*****************************************************************
04/06/06 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 14.82
*****************************************************************
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 US: Las Vegas SUN: Bush Recognizes Fears About Iraq
2 IRNA: Int'l circles, media focus on Iran-US talks on Iraq
3 IRNA: Iranian diplomat comments on Tehran's conditions for talks wit
4 IRNA: Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Zarif says
5 Korea Herald: Seoul warns Pyongyang not to stall talks
6 RIA Novosti: Russia urges U.S., North Korea to resume six-party nucl
7 AFP: NKorea negotiator to visit Tokyo
8 US: [shundahaialert] US to Detonate 700-Ton Bomb on Western
9 US: [southnews] US wants new Nuclear bombs
10 US: Group Hails Decision to Remove Plutonium; Outlines Unresolved
11 US: [southnews] Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb?
12 IPS-English POLITICS: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Takes Flak, No
13 US: Las Vegas SUN: Bush Defends Surveillance Policy
14 US: Las Vegas SUN: 'Mushroom cloud' comment signals need for better
15 US: Las Vegas SUN: Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak
16 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Test blast in Nevada - A nuclear rehearsal
17 US: OpEd News: Strange How This Generation Learned to Stop Worrying
18 US: AFP: US to push for South Asian moratorium on nuclear weapons -
19 Rediff: 'India giving up more, gaining less from N-deal'
20 Guardian Unlimited: Lawmakers Say They Support India Nuke Plan
NUCLEAR REACTORS
21 US: [NukeNet] Mayor's meeting - oyster creek
22 [NukeNet] Chernobyl Fallout Caused Trans-generational Disease
23 US: NRC: NRC Finds No Significant Environmental Impacts from Propose
24 US: NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collecti
25 US: Seattle Times: UW to dismantle nuclear reactor
26 US: Rutland Herald: Yankee: Another 5 percent OK'd
27 US: Daily Review Online: Nuclear power idea back on table
28 US: Oakland Tribune: Expert says carbon cap could revive nuke power
29 US: NRC: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal o
30 US: Boston Globe: Two critics want a say on Pilgrim -
31 New Scientist: How many more lives will Chernobyl claim?
32 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Brunswick Nuclear Plant
33 US: FOX Carolina: Group Opposes Nuclear Power Plant
34 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Duane Arnold
35 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Hatch Nuclear Plant
36 US: NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Byron Nuclea
37 US: NRC: NRC to Meet with Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Plant Officials
NUCLEAR SECURITY
NUCLEAR SAFETY
38 US: [du-list] VA: Foot-dragging seen...in Contacting Former
39 US: NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes to Meet
40 US: NIOSH: Radiation Avisory Board
41 US: Honolulu Advertiser: Customs gets radiation sniffer
42 Mos News: Russian Who Prevented Nuclear Sub Explosion Nominated for
43 US: Yggdrasil: `Consequences of Nuclear Testing
NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE
44 US: Deseret News: Trio's letter slams PFS N-proposal
45 US: AU ABC: Company to start uranium drilling in SA
46 RIA Novosti: Nuclear Agency cleans radioactive Techa River
47 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Bush betrays Nevada again (Yucca)
48 reviewjournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Measure a 'water grab'
49 US: Salt Lake Tribune: Utah trio asks House boss to scrap PFS offer
50 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada candidates touts renewable energy plan
51 Rep. Shelley Berkley: Bush Makes Yucca Mountain Water Grab -
52 Senator Reid: REID, ENSIGN SLAM YUCCA MOUNTAIN BILL
53 KVBC: Nevada Senators react to Yucca Mountain bill
54 KLASTV: Nevada Leadership Opposes Latest Yucca Mountain Bill
55 US: Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Second landfill rejects contaminated
PEACE
US DEPT. OF ENERGY
56 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: Plutonium won't stay in Livermore
57 DOE: DOE Announces $52.5 Million Solicitation for Basic Hydrogen
58 Hanford News: Energy Dept. plans to consolidate plutonium to increas
59 Cattle Network: US Energy Secretary: Oil Prices Eventually Will Impa
60 DOE: Office of Science; Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
FULL NEWS STORIES
*****************************************************************
*****************************************************************
1 Las Vegas SUN: Bush Recognizes Fears About Iraq
Today: April 06, 2006 at 9:36:13 PDT
By NEDRA PICKLER ASSOCIATED PRESS
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -
President Bush said Wednesday he realizes that Americans are
worried that Iraqis will not be able to take control of their
violence-torn country.
Bush said he hears the debate from those who "wonder if these
people can ever get their act together and self govern. I'm
confident they can if we don't lose our nerve."
Defending his decision to go to war in Iraq three years later,
Bush said it was important that he follow up his words with
action when Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with the United
Nations.
"When America speaks, we ought to mean what we said," Bush told
the World Affairs Council of Charlotte. "I meant what we said
when we embraced that resolution that said `Disclose. Disarm. Or
face serious consequences.' Words mean something in this world
if you're trying to protect the American people."
"I fully understand that the intelligence was wrong, and I'm
just as disappointed as everybody else is," Bush said. "But what
wasn't wrong was Saddam Hussein had invaded a country, he had
used weapons of mass destruction, he had the capability of
making weapons of mass destruction, he was firing at our pilots.
He was a state sponsor of terror. Removing Saddam Hussein was
the right thing for world peace and the security of our
country."
Bush was clearly trying to defend his credibility at a time when
it has taken a hit in recent public opinion polls. He also
argued that he had to go to war against the Taliban in
Afghanistan because they did not expel al-Qaida.
"When the president says something, he better mean what he
says," Bush said. "In order to be effective, in order to
maintain credibility, words have got to mean something. You just
can't say things in the job I'm in and not mean what you say."
Bush battled his hawkish image by saying he only went to war
reluctantly. He said he couldn't keep troops in the fight and
look military parents in the eye if he wasn't confident of
victory.
"If I didn't think we could win, I'd pull them out," Bush said.
"You've just got to know that."
Bush also was taking questions from the audience, which has
become a regular feature of his war speeches with public opinion
running against his leadership in Iraq. White House press
secretary Scott McClellan said the nonpartisan World Affairs
Council handed out the bulk of the 1,000 tickets for the event,
with the remaining 250 tickets handed out by the host, Central
Piedmont Community College.
Bush's motorcade came within site of at least a couple hundred
protesters outside the hall. They chanted, "Do your job!" and
held signs with phrases such as "Liar" and "Worst President
Ever."
On the Net: http://www.whitehouse.gov --
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
2 IRNA: Int'l circles, media focus on Iran-US talks on Iraq
Tehran, April 6, IRNA
Iran-US-Iraq
The upcoming Iran-US negotiations on Iraq is a hot topic o
discussion in international circles and media.
Iran and the US are scheduled to hold talks on Iraq on
Saturday, April.
Foreign media, particularly the Western ones, have
presented their views regarding date and place of the talks as
well as members of the negotiating team in the past 24 hours.
In its latest development, a US-related radio station reported
on Wednesday evening that the Islamic Republic of Iran and
Washington are to start their direct negotiations on Iraq on
Saturday.
Although the two countries have been in indirect contacts on
the issue of Iraq in the past, it is said that the Arab states'
concern in the past few months as well as reporting Iran's
nuclear case to the UN Security Council have encouraged the two
sides to have face-to-face negotiations, the radio added.
Tehran and Washington are to talk on avenues to maintain peace
and security in Iraq on Saturday, it said.
Some independent sources are seeking answers to the questions
that why Washington has decided to open talks with Tehran in
this stage and does Iran-US talk have anything to do with the
process of reporting Iran's nuclear case to the Security Council?
US media, in a double-standard policy, while they accuse Iran
of planning to produce nuclear weapons, they believe Tehran and
ashington enjoy common interest regarding the Iraqi issue. They
view that Iran-US upcoming talks will lead to bilateral
cooperation.
Meanwhile, some western circles and media term
Tehran-Washington unofficial contacts as fruitless and believe
that the upcoming negotiations will have the same fate.
The Iraqi TV network on Wednesday evening quoted informed
sources as saying that the Islamic Republic of Iran and the US
will start talks on Iraq in Baghdad on Saturday. The talks will
be attended by several Iraqi officials, it added.
It further quoted informed sources as believing that the talks,
which were repeatedly requested by Washington, will benefit Iran.
The Iraqi Prime Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari, in a recent
interview with British daily 'Guardian', underlined the need for
presence of Iraqi representative in the US-Iran talks.
As long as the issue of Iraq will be the topic of discussion,
the Iraqi representative will remain in the meeting, he said
adding that the talks will benefit Iraq, Iran and the US.
He further stressed that he will not resign from his post to
the requests of Washington and London reiterating that the Iraqi
policies are determined by democratic and free elections and not
through foreign pressures.
