Westinghouse to Toshiba for 5.4 billion dollars -
Mon Feb 6, 9:08 AM ET
LONDON (AFP) - British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL) announced the sale
of US power plant maker Westinghouse to Japanese technology
giant for 5.4 billion dollars (4.5 billion euros).
Toshiba, Japan's largest maker of power plant equipment, said it
expected several minority investors to participate in the deal,
but added that it intended to retain a stake of more than
51-percent in Westinghouse.
BNFL, which is owned by the British government, said it expected
the sale to be finalized within around six months. BNFL had
bought Westinghouse in 1999 for 1.1 billion dollars.
The deal is meanwhile one of the biggest overseas acquisitions
by a Japanese company. Toshiba, named last month as the
preferred bidder for Westinghouse, beat off competition from 13
other parties, including US conglomerate General Electric and
Japanese group Mitsubishi.
Japan, which depends on nuclear power for 30 percent of its
energy needs and is a net importer of crude oil, is looking to
build a new generation of nuclear scientists before 2030, when
its current reactors will need to be replaced.
Upon completion of the acquisition, Toshiba said it expected its
nuclear power business to expand three-fold by 2015 as a result
of operational and technological synergies.
BNFL chief executive Mike Parker said the deal would "secure the
maximum return on the British taxpayers' investment and cement
the continued leadership of Westinghouse in the nuclear energy
field through the stewardship of the Toshiba Corporation".
Parker met with Toshiba Corporation president and chief
executive Atsutoshi Nishida at London's Dorchester Hotel on
Monday to sign a purchase and sale agreement.
Nishida said that Toshiba had completed its due diligence on
Westinghouse and was "satisfied" that the purchase was the right
move for its business, shareholders and employees.
It was good also for Westinghouse workers, "whose outstanding
performance will add solid value to our company," he added in a
joint written statement with BNFL's Parker.
Last week Toshiba had said it was in a solid position to buy
Westinghouse after the Japanese electronics giant's quarterly
profits soared more than 13-fold.
Toshiba had come under criticism that it may not be able to
handle the purchase of Westinghouse but it said its dramatic
earnings proved otherwise, with operations across the board
churning out profits in the three months to December.
Some US lawmakers had been lobbying for Pennsylvania-based
Westinghouse to go to General Electric owing to concern that
Japanese firms could share technology with third countries.
The administration of President George W. Bush
" /> wants to relaunch construction of nuclear reactors in the
United States as the cost of crude oil is soaring near record
highs owing to both geopolitical and supply concerns.
Toshiba was favoured because it would likely allow Westinghouse
to run the business on its own while GE's more aggressive style
could have jeopardized winning a contract in China, a recent
media report said.
Rating agency Standard and Poor's had meanwhile put Toshiba on a
list for possible downgrading owing to the enormous cost
involved in taking over Westinghouse.
Toshiba last week said its net profit shot up to 21.9 billion
yen (186.5 million dollars) in the third quarter from 1.6
billion yen in the same period of the previous fiscal year.
BNFL and the British government agreed to sell Westinghouse
following a review of the company in 2003.
Westinghouse has 8,000 employees worldwide, including 1,000
workers at its British base in Preston, Lancashire, in northern
England.
The company traces its roots back to 1886 when it was founded by
New York-born George Westinghouse, acknowledged during his
lifetime as one of the worlds greatest engineers.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
42 LA Daily News: Contamination critical mass
Opinions
Launched: 02/06/2006 12:00:00 AM
Studies are best evidence of toxic danger around lab site
Two studies released last week looking at cancer rates close
to the Santa Susana Field Laboratory provide the strongest
evidence so far that the toxic chemicals and materials used for
decades on the site might be harmful to neighbors.
Separate studies by the University of California, Los Angeles,
and by the University of Michigan found that residents living
near the former nuclear and rocket fuel research site have
elevated incidences of nearly all types of cancer, with even
higher occurrences of melanoma and bladder cancers.
Worse, a UCLA researcher said last week that the study found a
"migration" of contamination, that chemicals from the site are
spreading out, getting into the air, the ground and the water.
While the biggest risk likely occurred to residents between the
1950s and 1970s, the researcher said, this migration means that
current neighbors of the site as far away as two miles are still
at danger from contaminated soil and groundwater.
The studies don't necessarily constitute a smoking gun. Indeed,
there generally isn't one in cases involving environmental
contamination. Rather, it's the gathering of supportive data to
a certain critical mass that points to a singular conclusion.
These extensive studies in addition to years of other evidence
have brought us to this point.
Since the Daily News nearly two decades ago revealed
contamination of extremely toxic dioxins, mercury and other heavy
metals at the site formerly owned by Rocketdyne, there have been
piles of worrisome data accumulating. Two earlier studies of
workers at the site who handled radiation had higher cancer rates
than the general public. As well, current owner Boeing has
received about 50 violations for allowing contaminated runoff
affecting the Los Angeles River or Arroyo Simi.
In December, a Grand Jury seized records pertaining to how
runoff is monitored for contamination at the site.
It's way too late for anyone to claim that the former research
site isn't a toxic danger. The question now must be: What to do
to limit any future danger?
The time for studies, for violations, for fines, for
hand-wringing, for wondering whether the site is unsafe are over.
It's time authorities force a cleanup of the former laboratory,
which they owe to the neighbors of the site who have been exposed
for years.
Los Angeles Newspaper Group
*****************************************************************
43 Quad-City Times: The $30 million temporary solution
QCTimes.com - The
Monday, February 06, 2006 1:06:07 am
Comment-->
No doubt the nuclear waste storage cask is sturdy. Three feet of
concrete encase a helium-filled metal and concrete container.
Exelon Nuclear Quad-City Generating Station representative Bill
Stoermer says each cask has been tested to withstand 360 mph
winds, 1,475 degree temperatures and the impact of a plane
flying at 126 mph.
Its highly unlikely any of those conditions would occur in the
double-fenced compound surrounded by cameras and armed guards
24-7 at the utilitys Cordova nuclear plant. If they did, well
trust Exelons assessment.
What hasnt been tested is how the cask withstand time. Not just
one cask. Exelon already has filled four. The company expects to
fill three or four each year as they clear out spent rods that
have been piling up indoors since the last temporary nuclear
waste storage solution.
That was 30 years ago.
Under agreements worked out years ago when our Department of
Energy wanted to encourage nuclear power, the federal government
ultimately is responsible for the power companys waste. If all
goes according to the latest temporary plan, 28 of these casks
will be at Cordova awaiting shipment when the proposed Yucca
Mountain, Nev. national nuclear waste dump opens in 2012.
Virtually no one expects that it will. Nevadas governor and
senators are dead-set against proceeding. Plus, there is
widespread concern about the shipment of the waste.
Exelons best guess is Yucca Mountain might open in 2015, when
there will be at least 40 of the casks on the Cordova site. The
company believes Cordova has room to store waste until 2032. By
then, there would be 250 casks covering four compounds.
So far, Exelon spent $30 million on this temporary waste
solution, much of which is reimbursed by federal taxpayers.
So Exelon is in no hurry. Our federal government, apparently is
in no hurry. Neither are the casks. These 180-ton monoliths
costing $1 million each, can stand for decades, long after the
plants 30-year license expires and it stops producing power for
the Chicago suburbs.
Meanwhile, our federal government scrutinizes the contaminants
in storwater run-off. Alcoa carefully monitors parts per billion
in groundwater and discharge from its Bettendorf plant. Triumph
Foods rightly faces rigorous standards for wastewater treatment
at its proposed East Moline plant.
So it is tough to understand how a government-approved nuclear
waste plan calls for piling spent rods in 7,200 tons of casks
that will remain outside indefinitely near the banks of our
Mississippi River.
© Copyright 2006, The , Davenport, IA
*****************************************************************
44 PRN: Louisiana Energy Services Hires Plant Manager for the National
Enrichment Facility
ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., Feb. 6 /PRNewswire/ -- John Swailes will serve
as Vice President and Plant Manager for the National Enrichment
Facility (NEF) outside Eunice, New Mexico, according to an
announcement by Louisiana Energy Services (LES) President Jim
Ferland today.
"Hiring John is another important step for us as we get closer to
construction," stated Ferland. "He has a wealth of experience
with nuclear power and nuclear facilities and will make a great
addition to our team."
Swailes will be responsible for hiring and training the initial
NEF staff, fulfilling the responsibilities of the plant owner
throughout the design and construction process, accepting
ownership of the plant from the construction organization,
initial startup and testing of the plant, and all operations of
the facility.
Swailes' prior experience includes work for the US Department of
Energy; as Vice President of Nuclear and Chief Nuclear Officer
for Nebraska Public Power District at the Cooper Nuclear Station;
as Engineering General Manager for Energy Northwest at Columbia
Nuclear Generating Station; and as Plant Manager of Columbia
Generating Station.
He earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the US Naval
Academy in 1972 and his Masters of Science in Nuclear Engineering
from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1973.
"This project is important to LES, to the economy of New Mexico,
and to America's energy independence," said Swailes. "I am
looking forward to getting the NEF built and operating and to
living and working in Lea County, New Mexico."
If LES receives an operating license from the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) -- a decision is expected this spring --
construction of the NEF will begin this fall. LES submitted a
license application to the NRC in December, 2003.
The NEF will provide more than 200 permanent jobs and more than
400 multi-year construction jobs in southeast New Mexico. It will
use a proven technology that has operated safely in Europe for 30
years. When the license application is approved, the NEF will
introduce the world's most advanced uranium enrichment technology
into the U.S. and provide an alternative, domestic enrichment
supply source to U.S. nuclear energy companies. LES is a
partnership of major nuclear energy companies. Partners include
Urenco, Westinghouse and U.S. energy companies Duke Power,
Entergy and Exelon.
Biography of John Swailes
As Vice President and Plant Manager for the National Enrichment
Facility, John Swailes is responsible for hiring and training the
initial plant staff, fulfilling the responsibilities of the plant
owner throughout the design and construction process, accepting
ownership of the plant from the construction organization,
initial startup and testing of the plant, and all operations of
the facility.
Swailes joins LES from the West Valley Demonstration Project in
Springville, New York -- a US Department of Energy project. While
at the West Valley Demonstration Project, Swailes led the DOE
workforce in its mission to manage the performance of all work
and construction required to safely store vitrified high level
nuclear waste, to construct new facilities to process the waste
for onsite disposal or transportation to Yucca Mountain, to
conduct processing of the waste for final disposition, and to
decontaminate and demolish current facilities on site. He oversaw
20 federal employees and 600 contracted employees.
Prior to that, he filled several other positions overseeing
nuclear technologies and waste management programs. He has served
as Assistant Manager for Tank Farms in DOE's Office of River
Protection leading a team to manage the performance of all work
and construction required to safely store 53 million gallons of
high level nuclear weapons waste; as Vice President of Nuclear
and Chief Nuclear Officer for Nebraska Public Power District at
the Cooper Nuclear Station; as Engineering General Manager for
Energy Northwest at Columbia Nuclear Generating Station leading
160 personnel responsible for all system engineering, site and
plant equipment or building modification design and construction
projects, and as Plant Manager of Columbia Generating Station
leading about 600 people responsible for all operations,
maintenance, radiation protection, chemistry, systems
engineering, plant safety review committees, and security. Prior
to these executive positions he held numerous technical,
operational, training, and support positions at Monticello
Nuclear Plant, Arkansas Nuclear One, and several US Navy nuclear
submarines and facilities.