*****************************************************************
3 IRNA: Iranian diplomat comments on Tehran's conditions for talks with US -
Baghdad, April 7, IRNA
Iran-US-Negotiations
An Iranian diplomat said on Thursday that Iran's condition for
opening talks with US was that the negotiations should be
transparent and its outcome should be made known to the Iraqi
nation.
Speaking to IRNA on condition of anonymity, the official from
Iranian Embassy in Baghdad said that the upcoming negotiations
between the two sides should be "open and transparent" and it
must be held "in the presence of a representative from the Iraqi
government." Rejecting some reports that Iran-US talks would
begin next Saturday, the diplomat said "The talks will not be
held on Saturday but it will likely be held in the mid next
week."
Based on the Iranian calendar every week starts from Saturday.
The diplomat said that the talks "Will focus on the issue of
Iraq."
Commenting on a report by an Arabic newspaper that an Iranian
delegation had entered Iraq to prepare the grounds for the
upcoming talks, the Iranian diplomat said "No delegation has yet
entered Iraq in this regard."
Stressing that the idea of Iran-US talks on Iraq was initially
proposed by Iraqi leaders, specially head of the Supreme Council
for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) Abdul Aziz al-Hakim,
the diplomat said that Iraqi President Jalal Talabani and Prime
Minister Ibrahim al-Jaafari were among other senior Iraqi
leaders who called for speedy talks between the Iranian and US
officials to discuss the issue of Iraq.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran has accepted the proposal of the
Iraqi leaders and announced its readiness to make every efforts
to resolve problems in Iraq, despite the considerations that
Tehran has announced to the US," said the diplomat.
He stressed that current problems in Iraq emanated from the
presence of the occupation forces in the country.
The diplomat added that the Iranian nation and its government
viewed Iraq's problems as as their own and hoped that security
and calm would eventually be restored to their war-torn
neighboring state after its ongoing political process is
successfully completed.
The issue of upcoming Iran-US talks on Iraq was extensively
covered by the Iraqi press that mostly welcomed the event.
A number of Iraqi officials who had initially opposed the idea,
have currently taken a softer stance after the Iranian officials
said it was necessary that a number of Iraqi representatives be
also present in the upcoming talks.
Former Iraqi Prime Minister, Iyad Allawi, was one of the
primary opponents of the talks who, in his latest statements
quoted by the Iraqi media, called for holding of multilateral
talks on Iraq's issue by other neighboring states.
US Ambassador in Baghdad, Zalmay Khalilzad, unveiled last
winter for the first time that he was given "full authority" by
Washington to open talks with Tehran.
Although the ambassador hoped to receive warm welcomes from the
Iranian side after his announcement was made public by the
press, he was disappointed when he found out that the Iranian
officials either shrugged or even rejected the idea.
Some political analysts believed that opening Iran-US talks was
not a full authority for Khalilzad but "a difficult mission"
assigned to him by the White House leaders.
*****************************************************************
4 IRNA: Iran does not have nuclear weapons, Zarif says
New York, April 6, IRNA
UN-Zarif-Article
Iranian Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the United
Nations Mohammad-Javad Zarif said here on Thursday that a
solution to Iran's peaceful nuclear issue "is possible and
imminently within reach."
In an article published in the New York Times and International
Herald Tribune, Zarif regretted that the controversy over Iran's
nuclear program had obscured one particular point, that is, that
"there need not be a crisis."
The full text of his article is reprinted hereunder:
"Lost amid the rhetoric is this: Iran has a strong interest in
enhancing the integrity and authority of the Nuclear
Nonproliferation Treaty. It has been in the forefront of efforts
to ensure the treaty's universality. Iran's reliance on the
non-proliferation regime is based on legal commitments, sober
strategic calculations and spiritual and ideological doctrine.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the leader of the Islamic Republic, has
issued a decree against the development, production, stockpiling
and use of nuclear weapons.
"Let me be very clear. Iran defines its national security
within the framework of (its) regional and international
cooperation and considers regional stability indispensable for
its development. We are party to all international agreements on
the control of weapons of mass destruction. We want regional
stability. We have never initiated the use of force or resorted
to the threat of force against a fellow member of the United
Nations. Although chemical weapons have been used against us, we
have never used them in retaliation -- as UN reports have made
clear. We have not invaded another country in 250 years.
"Since October 2003, Iran has accepted a robust inspection
regimen by the UN. We have allowed more than 1,700-man-hours of
inspections and adopted measures to address past reporting
failures.
"Most of the outstanding issues in connection with uranium
conversion activities, laser enrichment, fuel fabrication and
the heavy water research reactor program have been resolved.
"Even the presence of highly enriched uranium contamination --
an issue that some say proves the existence of an illicit
weapons program -- has been explained satisfactorily.
"Don't take it from me. According to the International Atomic
Energy Agency, its findings tend to support Iran's statement
about the foreign origin of most of the observed H.E.U.
contamination.
"It's worth noting, too, that Iran has gone beyond its
international obligations and allowed the atomic agency to
repeatedly visit its military sites, and to allow inspectors to
take
environmental samples. The agency did not observe any unusual
activities; the samples did not indicate the presence of nuclear
material at these locations.
"Most important, the agency has concluded time and again that
there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
"In November 2003, for example, the agency confirmed that to
date there is no evidence that the previously undeclared nuclear
material and activities...were related to a nuclear weapons
program. A year later, last September that is, it concluded
again that all the declared nuclear material in Iran has been
accounted for, and therefore such material is not being diverted
to prohibited activities.
"Another point that has been obscured: Iran is ready for
negotiations. Since October 2003, Iran has done its utmost to
sustain and even resuscitate negotiations with Britain, France
and Germany, the three European countries responsible for
negotiating with (Iran). Since August 2004, Iran has made eight
far-reaching proposals.
"What's more, Iran throughout this period adopted extensive and
costly confidence-building measures, including a voluntary
suspension of its rightful enrichment activities for two years
to ensure the success of negotiations.
"Over the course of negotiations, Iran volunteered to do the
following within a balanced package:
* Present the new atomic agency protocol on intrusive
inspections to the Iranian parliament for ratification, and to
continue to put its provisions in place pending ratification;
* Permit continuous on-site presence of atomic agency
inspectors at its conversion and enrichment facilities;
* Introduce legislation to permanently ban the development,
stockpiling and use of nuclear weapons;
* Cooperate on export controls to prevent unauthorized access
to nuclear material;
* Refrain from reprocessing or producing plutonium;
* Limit the enrichment of nuclear materials so that they are
suitable for energy production but not for weaponry;
* Immediately convert all enriched uranium to fuel rods,
thereby precluding the possibility of further enrichment;
* Limit the enrichment program to meet the contingency fuel
requirements of Iran's power reactors and future light water
reactors;
* Begin putting in place the least contentious aspects of its
enrichment programs like research and development in order to
assure the world of our intentions;
* Accept foreign partners, both public and private, in its
uranium enrichment program.
"Iran has recently suggested the establishment of regional
consortiums on fuel cycle development that would be jointly
owned and operated by countries possessing the technology and
placed under the atomic agency's safeguards.
"Other governments, most notably the Russian Federation, have
offered thoughtful possibilities for a deal. Iran has declared
its eagerness to find a negotiated solution -- one that would
protect its rights while ensuring that its nuclear program would
remain exclusively peaceful.
"Pressure and threats do not resolve problems. Finding
solutions requires political will and a readiness to engage in
serious negotiations. Iran is ready.
"We hope the rest of the world will join us."
*****************************************************************
5 Korea Herald: Seoul warns Pyongyang not to stall talks
2006.04.06
Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok said yesterday that North
Korea should reconsider using allegations made by the United
States over counterfeit U.S. dollars as a reason to stall the
six-party talks on its nuclear ambitions.
"I believe there is a serious problem in North Korea's
judgment," Lee said in a seminar hosted by the Korean Council
for Unification Education.
"(North Korea) should reconsider a lot of things."
North Korea and the United States remain in a quagmire over
Washington's financial sanctions against international banks for
allegedly helping North Korea circulate counterfeit U.S.
dollars.
Pyongyang describes Washington's measures as a hostile policy
and has been boycotting the multinational negotiations that have
the aim of denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula.
"North Korea should think about whether it is a smart judgment
to connect the nuclear problem with the financial sanctions
issue," Lee said.
The minister also said that if North Korea demonstrated a
forward-looking attitude after returning to the six-nation
talks, it would encourage other member countries to persuade the
United States to be more lenient towards the hermit state.
The six countries - the two Koreas, the United States, China,
Japan and Russia - succeeded in drawing up a statement of
principles to denuclearize North Korea but have since failed to
make further progress.
Government sources and experts in South Korea have been warning
that North Korea's obstinacy will only add weight to the views
voiced by Washington's hardliners.