John earned his Bachelor of Science degree from the US Naval
Academy in 1972 and his Masters of Science in Nuclear Engineering
from Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1973. In addition,
he has completed coursework and training courses in Public
Administration, Hazardous Waste Operations and Shipping, Nuclear
Plant Management, Radioactive and Mixed Waste Disposal, and
Harvard School of Public Health courses on Occupational and
Environmental Radiation Protection and Planning for Nuclear
Emergencies.
In his free time, he is an FCC licensed amateur radio operator
and enjoys bicycling, canoeing, and backpacking, as well as water
and snow skiing.
SOURCE Louisiana Energy Services (LES)
Copyright © 1996- PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights
Reserved.
*****************************************************************
45 KIFI: Batelle Energy Alliance Looks Back at First Year
www.localnews8.com
February 6, 2006
This new budget proposal could have a huge impact on the INL and
the lab has already been through many changes as of late.
It's now been a year since Batelle Energy Alliance has taken over
the lab. The contractor has made the transition from being two
different entities into one while continuing to work on its
nationally significant nuclear research.
“Rebuilding the organization from the inside out, it's like
changing the tires on a moving car. Folks at the lab deserve an
enormous amount of credit for how well they've done,” said INL
lab director John Grossenbacher.
Grossenbacher also says one of the most significant achievements
this year was the INL’s work on the plutonium space battery,
which is now on its way to Pluto.
*****************************************************************
46 KIFI: Former Governors Testify on INL Waste
www.localnews8.com
February 6, 2006
Two former Idaho governors testified on Monday in the trial
over whether the Department of Energy should removed radioactive
waste at INL’s nuclear compound.
In a 1995 agreement signed with one of the former governors, the
DoE says it was only responsible to remove waste stored above
ground, not underground.
But both former governors say they understood the agreement to
mean that a specific type of waste both above and underground
was to be removed by the agency.
The trial in federal district court is expected to continue
through the week.
*****************************************************************
47 KIFI: D.O.E Budget Expands Nuclear Energy
www.localnews8.com
February 6, 2006
The Bush administration has proposed a new plan to expand
nuclear energy and, if it goes through, it could mean a lot to
Idaho and the INL.
By 2050, the world's energy demand will more than double, so the
president wants to create something that will create energy
without using oil.
If this plan is passed, the INL could be the main site where
these new nuclear reactors would be tested and built which would
likely create new jobs. We talked with Senator Crapo's
communication director, Susan Wheeler, and she said the INL
could possibly be involved in many of these nuclear projects.
“There are several major components that relate to that. They
are advanced fern reactors also known as fast reactors. There is
recycling...,” Wheeler said.
President Bush wants this to be a world-wide effort, including
countries like Japan, Great Britain and France.
The president is asking Congress for $250 million for nuclear
energy this year and wants millions more over the next three
years.
*****************************************************************
48 DOE: Department of Energy Requests $23.6 Billion for FY 2007
February 6, 2006
Department of Energy Requests $23.6 Billion for FY 2007
Increased Funding to Advance National Security, Reduce
Dependence on Oil, and Boost Economic Competitiveness
WASHINGTON, DC U.S. Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman today
announced President Bushs Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 Budget for the
Department of Energy (DOE) requests $23.6 billion, a $124
million increase over the FY 2006 request. The FY 2007 budget
request makes bold investments to improve Americas energy
security while protecting our environment, puts policies in
place that foster continued economic growth, spurs scientific
innovation and discovery, and addresses the threat of nuclear
proliferation. These funds directly advance the goals of the
Advanced Energy Initiative, which aims to break Americas
dependence on foreign sources of energy; and the American
Competitiveness Initiative, which encourages innovation to
strengthen our nations ability to compete in the global economy
- both announced in President Bushs State of the Union Address
on January 31, 2006.
This budget signifies an investment in our future, Secretary
Bodman said. Continued support for scientific discovery and
the development of alternative energy sources is vital to
Americas energy and economic security. From new global threats
of the 21st century, to recognizing the importance of providing
our next generation of scientists, teachers and engineers with a
strong educational foundation, DOEs Fiscal Year 2007 budget
represents a comprehensive approach to addressing both the near-
and long-term challenges America faces.
American Competitiveness Initiative
As a part of the American Competitiveness Initiative, DOEs
Office of Science FY 2007 budget requests $4.1 billion, an
additional half-billion more than FY 2006, to support funding
for basic scientific research. This ambitious strategy
represents President Bushs commitment to double federal
spending on science over the next ten years. Funding will
pursue new technologies in the cutting-edge scientific fields of
the 21st century areas such as nanotechnology, material
science, biotechnology, and high-speed computing.
Advanced Energy Initiative
The Advanced Energy Initiative aims to reduce Americas
dependence on imported energy sources. The FY 2007 DOE budget
requests $2.1 billion to meet these goals, an increase of $381
million over FY 2006. Funding will help develop clean,
affordable sources of energy that will help reduce the use of
fossil fuels and lead to changes in the way we power our homes,
businesses and cars.
The FY 2007 budget request emphasizes investment in alternative
fuel technologies. Numerous DOE offices will benefit from the
Advanced Energy Initiative. The Office of Science ($539
million) budget incorporates funding for nuclear fusion,
including the ITER project, an experimental reactor that puts
the U.S. on the pathway to furthering the potential of nuclear
fusion as source of environmentally safe energy; solar, biomass
and hydrogen research programs.
The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($771
million) budget includes considerable funding increases for
hydrogen technology, fuel cell technology, vehicle technology,
biomass, solar, and wind research programs. The Office of
Fossil Energy ($444 million) supports the Coal Research
Initiative and other power generation/stationary fuel cell
research programs. The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and
Technology ($392 million) includes $250 million for the Global
Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP); and also supports Generation
IV, Nuclear Power 2010, and the Nuclear Hydrogen Initiative.
GNEP is a comprehensive strategy to increase U.S. and global
energy security, encourage clean development around the world,
reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation, and improve the
environment.
Office of Science ($4.1 billion)
The FY 2007 Office of Science budget requests $4.1 billion, a
$505 million (14%) increase over the FY 2006 appropriation.
This funding is DOEs component of the American Competitiveness
Initiative, which will double investment in basic science
research over the next ten years. DOEs Office of Science is
the single largest supporter of basic research in the physical
sciences in the nation and helps ensure U.S. world leadership
across a broad range of scientific disciplines.
National Nuclear Security Administration ($9.3 billion)
The FY 2007 National Nuclear Security Administration budget
requests $9.3 billion, a $211.3 million increase over the FY
2006 appropriation. The majority of the increase, $111.4
million, will go towards Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation
programs to accelerate work securing nuclear material in the
former Soviet Union and to advance aggressive global nuclear
nonproliferation goals. This request provides $675 million
toward the total U.S. commitment to the Global Partnership to
address nonproliferation, disarmament, counter-terrorism, and
nuclear safety issues. $6.4 billion, a $38 million increase
over FY 2006 appropriation, will fund Weapons Activities to
continue the transformation of the United Statess nuclear
deterrent and support infrastructure enabling the U.S. to be
more responsive to 21st century global threats.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy ($1.2 billion)
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy budget requests
$1.2 billion, $2.6 million (0.2%) more than the FY 2006
appropriations. Much of this funding is an integral part of the
Advanced Energy Initiative and expands key programs that focus
on developing new energy choices, including: Hydrogen Fuel
Technology ($114 million); Fuel Cell Technology ($82 million);
Biomass ($150 million), including research into cellulosic
ethanol, made from switch grass, wood chips and stalks; the
Solar America Initiative ($148 million); Vehicle technology
($166 million); and Wind projects ($44 million).
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology ($632.7 million)
The Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology FY 2007
budget requests $632.7 million, a $97.0 million (18%) increase
over FY 2006 appropriation. In addition to the $250 million for
GNEP, which is currently funded within the Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative, the request includes Generation IV (Gen IV) R&D
($31.4 million) which will improve the efficiency,
sustainability, and proliferation resistance of advanced nuclear
systems and Nuclear Power 2010 ($54.0 million), which will pave
the way for industry to order new, advanced light-water reactors
by 2010. $95.3 million will also support Idaho Facilities
Management, providing the Idaho National Laboratory with the
site-wide infrastructure required to support its R&D programs.
Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management ($544.5 million)
The Office of Radioactive Waste Management requests $544.5
million for FY 2007 for further development of the Yucca
Mountain Project, a $99 million increase from the final FY 2006
appropriation, excluding funds for the Integrated Spent Fuel
Recycling Facilities. These funds will support ongoing efforts
to develop a license application to submit to the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission. The FY 2007 budget request includes
$67.8 million for the development of transportation
infrastructure such as rail lines, casks and rail cars, and
establishing a long-term procurement plan for transportation
activities.
The remainder of the request is devoted to the development of
nuclear safety programs and the management and scientific work
for the Yucca Mountain Project by Sandia National Laboratories.
Office of Environment, Safety and Health ($109.9 million)
The Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH) requests
$109.9 million for FY 2007, approximately 6% above the FY 2006
appropriation, to support its mission of ensuring the safety and
health of the DOE workforce and members of the public and the
protection of the environment in all DOE activities. Budget
requests for EH are broken into Energy Supply and Conservation
activities and Other Defense Programs activities, each of which
have requested increases for FY 2007 of 5.1% and 6%,
respectively.
The Energy Supply and Conservation budget request includes a
$1.4 million increase for DOE-wide EH programs, which will be
allocated to support the Presidents Management Agenda
initiatives, fulfill legislative mandates and conduct National
Environmental Policy Act technical reviews more efficiently.
EHs Other Defense Activities budget requests increases for
activities such as the Corporate Safety Programs (+$4.6 million)
and the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program (+$4.5 million), which is funded entirely with carryover
funds from FY 2005.
Office of Fossil Energy ($648.9 million)
The Office of Fossil Energy (FE) FY 2007 budget requests $648.9
million, a $192.8 million (23%) reduction from FY 2006
appropriation. FEs Clean Coal and other power
generation/stationary fuel cells programs are a part of the
Advanced Energy Initiative, which aims to reduce Americas
dependence on imported oil, especially through the use of new
technology. $61 million in savings is reflective of terminating
support for energy companies to explore for oil and gas because
such R&D activities are more appropriate for the private sector
to perform.
This budget reflects the Administrations commitment to
FutureGen ($54 million), the flagship demonstration project for
clean coal technology; and provides $330 million for coal
research, nearly completing President Bushs commitment for
clean coal R&D four years ahead of schedule. In addition to
this requested funding, the office has a balance of more than
$500 million as of the end of FY 2005, which will continue to
support clean coal technology research.
Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability ($124.9
million)
The FY 2007 Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy
Reliability (OE) budget requests $124.9 million, an overall
decrease of $37.0 million (23%) below FY 2006 appropriation,
reflecting the phasing out of completed activities within the
Distributed Energy program and building of efficiencies
resulting from the merge of the predecessor organizations.
Funding will support R&D in areas such as high-temperature
superconductivity, and simulation work needed to enhance the
reliability and effectiveness of Americas power supply. This
office also operates DOEs energy emergency response capability
and led DOEs support effort during and after the 2005 Gulf
Coast hurricanes.
Office of Legacy Management ($201.0 million)
The Office of Legacy Management FY 2007 budget requests $201.0
million, a $123.2 million (158%) increase over the FY 2006
appropriation. This office oversees long-term stewardship
activities at sites where active remediation has been completed.
This large increase reflects the transfer of clean-up sites
completed by the Office of Environmental Management.
Office of Environmental Management ($5.8 billion)
The FY 2007 Environmental Management budget requests $5.8
billion, $762 million (12%) below the FY 2006 appropriation,
primarily due to the completion of Rocky Flats in Colorado, and
the anticipated completion of Fernald, and a group of sites
known as the Nevada offsites. Rocky Flats closed 56 years ahead
of schedule at a cost of approximately $7 billion, saving
American taxpayers roughly $29 billion.