Lee also took time to target Washington.
"(The United States) should think more about the importance of
North Korea's nuclear problem."
He said the United States has many views on the issue but that
they have not yet been channeled into a mainstream policy.
South Korea's new chief delegate to the six-party talks Chun
Yung-woo yesterday completed his visits to all the multilateral
talks' member countries excluding North Korea.
Upon finishing his international round trip, he said he felt
that "a lot more time and increased diplomatic efforts are
needed to solve the North's nuclear problem."
Chun arrived back in Seoul after visiting Russia yesterday.
(angiely@heraldm.com)
By Lee Joo-hee
*****************************************************************
6 RIA Novosti: Russia urges U.S., North Korea to resume six-party nuclear talks
06/ 04/ 2006
TOKYO, April 6 (RIA Novosti, Andrei Fesyun) - A Russian deputy
foreign minister said Thursday that the U.S. and North Korea
should look for a compromise to resume six-nation talks on the
communist country's controversial nuclear program.
At the latest round of talks in September, North Korea agreed to
abandon its nuclear program in exchange for aid and security
guarantees, but later refused to return to the negotiating table
until Washington lifted financial sanctions imposed on Pyongyang
for its alleged involvement in counterfeiting and other illegal
activities.
"Mutually acceptable compromises between the U.S. and North
Korea will help the resumption of six-nation nuclear talks, even
if these are small steps toward each other," Alexander Alekseyev
said at a briefing in Tokyo.
Russia, China, South Korea and Japan are also involved in the
talks, which began in August 2003.
When asked whether Russia believed the resumption of talks was
impeded by the U.S. sanctions, Alekseyev said his country did
not consider it appropriate to blame any party for the long
break in the negotiating process.
The U.S. has been pressing China to use its leverage as North
Korea's main supplier of aid and ally to secure the resumption
of the talks.
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
7 AFP: NKorea negotiator to visit Tokyo
Thu Apr 6, 2:18 AM ET
TOKYO (AFP) - Japan has confirmed that Kim Gye-Gwan, North Korea
" /> North Korea's chief delegate to the six-nation nuclear
talks, is expected to make a rare visit to Tokyo next week to
attend a private security conference.
"We are aware that he (Kim) is preparing to enter Japan. We
believe he will come as we see no problem in his doing so,"
Japanese Foreign Ministry Press Secretary Yoshinori Katori told
AFP.
Japan and North Korea have no diplomatic relations and visits
here by Pyongyang officials are very rare.
Kim's US counterpart, Assistant Secretary of State for East
Asian and Pacific Affairs Christopher Hill, is also scheduled to
attend the meeting, a US embassy spokesman here said earlier.
The embassy spokesman said Hill had no immediate plan to meet
Kim face to face.
South Korea " /> South Koreawill be represented at the forum by
Deputy Foreign Minister Chun Young-Woo, who is also Seoul's chief
delegate to the six-nation talks aimed at dismantling Pyongyang's
nuclear arms programme, Katori said on Wednesday.
The nuclear disarmament talks have been in limbo since November
after Washington accused Pyongyang of counterfeiting US dollars
and laundering money.
The North has denied the charge and demanded the United States
lift financial sanctions before it returns to the talks.
The private forum, organized by the University of California's
Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, has been held 17
times since 1993 to discuss security affairs in Northeast Asia.
It has brought together government officials and academics from
the same six parties to the nuclear roundtable -- China, North
Korea, Japan, Russia, South Korea and the United States.
The forum will hold its latest meeting in Tokyo from April 9 to
13, with a two-day main conference Monday and Tuesday and three
days of small group discussions, according to a foreign ministry
official.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
8 [shundahaialert] US to Detonate 700-Ton Bomb on Western
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:32:04 -0700
Hello Everyone,
Yesterday, we sent out a joint press release with the Western Shoshone
Defense Project. There are also plans underway for a protest action on
June 2, should the US military persist in its plans. We'll keep you informed.
Western Shoshone Defense Project
Shundahai Network
Joint Press Release - April 4, 2006
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE : U.S. DEFIES U.N. DECISION AND CONTRADICTS EARLIER
PUBLIC STATEMENT PLANS MASSIVE MILITARY DETONATION ON WESTERN SHOSHONE LAND
WESTERN SHOSHONE CALL FOR HALT TO PLANNED JUNE 2 “BUNKER BUSTER” DETONATION
AT THE NEVADA TEST SITE
Speaking with media last week, US military spokesman James Tegnelia
confirmed U.S. plans to detonate a 700 ton explosion at the Nevada Test
Site on June 2, 2006 in a test called “Divine Strake.” The location of
this test would be on Western Shoshone land, and would be in direct
violation of a recent decision by the United Nations Committee on the
Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). In its decision, made public
March 10, 2006, the CERD Committee urged the United States to “freeze”,
“desist” and “stop” actions being taken, or threatened to be taken, against
the Western Shoshone Peoples of the Western Shoshone Nation. In its
decision, CERD stressed the “nature and urgency” of the Shoshone situation
informing the U.S. that it goes “well beyond” the normal reporting process
and warrants immediate attention under the Committee’s Early Warning and
Urgent Action Procedure.
The CERD decision explicitly cited ongoing weapons testing at the Nevada
Test Site as well as efforts to build an unprecedented high-level nuclear
waste repository at Yucca Mountain, NV.
James Tegnelia of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency was quoted by Agence
France Presse as saying, "I don't want to sound glib here but it is the
first time in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since
we stopped testing nuclear weapons," and notes further that this is the
“largest single explosive that we could imagine.” The Department of Defense
announced in late October 2005 that the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrating
(RNEP) weapon project was being dropped in favor of a more conventional
methodology.
The detonation plan also runs contrary to earlier public statements made in
late March to the Las Vegas Review-Journal by Linton F. Brooks,
administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration. In his
statement, Mr. Brooks announced that the Bush administration had no plans
to start detonating warheads at the Nevada Test Site. "We have absolutely
no evidence that we're going to need to test. ... We don't see any specific
reason now that leads us to believe we'll need a test," Mr. Brooks said.
"On the other hand," he said, "we don't know everything about the future."
According to Raymond Yowell, Chief of the Western Shoshone National
Council, “We’re opposed to any further military testing on Shoshone
lands. This is a direct violation of the CERD finding and an affront to
our religious belief - Mother Earth is sacred and should not be
harmed. All people who are opposed to these actions by the U.S. should
step forward and make their opposition known.”
Carrie Dann, Western Shoshone grandmother and Executive Director of the
Western Shoshone Defense Project, “The U.S. has named this 700 ton
explosive ‘Divine Strake’. It’s a mystery why they use ‘devine.’ Isn’t
‘devine’ used for your deity, God, Your sacredness? Why don’t they call it
‘Hell Strake?’ I believe when you are working testing weaponry of
destruction of life, you should not associate it with ‘devine.’ We want
this insanity to stop no more bombs and no more testing.”
Eileen McCabe-Olsen, Associate Director of Shundahai Network noted, “This
test, besides being an egregious violation of Western Shoshone sovereignty,
is an escalation that should outrage anyone concerned with peace, justice
and care of our environment.”
Pete Litster, Executive Director of Shundahai Network said “Ongoing weapons
tests at the Nevada Test Site violate international law. They violate the
standing treaty between the U.S. Government and the Western Shoshone
people. They also violate the spirit of non-proliferation of weapons of
mass destruction. The Test Site is located on Western Shoshone territory,
and must not continue to be misused in bold violation of standing
agreements between the U.S. government and the Western Shoshone nation.”
Although approval for the test was sought and obtained from the state of
Nevada in January 2006, the test detonation can be cancelled. The Western
Shoshone National Council, the Western Shoshone Defense Project, and
Shundahai Network call for the United States Government to do so
immediately. Concerned citizens can call or write to express their opinions:
President George W. Bush comments@whitehouse.gov 202-456-1111
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld http://www.dod.gov/faq/comment.html
Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
1000 Defense Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301-1000
James Tegnelia dtra.publicaffairs@dtra.mil (800) 701-5096
Defense Threat Reduction Aagency
Attn: James Tegnelia
8725 John J Kingman RD Stop 6201
Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6201
CONTACTS:
Julie Fishel, Western Shoshone Defense Project 775-468-0230 wsdp@igc.org
Pete Litster, Shundahai Network 801-637-1500 pete@shundahai.org
The Western Shoshone Defense Project's (www.wsdp.org) mission is to affirm
Newe (Western Shoshone) jurisdiction over Newe Sogobia (Western Shoshone
homelands) by protecting, preserving, and restoring Newe rights and lands
for present and future generations based on cultural and spiritual
traditions. The W.S.D.P. was established in 1991 by the Western Shoshone
National Council to provide support to Mary and Carrie Dann, Western
Shoshone grandmothers who were facing the confiscation of the livestock
that they graze on Western Shoshone lands.