Media contact(s):
Craig Stevens, 202-586-4940 [ ]
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585
1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
49 DOE: Department of Energy Announces New Nuclear Initiative
February 6, 2006
Department of Energy Announces New Nuclear Initiative
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership to expand safe, clean,
reliable, affordable nuclear energy worldwide
WASHINGTON, DC As part of President Bushs Advanced Energy
Initiative, Secretary of Energy Samuel W. Bodman announced today
a $250 million Fiscal Year (FY) 2007 request to launch the
Global Nuclear Energy Partnership (GNEP). This new initiative
is a comprehensive strategy to enable the expansion of
emissions-free nuclear energy worldwide by demonstrating and
deploying new technologies to recycle nuclear fuel, minimize
waste, and improve our ability to keep nuclear technologies and
materials out of the hands of terrorists.
GNEP brings the promise of virtually limitless energy to
emerging economies around the globe, in an environmentally
friendly manner while reducing the threat of nuclear
proliferation. If we can make GNEP a reality, we can make the
world a better, cleaner, safer place to live, Secretary Sam
Bodman said.
As the United States economy and economies around the world
continue to grow, the need for abundant energy resources will
also grow. Nuclear energy is safe, environmentally clean,
reliable, and affordable. Through GNEP, the United States will
work with other nations possessing advanced nuclear technologies
to develop new proliferation-resistant recycling technologies in
order to produce more energy, reduce waste and minimize
proliferation concerns. Additionally, these partner nations
will develop a fuel services program to provide nuclear fuel to
developing nations allowing them to enjoy the benefits of
abundant sources of clean, safe nuclear energy in a cost
effective manner in exchange for their commitment to forgo
enrichment and reprocessing activities, also alleviating
proliferation concerns.
The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership has four main goals.
First, reduce Americas dependence on foreign sources of fossil
fuels and encourage economic growth. Second, recycle nuclear
fuel using new proliferation-resistant technologies to recover
more energy and reduce waste. Third, encourage prosperity
growth and clean development around the world. And fourth,
utilize the latest technologies to reduce the risk of nuclear
proliferation worldwide.
The GNEP strategy includes seven elements, outlined by Secretary
Bodman today:
1. Building of a new generation of nuclear power plants in the
United States.
2. Developing and deploying new nuclear recycling
technologies.
3. Working to effectively manage and eventually store spent
nuclear fuel in the United States.
4. Designing Advance Burner Reactors that would produce energy
from recycled nuclear fuel.
5. Establishing a fuel services program that would allow
developing nations to acquire and use nuclear energy
economically while minimizing the risk of nuclear proliferation.
6. Developing and constructing small scale reactors designed
for the needs of developing countries.
7. Improving nuclear safeguards to enhance the
proliferation-resistance and safety of expanded nuclear power.
As GNEP is developed, the U.S. Department of Energy will work
with the U.S. State Department to engage international partners
to participate in this new initiative.
For more information visit http://www.gnep.energy.gov/
Media contact(s):
Craig Stevens, 202/586-4940 [ ]
Key Elements of GNEP(PDF 1 MB)
Greater Energy Security in a Cleaner, Safer World (PDF 983KB)
Expand Domestic Use of Nuclear Power (PDF 350KB)
Minimize Nuclear Waste (PDF 1MB)
Demonstrate More Proliferation-Resistant Recycling (PDF 478KB)
Develop Advanced Burner Reactors (PDF 460KB)
Establish Reliable Fuel Services (PDF 364KB)
Demonstrate Small-Scale Reactors (PDF 402KB)
Develop Enhanced Nuclear Safeguards (PDF 485KB)
Glossary (PDF 30KB)
U.S. Department of Energy | 1000 Independence Ave., SW |
Washington, DC 20585
1-800-dial-DOE | f/202-586-4403 |
*****************************************************************
50 Hanford News: Battelle 'matchmaker' to advise Oregon on the science business
This story was published Saturday, February 4th, 2006
By John Trumbo, Herald staff writer
Oregon is borrowing one of Battelle's top technology transfer
experts to help it become better in building science and
technology enterprises.
Erik Stenehjem is the go-to guy at the Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory when it comes to turning science-based
technologies into profit-making ventures. It's been his niche at
the Richland lab since coming to work there in 1987.
In a sense, Stenehjem is a matchmaker who puts the best tools -
the best and newest technologies - in the hands of highly
trained and educated workers.
Stenehjem's knowledge has earned him a 9-month assignment as
adviser on science and technology to Oregon Gov. Ted Kulongoski.
He will assist in developing state policy on scientific,
technology and transfer issues. He also will work with the
Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, and the
Oregon Innovation Council.
The appointment is a culmination of a two-year relationship that
began with a microproducts conference in July 2004 in Portland.
Stenehjem has worked with regional research institutions,
including the University of Oregon and Oregon State University,
to match up similar or complementary technologies with
knowledge-based economic activity.
"(Stenehjem's) expertise in technology and knowledge-based
industries will be an asset ... that will provide economic
stability for Oregon and the entire Pacific Northwest for the
long-term," Kulongoski said in a statement.
"My job is to help them see what the potentials are," Stenehjem
said. He has a doctorate degree in political economics from the
State University of New York and a bachelor's degree in business
from the University of Minnesota. He received the Federal
Laboratory Consortium award for excellence in technology
commercialization in 2005.
Stenehjem serves on the Washington Economic Development
Commission's steering committee for technology commercialization
and the board of advisers for the entrepreneurship center at the
University of Washington. He also teaches entrepreneurship and
new business creation courses in MBA programs at the University
of Washington and Washington State University.
© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
51 San Mateo County Times: 'Exciting time' for H-bomb scientists
Article Last Updated: 02/06/2006 02:58:44 AM
Plan to design new nuke could result in revolutionary U.S.
arsenal in 20 to 25 years
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
For the first time in more than 20 years, U.S. nuclear-weapons
scientists are designing a new H-bomb, the first of probably
several new nuclear explosives on the drawing boards.
If they succeed, in perhaps 20 or 25 more years, the United
States would have an entirely new nuclear arsenal and a highly
automated factory capable of turning out more warheads as
needed, as well as new kinds of warheads.
"We are on the verge of an exciting time," the nation's top
nuclear weapons executive, Linton Brooks, said last week at
Lawrence Livermore weapons design laboratory.
Teams of about 20 scientists and engineers at the nation's two
laboratories for nuclear-explosive design — Livermore and Los
Alamos in New Mexico — are in a head-to-head competition to
offer designs for the first of the new thermonuclear explosives,
termed "reliable replacement warheads" or RRWs.
Designers are aiming for bombs that will be simpler, easier to
maintainfor decades and, if they fell into terrorists' hands,
able to be remotely destroyed or rendered as useless as a
doorstop.
Once the designs are unveiled in September, the Bush
administration and Congress could face a major choice in the
future of the U.S. arsenal: Do they keep maintaining the
existing, tested weapons or begin diverting money and manpower
to developing the newly designed but untested weapons?
Administration officials see the new weapons and the plant to
make them as "truly transformative," allowing the dismantling of
thousands of reserve weapons.
But within the community of nuclear weapons experts, the notion
of fielding untested weapons is controversial and turns heavily
on how much the new bombs would be like the well-tested weapons
that the United States already has.
"I can't believe that an admiral or a general or a future
president, who are putting the U.S. survival at stake, would
accept an untested weapon if it didn't have a test base," said
physicist and Hoover Institution fellow Sidney Drell, a longtime
adviser to the government and its labs on nuclear-weapons
issues.
"The question is how do you really ensure long-term reliability
of the stockpile without testing?" said Hugh Gusterson, an MIT
anthropologist who studies the weapons labs and their
scientists. "RRW is partly an answer to that question and it's
an answer to the question (by nuclear weapons scientists) of
'What do I do to keep from being bored?'"
The prize for the winning lab is tens, perhaps hundreds of
million of dollars for carrying its bomb concept into
prototyping and production. If manufactured, the first RRW would
replace two warheads on submarine-launched missiles, the W76 and
W88, together the most numerous active weapons and the
cornerstone of the U.S. nuclear force.
Altogether, the nation has 5,700 nuclear bombs and warheads of
12 basic types, plus more than 4,200 weapons kept in reserve as
insurance against aging and failure of the active, fielded
arsenal.
Most are 25-35 years old. All were exploded multiple times under
the Nevada desert before U.S. nuclear testing halted in 1992. It
is in most respects the world's most sophisticated nuclear
arsenal, and beyond opposition at home to continued testing,
ending testing made sense to discourage other nations from
testing to advance their nuclear capabilities.
Faced by the Soviet Union, Cold War weapons scientists devised
their bombs for the greatest power in the smallest, lightest
package, so thousands could be delivered en masse and cause
maximum destruction. Designers compare those weapons to
Ferraris, sleek and finely tuned.
Scientists at the weapons laboratories are laboring to keep the
bombs and warheads in working order, by examining them for signs
of deterioration and replacing parts as faithfully to the
original manufacturing as possible. It is an expensive and not
especially stimulating job.
Some worry that an accumulation of small changes could undermine
the bombs' reliability. So far, every year since 1995 directors
of the weapons labs and secretaries of defense and energy have
assured two presidents that the weapons are safe, secure and
will detonate as designed.
The new reliable replacement warheads are actually an old idea
that 1950s-era weapons designers called, with some disdain, the
"wooden bomb." Bomb physicists were proud of their racier, more
compact designs and figured they were plenty dependable already.
The wooden bomb by comparison was boring.
"They said, 'Well heck, that isn't a challenge to anybody',"
recalled Ray Kidder, a former Livermore physicist who found a
chilly reception to proposals in the 1980s for clunkier, more
reliable designs. "It was like saying, 'Well, why don't you make
a Model A Ford?'"
Now the wooden bomb is back in vogue. With fewer, simpler kinds
of warheads, the argument goes, the arsenal could be maintained
more inexpensively and — assuming construction of a factory to
turn out the new bombs on demand — thousands of reserve warheads
could be scrapped.
But in a sharp break with the past, the new bombs would never be
exploded except in war. The only button-to-boom tests of the new
arsenal would be virtual — simulated detonations inside a
supercomputer.
Today's weaponeers say they've learned enough of the complex
physics of thermonuclear explosives to guarantee the bombs would
deliver precise explosive yields even after decades on the
shelf. If military leaders agreed, the most lethal and final
resort of U.S. defenses would be deployed without a test shot.
Ex-military leaders are split on accepting a new, untested
nuclear arsenal.
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense John Hamre told a House
appropriations committee last year that he thinks a new arsenal
will be needed some day. But he said, "I do believe we should
test the new weapons to demonstrate to the world that they are
credible."
Eugene Habiger, the senior-most commander over U.S. nuclear
forces as chief of Strategic Command in the mid-1990s, said he
would be inclined to accept the new weapons.
"The science is pretty well understood," he said.
The Bush administration and weapons scientists say the warheads
will not have new military missions. They will ride on the same
bombers and missiles as today's nuclear explosives and strike the
same targets. But administration officials are talk of eventually
wanting features beyond the sizable array of explosive yields and
delivery methods available now: deep earth-penetrating bombs,
enhanced radiation weapons and "reduced collateral damage" bombs
with lower fission radiation. Designers and executives at
Lawrence Livermore are taking a conservative line. The lab's
weapons chief, Bruce Goodwin, talks of starting with
nuclear-explosive designs that are well tested and well
understood.
"Our plan is to develop a design that lies well within the
experience — and within what we call the 'sweet spot' — of our
historical test base," he said in a recent statement.