Shundahai Network (www.shundahai.org) is dedicated to breaking the nuclear
chain by building alliances with indigenous communities and environmental,
peace and human rights movements. We seek to abolish all nuclear weapons
and an end to nuclear testing. We advocate phasing out nuclear energy and
ending the transportation and dumping of nuclear waste. We promote the
principles of Environmental Justice and strive to insure that indigenous
voices are heard in the movement to influence U.S. nuclear and
environmental policies. All of our campaigns and events incorporate the
values of community building, education, spiritual ceremonies and
nonviolent direct action.
Shundahai Network
www.shundahai.org
P.O. Box 1115
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
Phone- 801.533.0128
Fax- 801.533.0129
shundahai@shundahai.org
Online Fundraising Store- www.cafepress.com/shundahainet
If you are a Myspace user, you can now add us! www.Myspace.com/shundahai
Shundahai is a Newe (Western Shoshone) word meaning "Peace and Harmony with
all Creation"
*****************************************************************
9 [southnews] US wants new Nuclear bombs
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 2006 18:56:14 -0500 (CDT)
The administration's proposal would modernize the nation's complex of
laboratories and factories as well as produce new bombs.
By Ralph Vartabedian, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times April 6, 2006
The Bush administration Wednesday unveiled a blueprint for rebuilding
the nation's decrepit nuclear weapons complex, including restoration of
a large-scale bomb manufacturing capacity.
The plan calls for the most sweeping realignment and modernization of
the nation's massive system of laboratories and factories for nuclear
bombs since the end of the Cold War.
Until now, the nation has depended on carefully maintaining aging bombs
produced during the Cold War arms race, some several decades old. The
administration, however, wants the capability to turn out 125 new
nuclear bombs per year by 2022, as the Pentagon retires older bombs that
it says will no longer be reliable or safe.
Under the plan, all of the nation's plutonium would be consolidated into
a single facility that could be more effectively and cheaply defended
against possible terrorist attacks. The plan would remove the plutonium
kept at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by 2014, though transfers
of the material could start sooner. In recent years, concern has grown
that Livermore, surrounded by residential neighborhoods in the Bay Area,
could not repel a terrorist attack.
But the administration blueprint is facing sharp criticism, both from
those who say it does not move fast enough to consolidate plutonium
stores and from those who say restarting bomb production would encourage
aspiring nuclear powers across the globe to develop weapons.
The plan was outlined to Congress on Wednesday by Thomas D'Agostino,
head of nuclear weapons programs at the National Nuclear Security
Administration, a part of the Energy Department. Though the weapons
proposal would restore the capacity to make new bombs, D'Agostino said
it was part of a larger effort to accelerate the dismantling of aging
bombs left from the Cold War.
D'Agostino acknowledged in an interview that the administration was
walking a fine line by modernizing the U.S. nuclear weapons program
while assuring other nations that it was not seeking a new arms race.
The credibility of the contention rests on the U.S. intent to sharply
reduce its inventory of weapons.
The administration is also quickly moving ahead with a new nuclear bomb
program known as the "reliable replacement warhead," which began last
year. Originally described as an effort to update existing weapons and
make them more reliable, it has been broadened and now includes the
potential for new bomb designs. Weapons labs currently are engaged in a
design competition.
The U.S. built its last nuclear weapon in 1989 and last tested a weapon
underground in 1992. Since the Cold War, the nation has had massive
stockpiles of nuclear weapons to deter potential attacks. By contrast,
it would increasingly rely on the capability to build future bombs for
deterrence, D'Agostino said.
The blueprint calls for a modern complex to design a new nuclear bomb
and have it ready in less than four years, allowing the nation to
respond to changing military requirements. Similar proposals in the
past, such as for a nuclear bomb to attack underground bunkers, provoked
concern that they undermined U.S. policy to stop nuclear proliferation.
The impetus for the plan is a growing belief that efforts to maintain
older nuclear bombs and keep up a large nuclear weapons industrial
complex are technically and financially unsustainable. Last year, a task
force led by San Diego physicist David Overskei recommended that the
Energy Department consolidate the system of eight existing weapons
complexes into one site.
Overskei said Wednesday that the cost of security alone for the current
infrastructure of plants over the next two decades was roughly $25
billion. Security costs have grown, because the Sept. 11 attacks have
led the Energy Department to believe terrorists could mount a larger and
better armed strike force.
Peter Stockton, a former Energy Department security consultant who is
now an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, criticized
the plutonium consolidation plan in House testimony, saying it would
delay the difficult work too far into the future. Stockton added in an
interview that the plutonium transfer at Livermore could be accomplished
in a few months.
Until now, Livermore lab officials have sharply disagreed with the idea
of removing plutonium from their site, saying it was essential to their
work. On Wednesday, a lab spokesman said the issue was "far less
controversial" and the "decision rests in Washington."
The Bush plan, described at a hearing of the strategic subcommittee of
the House Armed Services Committee, would consolidate much of the
weapons capacity, but not as completely or quickly as outside critics
would like.
The overall plan would not be fully implemented until 2030.
A crucial part of restarting U.S. nuclear bomb production involves
so-called plutonium pits, hollow spheres surrounded by high explosives.
The pits start nuclear fission and trigger the nuclear fusion in a bomb.
The plutonium pits were built at the Energy Department's former Rocky
Flats site near Denver until the weapons plant was shut down in 1989
after it was found to have violated environmental regulations.
In recent years, Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico has tried
to start limited production of plutonium pits and hopes to build a
certified pit that will enter the so-called war reserve next year. Los
Alamos would be producing about 30 to 50 pits per year by 2012, but the
Energy Department said that was not enough to sustain the U.S. nuclear
deterrent.
In his testimony, D'Agostino estimated plutonium pits would last 45 to
60 years, after which they would be unreliable and might result in an
explosion smaller than intended. Critics outside the government sharply
dispute that conclusion, saying there is no evidence that pits degrade
over time and that the nation can keep an adequate nuclear deterrent by
maintaining its existing weapons.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nuke6apr06,0,5989419.
story?coll=la-home-headlines
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
*****************************************************************
10 Group Hails Decision to Remove Plutonium; Outlines Unresolved
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 16:59:27 -0700
Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 6, 2006
Marylia Kelley, executive director, Tri-Valley CAREs, (925) 443-7148
Loulena Miles, staff attorney, Tri-Valley CAREs, (925) 443-7148
COMMUNITY GROUP HAILS DECISION TO REMOVE DEADLY PLUTONIUM FROM LIVERMORE
LAB IN HEAVILY POPULATED BAY AREA; OUTLINES KEY UNRESOLVED ISSUES
LIVERMORE, CA -- In a House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee
hearing yesterday, Thomas D'Agostino, the new Deputy Administrator for
Defense Programs within the Department of Energy's (DOE) National Nuclear
Security Administration said the federal agency will remove all nuclear
bomb usable quantities of plutonium and highly enriched uranium from the
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory by the end of 2014. These materials
are referred to as Category 1 and Category 2 Special Nuclear Material.
The DOE decision supports the conclusion of Tri-Valley CAREs that the
plutonium and highly enriched uranium stockpiles at Livermore Lab are
unsafe and vulnerable to catastrophic release in the event of a major
earthquake or terrorist attack. The Livermore-based group has long
advocated halting all operations with special nuclear materials at the
Livermore Lab, a crowded 1.3 square-mile nuclear weapons site located in an
urban setting and less than 200 feet from an active earthquake fault zone.
Ramping down plutonium operations at Livermore Lab was a focus of the team
of twelve Tri-Valley CAREs members that conducted nearly 100 meetings with
DOE officials, members of Congress and other decision-makers during a trip
to Washington DC last week.
"We applaud the decision to remove plutonium from Livermore Lab even as we
realize the devil will be in the details," noted Marylia Kelley, Tri-Valley
CAREs' Executive Director who lives down the street from Livermore Lab.
"Tri-Valley CAREs will actively monitor the implementation of yesterday's
decision," Kelley continued. "We will press for both a more speedy removal
plan and for appropriate packaging to safeguard workers and communities
from the handling and transportation hazards posed by these deadly
materials."
Moreover, Tri-Valley CARES remains adamantly opposed to the DOE plan to
"transform" the nuclear weapons complex by designing and building new
nuclear weapons through the Reliable Replacement Warhead program, as
outlined in DOE's Fiscal Year 2007 budget request currently before
Congress.
"Plutonium and highly enriched uranium should be removed from Livermore Lab
as a security measure," said Kelley. "We reject the notion that DOE ought
to build a huge, new plutonium mega-plex at another location in order to
redesign and rebuild every nuclear weapon in the U.S. arsenal. The
so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead program is a recipe for nuclear
proliferation, not safety," Kelley concluded.