One candidate under consideration as a starting point is the
W89, a 200-kiloton warhead designed for a short-range attack
missile. It is well-tested, plus it comes from a long line of
well-understood designs and uses every safety and security
feature available at the time.
Yet weaponeers at Los Alamos lab and Brooks, as the head of the
National Nuclear Security Administration, have talked of a more
freewheeling design effort.
"This is not about going back to rake over old designs. That's
why I've got two different teams of weapons scientists at two
labs working on this," Brooks said. "There's never been anything
tested that will do the sorts of things we want to do."
Such talk alarms Stanford's Drell.
"How the hell do you make a new design without testing?" he
said. "Those kinds of flamboyant statements worry me because I
don't believe we could maintain a confident stockpile with new
designs that haven't been tested."
Some former weapons scientists say the wiser course is
maintaining the current arsenal and boosting its reliability in
simple ways, such as adding more tritium to "sweeten" the
hydrogen gases at the very core of the weapon.
"We've got a reliable stockpile. We have a test base for it. We
have now in the last 10 or 15 years far more sophisticated
computational abilities than we had doing these designs
originally, so things are extremely well understand in terms of
the performance," said Seymour Sack, once Livermore's most
prolific designer, whose innovations are found in nearly every
U.S. weapon. "I don't see any reason you should change those
designs."
Lawmakers say they are watching carefully to make sure the new
warheads hew closely to existing, well-understood designs. But
in a recent report on the new warhead program for the Livermore
watchdog group, Tri-Valley CAREs, former White House budget
analyst Bob Civiak said Congress has a poor record of
restraining the weapons design labs from what after all they
were built to do.
"Congress thinks it can allow the labs to design new nuclear
weapons but restrict them to existing designs," he said.
"History shows that cannot be the case."
© 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers
*****************************************************************
52 Newsday.com: BNL to receive federal grant --
BY BILL BLEYER STAFF WRITER
February 6, 2006, 5:18 PM EST
After suffering a large cut this year, Brookhaven National
Laboratory's relativistic heavy ion collider receives funding for
full operation next year in the proposed federal budget released
yesterday.
BNL also will get $45 million for preparatory work on a national
synchrotron light source (NSLS-II) that the facility hopes to
build. The lab will receive $25 million for research and
development and $20 million for preliminary engineering and
design. The Department of Energy is expected to announce in
about a year whether the device will be built at BNL or
elsewhere.
"It's a very gratifying budget for us," said Sam Aronson, the
laboratory's associate director for high energy and nuclear
physics. "The bottom-line numbers are so much better than last
year. This certainly gets us back to our last good year, 2005, in
terms of what we can do. That includes running the machine and
doing R and D on improvements for the future. We hope it survives
Congress; this is not money in the bank yet."
The collider (RHIC) received $121.5 million for 32 weeks of
operation in fiscal 2005 and then this year had its budget cut
to $110 million. After a $13-million private donation, the RHIC
is scheduled for 20 weeks of operation. The proposed 2007 budget
includes $138 million for a full schedule of 30 weeks of
operation.
RHIC is a superconductor that accelerates ions to nearly the
speed of light, allowing scientists to explore the smallest
known pieces of matter. NSLS-II would be a state-of-the-art
facility delivering unsurpassed capability to study the world's
smallest particles.
After the cut in the 2006 budget for RHIC, Renaissance
Technologies Corp. in East Setauket, a private technology firm,
and several directors of Brookhaven Science Associates, which
manages the lab, donated $13 million last month so it wouldn't
have to shut down this year. Before that, the lab had decided it
couldn't afford to continue running the collider, the only
device in the world that replicates the "big bang" that created
the universe, because of skyrocketing electricity costs.
Shutting RHIC would have meant the loss of 110 jobs. The reduced
funding led to the loss of about a dozen employees through
buyouts this year.
The funding was cheered by Congressional representatives who had
pushed for more money for the lab. "This funding shows there is
a strong commitment by the administration to placing a high
priority on scientific advancement," Sen. Charles Schumer
(D-N.Y.) said. "It's a shot in the arm for the Long Island
economy."
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) said "physicists from all
over the world utilize this essential facility, making it an
international treasure attracting the brightest scientific minds
to Long Island. It deserves our nation's full support."
http://www.newsday.com.
Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
*****************************************************************
53 UPI: DOE budget focused on new energy
United Press International - Energy -
2/6/2006 3:06:00 PM -0500
WASHINGTON, Feb. 6 (UPI) -- The U.S. Department of Energy's
fiscal year 2007 budget reveals a major shift of focus into
research for alternative energy.
Days after President Bush announced in his State of the Union
that the United States was "addicted to oil," Energy Secretary
Samuel Bodman released a budget he said "aims to break America's
dependence on foreign sources of energy."
"In an increasingly competitive world, we will be seeking
transformational new technologies," he said at a news
conference. "And we will be developing new affordable sources of
energy which will someday change how we power our homes and how
we power our automobiles."
One sign of the department's changing priorities is the
termination of $61 million worth of funding for energy companies
to explore for oil and gas.
The department requested an additional $4.1 billion, a
half-billion more than FY 2006, to support basic scientific
research. Bodman said this is a step in achieving Bush's goal of
doubling federal spending on science over the next 10 years.
Bodman said the budget emphasizes investment in alternative fuel
technologies -- especially funding for nuclear fusion as a
potential source of safe energy.
"We will be reducing dependence on foreign oil by accelerating
the expansion of nuclear power," he said.
To avoid the threat of nuclear proliferation, Bodman said the
goal was to produce material "that is not good for developing a
nuclear weapon, but for developing nuclear energy."
© Copyright 2006 United Press
International, Inc. All Rights Reserved
*****************************************************************
54 Rocky Mountain News: Review exposes Flats data as faulty
Union petition claims dosage calculations can't be estimated
By Ann Imse, Rocky Mountain News
February 6, 2006
Serious flaws exist in one of the standards used to determine
whether former Rocky Flats workers with cancer were sickened by
dangerous levels of radiation at the nuclear weapons plant, an
official review found.