"We want to ensure that removal of plutonium from Livermore Lab will not be
used as an excuse to expand plutonium activities at Los Alamos Lab in New
Mexico and other sites within the nuclear weapons complex," said Tri-Valley
CAREs Outreach Director Tara Dorabji. "In Washington DC last week we
called on Congress to stop plutonium work at Livermore Lab while reining in
DOE's proposed plutonium pit work at the Los Alamos Lab."
Dorabji continued, "As long as plutonium experiments continue unabated
throughout the nuclear weapons complex, we as a country will never be able
to address the waste issue. Consolidation of nuclear material is a
plausible solution only if the further design and development of nuclear
weapons ceases at all sites."
"It should not be forgotten that this is the very same DOE National Nuclear
Security Administration that made the decision to double the storage limit
for plutonium at Livermore Lab on November 29, 2005," remarked Tri-Valley
CAREs' Staff Attorney Loulena Miles. "That decision needs to be reversed so
that the government won't have a stated policy to remove plutonium while it
is shipping in additional material, putting workers and the local community
at needless risk."
The DOE decision to remove plutonium from Livermore calls into question the
future for Livermore Lab's new "gatling guns" as well. Tri-Valley CAREs and
other community members have objected to the February 2006 decision to
equip Livermore Lab with multiple high-tech military weapons, each of which
can simultaneously fire 7.62mm bullets from six barrels at up to 4,000
rounds per minute for a range of about one mile. The DOE National Nuclear
Security Administration Administrator Linton Brooks told reporters on
February 3rd that these weapons would enhance Livermore Lab's ability to
guard its large cache of radioactive plutonium.
Now that DOE has decided to remove the plutonium and highly enriched
uranium, Tri-Valley CAREs requests that the government revisit its decision
to place these guns on specially outfitted trucks and at fixed locations
around Livermore Lab. The kill-zone includes large residential
neighborhoods, City parks, little league fields, and an elementary school.
Further, Tri-Valley CAREs recommends that DOE undertake a process that will
incorporate input from local communities at all potential storage sites in
determining the safest and most logical path forward.
The House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee Testimony is online
at www.house.gov/hasc/schedules/
Marylia Kelley
Executive Director
Tri-Valley CAREs
(Communities Against a Radioactive Environment)
2582 Old First Street
Livermore, CA USA 94551
- is our web site address. Please visit us
there!
(925) 443-7148 - is our phone
(925) 443-0177 - is our fax
*****************************************************************
11 [southnews] Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb?
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2006 01:54:30 -0500 (CDT)
falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our scramble for useable',
tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons systems, and our new
justifications for their use.
_____________________________________
Strange How This Generation Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
By Ron Fullwood
OpEdNews.com April 6, 2006
The Bush regime today took the lid off of their blueprint for rebuilding
the U.S. nuclear weapons complex and declared their intention to put the
cold-war facility back in the business of building bombs.
The nuclear hawks want the ability to produce 125 new nuclear bombs a
year by 2022. How did it come to this?
The Bush administration's nuclear program is a shell game with their
ambitions hidden within the Energy and Defense bills, most under the
guise of research. Their proposals originated in a position paper which
is referenced in the Energy Policy Act of 2003, entitled, "A Roadmap to
Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the United States by 2010".
The nuclear industry, along with government supporters, developed a
roadmap for the realization of these goals. They intend to portray nukes
as a safe, clean alternative to CO2 based plants. The energy bill
references the "Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Program."
This is a determined, deliberate hard sell to get the nation back in the
nuclear game. The nuclear provisions in the Energy bill are a tough read
but they are designed to confuse.
The legislation designates INEEL, The Idaho Engineering and
Environmental Laboratories, as the lead facility for nuclear R&D. This
has been the nation's primary lab for all of the nuclear madness since
1952. INEEL's primary function since the mid 70's was the clean-up of
their own toxic waste. This clean-up is still going on. There is money
allocated in this bill for that.
New plants are contemplated in the Energy and Defense legislation which
would utilize the new generation of recycled nuclear fuels (MOX
mixed-oxide, hydrogen based, depleted uranium, etc.). These centers will
almost certainly be formatted to accommodate the next generation of
nuclear weapons, such as, mini tactical nukes and bunker- busters.
INEEL will undoubtably be at the center of this effort.
At the end of the decade support for nuclear energy was on the decline
because of waste and safety issues and disarmament. Right before Bush II
got in office, the industry, still fat from clean-up money sought to
bolster their flagging industry. (INEEL gets 70% of their funding for
waste disposal) Waste storage had become so controversial that it had
soured the public to the idea of more nukes and more nuke plants. (Yucca
Mountain, storage sites in New Mexico, transportation, safety issues, etc.).
So, they began promoting the view that the 'spent' nuclear fuel from
decommissioned weapons and nuclear power plants could be broken down and
reconstituted for weapons (depleted uranium) and a new generation of
nuclear plants which would accommodate (recycle) and use the waste
instead of immobilizing it in glass and storing it.
The industry makes the dubious claim that the recycled waste keeps it
out of the hands of terrorists and makes proliferation more difficult.
It will more likely disperse the waste and create more opportunity for
abuse or mishap. But, they are pressing on, perhaps emboldened by the
lack of effective opposition, or maybe it's just the last gasp of a
fracturing plutocracy as they rape the Treasury to benefit their
military industry benafactors.
I often wonder why there was no massive outcry from the public as Bush
packed the government with military industry cronies from the start of
his administration. I'm equally puzzled why we seemed to shrug off the
scrapping of a generation of nuclear disarmament without so much as a
blink as the Bush regime continues to advance their plans for a new
generation of nuclear weaponry with new justifications for its use.
People of my generation, and the ones before mine fought a valiant
battle against nuclear weapons. Perhaps the desire grew out of our
childhood spent crouching under our school desks every Wednesday or
Friday as the air raid siren blared out its nuclear drill. 'Duck and
cover!' counseled Bert the animated turtle in the '60's era filmstrip. I
grew to fear and hate communists and dread the inevitable nuclear attack.
The Japanese started campaigning against nuclear weapons in 1946 after
the U.S. dropped the bomb on them. Citizens' groups in Hiroshima started
a mass movement after March 1954, when a U.S. nuclear test dropped
radiation on the crew of a Japanese fishing boat, the Lucky Dragon, and
citizens of Bikini. An petition was drawn up and signed by 32 million
people in the world's largest anti-nuclear protest. In August 1955 the
First World Conference Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs met in
Hiroshima. The Japan Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs
(Gensuikyo) was organized in Japan at the same time.
In the years that followed we saw the enactment of the Partial Test Ban
Treaty; the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (I and II); the
Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty; the Strategic Arms Reduction
Treaties (I and II); and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
These important restraints on the proliferation and spread of nuclear
weaponry did not occur in a vacuum. These restraints were the result of
direct action by communities and individuals engaging in massive,
worldwide campaigns of public protest, over the strenuous objections of
ruling parties and government powers. Notable among the modern nuclear
resistors in the United States, included the Federation of American
Scientists, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE), Women Strike
for Peace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Nuclear Weapons
Freeze Campaign.
In 1980 Randall Caroline Forsberg, Executive Director of the Institute
for Defense and Disarmament Studies, wrote the "Call to Halt the Nuclear
Arms Race which launched the national Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign.
In 1989 Forsberg briefed BushI and his Cabinet officials on US-Soviet
arms control issues. In 1995 she was appointed by President Clinton to
the Advisory Committee of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In
March 1981, representatives from over 30 states met at Georgetown
University in a campaign for a comprehensive nuclear freeze between the
U.S. and Soviet Union.
Although Reagan deployed nuclear missiles to Western Europe during his
term, in October 1983, he proposed eliminating all nuclear weapons in a
speech in January 1984. Earlier, in April 1982, obviously affected by
the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign, he had pronounced that "a nuclear
war cannot be won and must never be fought. And, he also improbably
declared, "To those who protest against nuclear war, I can only say:
'I'm with you!'"
Gorbachev subsequently initiated a unilateral Soviet nuclear testing
moratorium and decided against building a Star Wars anti-missile system.
Reagan refused to abandon the U.S. version of Star Wars, but the
disarmament die had been cast. Gorbachev put the U.S. on the defensive
by exercising what was termed the 'zero option', agreeing to remove all
nuclear missiles from Europe.
In late 1984, twenty-two people got themselves arrested as they blocked
the entrance to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center in Wake Forest,
Illinois to protest U.S. warships in Central America and to protest the
Navys part in spreading weapons and ammunition to the countries in the
region. Sixteen went to trial, charges against eight were dropped and a
ninth was dismissed. Seven protesters stood trial in the People v. Jarka
No. 002170 in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Waukegan, Illinois.