The review, ordered by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
Health, details 21 problems with the National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health report that currently calculates
levels of worker exposure.
Rocky Flats Steelworkers' Union leader Tony DeMaiori said the
review is more ammunition for a union petition alleging that
contamination records at the plant are so inaccurate that
workers can't prove radiation caused their illnesses.
The accuracy of the Rocky Flats "site profile" is vital because
it is used by NIOSH to determine if a radiation dose was high
enough to cause the cancer and thus qualify the worker for
federal medical care and other compensation.
Larry Elliot, who runs the dose reconstruction program for
NIOSH, said his agency welcomes the review and has agreed to
address many of its criticisms.
The site profile is based on everyday operations at Rocky Flats
and is used to estimate exposures when dosage records for an
individual are unavailable.
The review, conducted by S. Cohen and Associates of Virginia,
found the following deficiencies in the site profile:
• A failure to account for higher exposures to parts of the body
not near dosimeters worn on worker lapels.
• A high number of workers' exposure monitoring records where
sections were left blank.
• Incorrect calculations used to determine the amount of
plutonium lodged in the lungs.
The union petition filed with NIOSH asks for all Rocky Flats
workers with 22 types of cancer listed in the compensation law
to be grandfathered into the compensation program without having
to prove the cause.
One problem with calculating worker exposure, cited by the
review and the union petition, is an incorrect assumption on the
size of plutonium particles lodged in the body - which could
throw off dosages by a factor of 10.
DeMaiori cited one worker with breast cancer who was denied
compensation because she had a 46 percent chance instead of 50
percent chance that the job caused her disease. Changing the
dose by a factor of 10 could change the decision on whether she
is eligible for aid.
In addition, the review indicates the site profile doesn't
adequately count radiation from a type of plutonium heated to a
high temperature. The heating makes the plutonium very
insoluble, so it stays hidden, irradiating the body internally.
The union contends the effects of the heated plutonium may not
show up in tests until 20 years later.
"We have a whole bunch of people with a dose who don't know it,"
DeMaiori said.
As a result, the union petition alleges, there's no way to know
which workers were contaminated with this type of plutonium.
DeMaiori said the law requires NIOSH to act on the Rocky Flats
petition within 180 days, or by last August. But NIOSH has given
itself repeated extensions, which DeMaiori considers illegal.
"We've got people dying," while waiting for help paying for
medical care, DeMaiori said.
So far, half of the more than 2,300 sick Rocky Flats workers
have been denied compensation and were told their cancers and
other illnesses are unrelated to years of working in some of the
country's most dangerous industrial buildings at the
now-demolished atomic bomb plant 16 miles northwest of downtown
Denver. Hundreds more wait for responses.
To qualify for aid, the workers must prove the level and degree
of their contamination.
NIOSH is collecting employee records and calculating radiation
dosages on the cancer cases. Where it can't find records, it
uses general contamination information collected in the Rocky
Flats site profile to make radiation dosage estimates.
When the board ordered the review of the site profile, it wrote:
"It has become clearer that primary sources of occupational dose
data at the Department of Energy sites may be more suspect and
less reliable as reviews go back further in time."
As a result, the board wrote, more employees' dosages are being
merely estimated based on what the site profile reveals about
general contamination at the plant.
That infuriates DeMaiori. "The law says if they can't
successfully reconstruct the dose, they have to grant (the
petition)," he said. Estimating "is not the intent of the law,"
he added.
The 21 issues raised by Cohen in its review of the site profile
will be discussed in a meeting with NIOSH, Cohen and several
board members on Feb. 27, said John Mauro, Cohen's project
manager.
Anything unresolved will be considered by the full board at a
meeting in Denver April 25-27 and could affect the board's
decision on the petition at that same meeting.
First NIOSH will make a recommendation on the petition, then the
board and, finally, the secretary of labor.
Mauro said some of the most important issues raised by his team
include the heated plutonium, the large number of blanks in the
records and zeroes where the counting equipment of the time
wasn't sufficiently sensitive.
In addition, one of the most basic methods used by Rocky Flats
to measure contamination was off, Mauro said. The body counter
measured radiation from americium leaving the body and used that
figure to calculate the amount of otherwise undetectable
plutonium in the body. But the ratio between americium and
plutonium varies, Mauro said.
According to the review, there is also evidence that Rocky Flats
routinely stored control dosimeters in contaminated locations.
The amount of background radiation on these control dosimeters
was then deducted from the amounts on worker dosimeters. Mauro
said one way to address this would be to not deduct the alleged
background level.
Such questions about the reliability of the records is a concern
for Joseph Fitzgerald, who wrote the Cohen report. Workers have
said they had levels of exposure that was not recorded, he
noted.
"Was there any management action that would have made the data
not sound?" Fitzgerald asked.
The site profile also failed to address doses from neptunium,
thorium, curium, tritium and two types of uranium, according to
the review. Nor did it address contamination from "routine and
episodic airborne releases" of radiation possibly inhaled by
workers outdoors.
The site profile considered contamination from breathing
radioactive soil blown into the air only at the worst dumping
site at Rocky Flats, but not other dumps.
The Cohen review also indicates the site profile did not address
contamination occurring after 1992 during the demolition and
decontamination of the plant.
Compensation program
• Applied: More than 2,300 sick Rocky Flats workers have applied
for compensation on the grounds that their illnesses were caused
by radiation or toxic chemicals at the now-defunct nuclear
weapons plant.
• Payouts: About 300 to 400 workers have been paid $61 million,
but 1,105 have been denied. The rest are waiting for decisions
six years after the program began.
• Cases: There are 1,106 Rocky Flats cancer cases for which the
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health is trying
to calculate radiation contamination. Of these, 355 have been
denied, 136 approved. site map--> Subscribe | E-mail
Site Map| Photo Reprints| Corrections 2005 © The E.W.
Scripps Co.
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************