After a one-week trial defendants were found not guilty by the jury.
The judge in the case, Alphonse F. Witt, gave the following instruction
to the jury regarding international law:
International law is binding on the United States and on the State of
Illinois.
The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is a war crime or an
attempted war crime because such use would violate inter-national law by
causing unnecessary suffering, failure to dis-tinguish between
combatants and noncombatants, and poisoning targets by radiation.
(Source: Robert Aldridge and Virginia Stark, Nuclear War, Citizen
Intervention, and the Necessity Defense, Santa Clara Law Review 26, no.
2 : 324325.)
The Jarka trial served as the basis for the defense of subsequent
actions and protests against the Reagan administration's escalating
militarism, mindless military buildup, and meddling military
interventions abroad.
In the years that followed the anti-nuclear activism, New Zealand banned
nuclear warships from their ports, Australia banned the testing of MX
missiles, India halted work on nuclear weapons, and called for nuclear
disarmament, the Philippines voted for a no nuke constitution and closed
down U.S. military bases harboring nuclear weapons. South Africa
abandoned an infant nuclear weapons program. BushI was intimidated into
unilaterally withdrawing short-range missiles from Western Europe.
Later there were the influential protests at the Nevada Test Site which
fostered a Nevada-based, Semipalatinsk nuclear disarmament movement in
the Soviet Union which led to the closure of the Soviet nuclear test sites.
In 1992 underground nuclear testing was halted for nine months, and
stringent restrictions were enacted on further U.S. testing, and test
ban negotiations and an end to U.S. testing by late 1996 were initiated.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was achieved, despite
resistance from Democrats including candidate Clinton during his
presidential campaign. In spite of the resistance, anti-nuclear
Congressmen and women organized a test ban and the Clinton
administration extended the U.S. nuclear testing moratorium, encouraging
a worldwide treaty. In September 1996, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty
was signed by several nuclear and non-nuclear countries.
That was then . . .
Now, we have been made to endure the mindless idiocy of BushII. For the
first time since the U.S. banned the production of nuclear weapons in
the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; signed by the U.S. and Russia in
1968, entered into force in 1970; and since the moratorium on nuclear
testing, which has been in place since 1992, the nuclear arms race has
been restarted by the Bush administration, aided in part by an
underground Pentagon campaign.
Gen. Lee Butler, of the Strategic Air Command, along with former Air
Force Secretary Thomas Reed, and Col. Michael Wheeler, made a report in
1991 which recommended the targeting of our nuclear weaponry at "every
reasonable adversary around the globe." The report warned of nuclear
weapons states which are likely to emerge." They were aided in their
pursuit by, John Deutch, President Clinton's choice for Defense
Secretary; Fred Ikli, former Deputy Defense Secretary, associated with
Jonathan Pollard; future CIA Director R. James Woolsey; and Condoleezza
Rice, who was on the National Security Council Staff, 1989-1991.
The new nuke report recommended that U.S. nuclear weapons be
re-targeted, where U.S. forces faced conventional "impending
annihilation ... at remote places around the globe," according to
William M. Arkin and Robert S. Norris, in their criticism of the report
in the April 1992 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists ("Tiny
Nukes").
At the same time, two Los Alamos (Lockheed) nuclear weapons scientists,
Thomas Dowler and Joseph Howard, published an article in 1991 in the
Strategic Review, titled "Countering the Threat of the Well-Armed
Tyrant: A Modest Proposal for Smaller Nuclear Weapons." They argued
that, "The existing U.S. nuclear arsenal had no deterrent effect on
Saddam and is unlikely to deter a future tyrant."
They advocated for "the development of new nuclear weapons of very low
yields, with destructive power proportional to the risks we will face in
the new world environment," and they specifically called for the
development and deployment of "micro-nukes" (with explosive yield of 10
tons), "mini-nukes" (100 tons), and "tiny-nukes" (1 kiloton).
Their justification for the smaller nuclear weapons was their contention
that no President would authorize the use of the nuclear weapons in our
present arsenal against Third World nations. "It is precisely this doubt
that leads us to argue for the development of sub-kiloton weapons," they
wrote.
In a White House document created in April 2000, "The United States of
America Meeting its Commitment to Article VI of the Treaty on the
Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," the administration stated that,
"as the United States reduces the numbers of its nuclear weapons, it is
also transforming the means to build them."
Over the past decade, the United States has dramatically changed the
role and mission of its nuclear-weapon complex from weapon research,
development, testing, and production to weapon dismantlement, conversion
for commercial use, and stockpile stewardship.
That was his father's nuclear program. George II wants bombs.
"The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare
contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven
countries, and to build new, smaller nuclear weapons for use in certain
battlefield situations," according to a Pentagon report uncovered by the
Los Angeles Times.
The report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, 2003 says the
Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against China,
Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya.
It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations: against
targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, in retaliation for attack
with nuclear biological or chemical weapons, or in the event of
surprising military developments.' The new report, signed by Secretary
of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, is being used by the U.S. Strategic Command
in the preparation of a nuclear war plan.
As reported by the World Policy Institute, the National Institute for
Public Policy's, January 2001 report on the "rationale and requirements"
for U.S. nuclear forces, was used as the model for the Bush
administration's Nuclear Posture Review, which advocated an expansion of
the U.S. nuclear "hit list" and the development of a new generation of
"usable," lower-yield nuclear weapons.
Three members of the study group that produced the NIPP report -
National Security Council members Stephen Hadley, Robert Joseph
(undersecretary of Defense), and Stephen Cambone (Pentagon Intelligence
director) - are now directly involved in implementing the Bush nuclear
policy. Stephen Hadley, who replaced Rice as National Security Advisor,
co-wrote a National institute for Public Policy paper portraying a
nuclear bunker-buster bomb as an ideal weapon against the nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons stockpiles of rouge nations such as Iraq.
"Under certain circumstances," the report said, "very severe nuclear
threats may be needed to deter any of these potential adversaries."
Reuters reported on the Bush administration plans to promote and push
for the expansion of the nation's nuclear arsenal with the unveiling of
an initiative produced by the Defense Science Board'. The supporting
document, named the Future Strategic Strike Force, outlines a
reconfigured nuclear arsenal made up of smaller-scale missiles which
could be targeted at smaller countries and other lower-scale targets.
The report is a retreat from decades of understanding that these
destructive weapons were to be used as a deterrent only; as a last resort.
In September 2004 the Senate went along with a White House push to
reduce the preparation time required for nuclear testing in Nevada;
clearing the way for a resumption of nuclear test explosions which have
been banned since 1992. It seeks to cut the time it would take to
restart testing nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert from three years to
two years. The Bush administration wants the period cut to 18 months.
Congress plans to build the first permanent U.S. nuclear waste
repository in the desert northwest of Las Vegas, scheduled to open in
2010 and would hold up to 77,000 tons of radioactive waste.
The Energy bill that has emerged from the recent Congress would provide
$580 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal project in
2004 around $11 million less than Bush had requested but far above a
$425 million limit earlier endorsed by the Senate.
The bill would also provide $11 million for a new factory to make
plutonium "pits" for the next generation of nuclear weapons. The last
U.S. facility for manufacturing nuclear triggers closed in 1989.
Citing "classified analyses" the DOE claims it needs to have a new pit
facility capable of producing 125-500 pits per year. The DOE's Notice of
Intent for the MPF also states that one of the functions for the
facility will be to have the ability to produce new design pits for new
types of nuclear weapons.
Most modern nuclear weapons depend on a plutonium pit as the "primary"
that begins the chain reaction resulting in a thermonuclear explosion. A
pit is a critical component of a nuclear weapon and functions as a
trigger to allow a modern nuclear weapon to operate properly.
The Department of Energy announced on September 23, 2002, its intent to
begin an examination of several possible sites for a Modern Pit Facility
to produce plutonium pits for new and refurbished nuclear weapons.
The United States is the only nuclear power without the capability to
manufacture a plutonium pit. About three-fourths of the U.S. surplus
plutonium is relatively pure in the form of so-called pits, which have
been removed (and deactivated) from existing warheads.
The remaining fourth of the surplus was in the process pipeline, mostly
as plutonium residues, when processing was suddenly discontinued. The
Soviet government processed all of its material to completion, so now
all of the Russian surplus is in the form of pits or its weapon-form
equivalent.
The Foster Panel Report, also known as the FY2000 Report to Congress of
the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and Security of the United
States Nuclear Stockpile, found that it could take 15 years from the
point of developing a conceptual design for a pit facility until the
final construction of the facility is completed.
The report stated that, "If it is determined through the science-based
Stockpile Stewardship Program that one or more of our existing pit
designs is no longer reliable, and therefore is not certifiable, our
nuclear stockpile would, in effect, be unilaterally downsized below a
level which could maintain a strong nuclear deterrence."
That is the hook which supporters of an expanded nuclear program will
use to justify an abrogation of the treaty ban, and begin their
new-generation arms race. If they don't get their way - to fiddle with
and refurbish the existing nukes - they will argue that deterrence is at
risk; a preposterous notion, as our existing arsenal is more than enough
to blow us all to Pluto.
If new money is released, the nuclear weapons laboratories are expected
to refurbish the casings on the existing nuclear B-61 and B-83 warheads,
according to Energy Department nuclear czar and former UK Lockheed
executive, Everett Beckner, in testimony before a Senate committee.
Beckner claimed that both weapons have yields "substantially higher than
five kilotons," so he has determined that the study will not violate a
1994 U.S. law prohibiting research on "low-yield" nuclear weapons.
A version of the B-61, modified to strike hardened and deeply buried
targets, was added to the U.S. stockpile without nuclear testing in
1997. There is a serious question about the effectiveness of such a
weapon on underground bunkers, and there is a concern that the
neighboring effect of the radiation cloud would be devastating.
A nuclear strike on North Korea, for example, could generate deadly
radioactive fallout, poisoning nearby countries such as Japan or
Australia. Most observers do not believe that the new weapons can be
developed without abandoning the non-proliferation treaty and sparking a
new and frightening worldwide nuclear arms race.
The nuclear hawks are stepping out from behind their Trojan Horses of
nuclear space travel and safe', new nuclear fuels and are revealing a
frightening ambition to yoke the nation to a new legacy of imperialism.
President Bush has decided that America's image around the globe is to
be one of an oppressive nuclear bully bent on world domination.
Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency
(the man at the UN charged with managing U.S. demands against Iran's
uranium enrichment) said in 2003 that developing new nuclear weapons
could hamper efforts to reach agreement with other countries who might
want to expand their nuclear programs; like Iran and Pakistan, for example.
In September 2004 the Senate went along with a White House push to
reduce the preparation time required for nuclear testing in Nevada;
clearing the way for a resumption of nuclear test explosions which have
been banned since 1992. It seeks to cut the time it would take to
restart testing nuclear weapons in the Nevada desert from three years to
two years. The Bush administration wants the period cut to 18 months.
Congress plans to build the first permanent U.S. nuclear waste
repository in the desert northwest of Las Vegas, scheduled to open in
2010 and would hold up to 77,000 tons of radioactive waste.
The Energy bill that has emerged from Congress would provide $580
million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal project in 2004
around $11 million less than Bush had requested but far above a $425
million limit earlier endorsed by the Senate.
The bill would also provide $11 million for a new factory to make
plutonium "pits" for the next generation of nuclear weapons. The last
U.S. facility for manufacturing nuclear triggers closed in 1989.
President Bush recently signed into law a Defense bill for 2004 which
includes $9 billion in funding for research on the next generation of
nuclear weaponry.
"It's an important signal we're sending," President Bush remarked at the
signing of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004,
"because, you see, the war on terror is different than any war America
has ever fought."
"Our enemies seek to inflict mass casualties, without fielding mass
armies," he cautioned. "They hide in the shadows, and they're often hard
to strike. The terrorists are cunning and ruthless and dangerous, as the
world saw on September the 11th, 2001. Yet these killers are now facing
the United States of America, and a great coalition of responsible
nations, and this threat to civilization will be defeated."
This is a posture usually reserved for nation-states who initiate or
sponsor terrorists. The devastating neighboring effect of a potential
nuclear engagement would contaminate innocent millions with the
resulting radioactive fallout, and would not deter individuals with no
known base of operations.
Yet, this administration, for the first time in our nations history,
contemplates using nuclear weapons on countries which themselves have no
nuclear capability, or pose no nuclear threat.
In September 2000, the PNAC drafted a report entitled "Rebuilding
America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century."
The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill Kristol,
Bruce Jackson, Gary Schmitt, John Bolton and others. Bolton, now Under
Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, was
Senior Vice President of the conservative American Enterprise Institute.
The report called for: ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces
and budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile defense,"
and claimed that despite the "residue of investments first made in the
mid- and late 1980s, over the past decade, the pace of innovation within
the Pentagon had slowed measurably." Also that, "without the driving
challenge of the Soviet military threat, efforts at innovation had
lacked urgency."
The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision strikes will
certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S. military operations,
American forces must remain deployed abroad, in large numbers for
decades and that U.S. forces will continue to operate many, if not most,
of today's weapons systems for a decade or more." The PNAC document
encouraged the military to "develop and deploy global missile defenses
to defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide a
secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."
The paper claimed that, "Potential rivals such as China were anxious to
exploit these technologies broadly, while adversaries like Iran, Iraq
and North Korea were rushing to develop ballistic missiles and nuclear
weapons as a deterrent to American intervention in regions they sought
to dominate. Also that, information and other new technologies as well
as widespread technological and weapons proliferation were creating a
dynamic' that might threaten America's ability to exercise its
dominant' military power."
In reference to the nation's nuclear forces, the PNAC document asserted
that, " reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United States also must
counteract the effects of the proliferation of ballistic missiles and
weapons of mass destruction that may soon allow lesser states to deter
U.S. military action by threatening U.S. allies and the American
homeland itself."
"The (Clinton) administration's stewardship of the nation's deterrent
capability has been described by Congress as "erosion by design," the
group chided.
The authors further warned that, "U.S. nuclear force planning and
related arms control policies must take account of a larger set of
variables than in the past, including the growing number of small
nuclear arsenals from North Korea to Pakistan to, perhaps soon, Iran
and Iraq and a modernized and expanded Chinese nuclear force." In
addition, they counseled, "there may be a need to develop a new family
of nuclear weapons designed to address new sets of military
requirements, such as would be required in targeting the very deep
underground, hardened bunkers that are being built by many of our
potential adversaries."
The PNAC Rebuilding America' report was used after the Sept. 11th
terrorist attacks to draft the 2002 document entitled "The National
Security Strategy of the United States," which for the first time in the
nation's history advocated "preemptive" attacks to prevent the emergence
of opponents the administration considered a threat to its political and
economic interests.
It states that ". . . we will not hesitate to act alone, if necessary,
to exercise our right of self-defense by acting preemptively against
such terrorists, to prevent them from doing harm against our people and
our country." And that, "To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by
our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
This military industry band of executives promoted the view, in and
outside of the White House that, " must be prepared to stop rogue states
and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use
weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies and
friends. . . We must deter and defend against the threat before it is
unleashed."
Their strategy asserts that "The United States has long maintained the
option of preemptive actions to counter a sufficient threat to our
national security. The greater the threat, the greater is the risk of
inaction - and the more compelling the case for taking anticipatory
action to defend ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time
and place of the enemy's attack."
The 2002 PNAC document is a mirrored synopsis of the Bush
administration's foreign policy today. President Bush is projecting a
domineering image of the United States around the world which has
provoked lesser equipped countries to desperate, unconventional
defenses; or resigned them to a humiliating surrender to our rape of
their lands, their resources and their communities.
President Bush intends for there to be more conquest - like in Iraq - as
the United States exercises its military force around the world; our
mandate, our justification, presumably inherent in the mere possession
of our instruments of destruction.
We are unleashing a new, unnecessary fear between the nations of the
world as we dissolve decades of firm understandings about an America
power which was to be guileless in its unassailable defenses. The
falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our scramble for useable',
tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons systems, and our new
justifications for their use.
Our folly is evident in the rejection of our ambitions by even the
closest of our allies, as we reject all entreaties to moderate our
manufactured mandate to conquer. Isolation is enveloping our nation like
the warming of the atmosphere and the creeping melt of our planet's
ancient glaciers.
Who will stand up against this new generation of nuclear madness? If we
stand firm there is no limit to what we can achieve. If we refuse to
stand up against this administration's push for new nukes, if we are
indifferent, if we shrink away and accept their weak excuses and
justifications we will undo a generation of resistance and activism.
This is our chance to make a difference. This is our moment to rise up
against another mindless escalation into a new nuclear arms race. Are we
ready?
Authors Bio: Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the
author of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives
are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price
Original Article at
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_ron_full_060406_strange_how_this_gen.htm
The archives of South News can be found at
http://southmovement.alphalink.com.au/southnews/
*****************************************************************
12 IPS-English POLITICS: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Takes Flak, No
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:24:56 -0700
ROMAIPS AP DV IP NU=20
POLITICS: Indo-US Nuclear Deal Takes Flak, No Eject Option
Praful Bidwai=20
NEW DELHI, Apr 6 (IPS) - As the United States senate foreign relations c=
ommittee (SFRC) began hearing on Washington's controversial nuclear techn=
ology and supplies agreement with India, starting with the testimony of s=
ecretary of state Condoleezza Rice, the deal appeared to be in deep troub=
le.=20
A special legislation introduced in the U.S. congress to implement the de=
al by allowing India-specific waivers to U.S. non-proliferation laws has =
met with a frosty reception from key members of the SFRC and their counte=
rparts in the house of representatives international relations committee =
(HRIC).=20
If the deal fails to go through the congress, the emerging intimate India=
-U.S. relationship will be grievously affected. Indian policy-makers cons=
ider the nuclear agreement all-important. They view the larger India-U.S.=
bilateral relationship through the =91prism of this agreement' and have=
no soft fall options if the deal collapses.=20
On Wednesday, Rice warned at the televised congress hearings that if the =
deal fails to go through ''all the hostility and suspicion of the past wo=
uld be redoubled''. The reference was to decades of tensions between the=
two countries when India was on the opposite side of the Cold War.=20
In the U.S., opposition to the agreement, which permits India to keep and=
further build its nuclear weapons arsenal, and allows civilian nuclear t=
rade with it to be resumed, is becoming increasingly vocal. 'Highly place=
d' Indian diplomatic sources have been quoted as saying the passage of th=
e special waiver legislation through the U.S. congress will be 'very diff=
icult'. =20
This is a dramatic change from the situation just two weeks ago, when sup=
porters of the deal were extremely upbeat and expected it 'to sail throug=
h' the U.S. senate.
''Their optimism was high partly because the Indian government has engage=
d not one, but two, major public relations firms in Washington as lobbyis=
ts and because the India caucus in the U.S. congress, the largest country=
-specific group of legislators, is considered powerful,'' says K.P. Fabia=
n, a former Indian ambassador and senior diplomat. ''But now, it is clear=
that the road ahead will be thorny. If the deal doesn't go through quick=
ly, it may collapse altogether.''
Both the Manmohan Singh government and the Bush administration have launc=
hed a no-holds-barred effort to urge key congressmen to support the deal.=
=20
There have been signs of support from Democrats such as John Kerry of Mas=
schusetts and Joseph Biden of Delaware but unless there is clear bipartis=
an support, it is rare for a major controversial international agreement =
to pass through U.S. congress.=20
One reason for this is the coming mid-term election to the U.S. congress,=
which the Democrats hope to win. They are reluctant to hand an easy fore=
ign policy victory to President Bush in advance of the elections and thus=
lose a chance to reshape the deal under a future congress over which the=
y exercise greater control.=20
''A far more important reason would be the misgivings which many U.S. law=
makers have about the deal because of its implications for the U.S. posit=
ion on nuclear non-proliferation,'' holds Achin Vanaik, professor of inte=
rnational relations and global politics at Delhi University. ''Evidently,=
the Bush administration has not addressed these concerns adequately. It =
was in too much of a hurry to push the deal through.''=20
On Monday, 'The Washington Post' reported, quoting 20 senior U.S. and Ind=
ian officials as sources, that Bush and Rice did not consult the U.S. for=
eign-affairs bureaucracy, influential congressmen, White House staff or g=
overnment nuclear specialists. They unilaterally executed a major shift i=
n U.S. nuclear policy and relations with India through a 'big bang' appro=
ach rather than an 'incremental' one in recruiting India as a key ally ag=
ainst China.=20
In the process, they overruled their own nuclear specialists, who wanted =
the deal so designed that it would limit India's nuclear weapons potentia=
l and place all of its power reactors under international safeguards. Thi=
s unilateral decision-making produced resentments which are now finding e=
xpression in the U.S. domestic political discourse.=20
Indian policy-makers probably overestimated likely support for the deal o=
n Capitol Hill and drove a hard bargain. Both on Jul. 18 last year and Ma=
r. 2 this year, they managed to have their way in last-minute down-to-the=
-wire tough negotiations.=20
They insisted that India must have the same rights and privileges as the =
nuclear weapons-states (NWSs) recognised by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation=
Treaty (NPT), although it is not a signatory to it. And they succeeded i=
n keeping out 8 of India's 22 power reactors outside international safegu=
ards, in addition to exempting fast-breeder reactors and military-nuclear=
facilities too.=20
This led a senior U.S. official to say: ''the Indians were incredibly gre=
edy=E0 They were getting 99 percent of what they asked for and still they=
pushed for 100.''=20
These hardball tactics are now extracting a price. With major Indian faci=
lities exempted from safeguards, it is hard for Bush to claim that the de=
al is meant to restrain India while bringing it into the international nu=
clear mainstream.=20
The staunchly pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. may have further complicated m=
atters. Some of its members, like representative Tom Lantos, are threaten=
ing to reject the deal unless New Delhi radically revises its established=
positions on Iran, Palestine and the Non-Aligned Movement and demonstrat=
es complete loyalty to the U.S.=20
Complementing this lobby is the anti-Castro Cuban-American pressure-group=
, which would like India to disassociate itself from the Non-Aligned Move=
ment (NAM) whose next summit is to be held in Havana. India has been a p=
rominent leader of the NAM.=20
''Bush might still be able to overcome all opposition to the deal,'' says=
a former official of India's National Security Council, who insisted on =
anonymity. ''But this will involve closed-door discussions with key lawma=
kers, some inducements, especially to please their constituencies, and im=
mense diplomatic skill. It's not clear that Bush with his plummeting acce=
ptance ratings can muster all this.''=20
Thus, it seems likely that many lawmakers in both the 18-member SFRC and =
the 49-member HRIC will move amendments to the bills that the administrat=
ion has introduced in the two houses of the congress.=20
However, India's foreign secretary Shyam Saran, on a recent visit to the =
U.S., has made it clear that amendments will kill the deal.=20
The nuclear agreement is viewed with a good deal of suspicion by the Indi=
an public, which does not trust the U.S. Public pressure compelled Manmoh=
an Singh to disclose to the Indian parliament details of the deal on sepa=
rating India's civilian nuclear facilities from military ones.=20
''He will find it impossible to change the terms of the agreement without=
attracting serious criticism and charges of selling out to the U.S.,'' s=
ays Vanaik.=20
Even if the deal goes through congress, it is likely to face opposition l=
ater in the year from the 45-state Nuclear Suppliers' Group, especially f=
rom Japan, China, Germany, South Africa, Brazil and Argentina.=20
The Indian government has no fall-back strategy to cope with the deal's p=
ossible collapse. (END/IPS/AP/IP/NU/DV/PB/RDR/06)=20
=20
=3D 04060635 ORP005
NNNN
*****************************************************************
13 Las Vegas SUN: Bush Defends Surveillance Policy
Today: April 06, 2006 at 10:56:1 PDT
By NEDRA PICKLER ASSOCIATED PRESS
CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -
President Bush, told by a critic he should be ashamed of his
policies, defended the government's secret eavesdropping program
Thursday and said he would not apologize for listening in on the
phone and e-mail conversations of Americans talking to people
with suspected al-Qaida links.
A man who identified himself as Harry Taylor rose at a forum
here to tell Bush that he's never felt more ashamed of the
leadership of his country. He said Bush has asserted his right
to tap phone calls without a warrant, to arrest people and hold
them without charges and to revoke a woman's right to an
abortion, among other things.
He was booed by the audience, but Bush interrupted and urged the
audience to let Taylor finish.
"I feel like despite your rhetoric, that compassion and common
sense have been left far behind during your administraiton,"
Taylor said, standing in a balcony seat and looking down at Bush
on stage. "And I would hope from time to time that you have the
humility and grace to be ashamed of yourself."
Bush defended the National Security Administration's
survelliance program, saying he authorized the program to
protect the country.
"You said would I apologize for that?" Bush told him. "The
answer is absolutely not."
The challenge to the president came near the end of a lengthy
appearance before the World Affairs Council of Charlotte, where
he took questions from the audience. This has become a regular
feature of Bush's appearances as he tries to revive public
support for his leadership.
Despite a couple tough questions, the president got plenty of
softballs. One woman requested a picture with him and another
asked about how young people can get involved to help. One
questioner simply told the president people are praying for him
and another said he has a friend from Iraq who is grateful that
he has made the country safer.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the nonpartisan
World Affairs Council handed out the bulk of the 1,000 tickets
for the event, with the remaining 250 tickets handed out by the
host, Central Piedmont Community College.
Outside, Bush's motorcade came within site of at least a couple
hundred protesters outside the hall. They chanted, "Do your
job!" and held signs with phrases such as "Liar" and "Worst
President Ever."
Bush was also asked what he would have done differently in the
Iraq war. He talked about different tactics for police and
security training and for reconstruction and he expressed strong
regret about the abuse of inmates at Abu Ghraib prison.
"What took place there and the pictures there just represented
everything there that we didn't stand for, and it hurt us," Bush
said. "It gave the enemy a fantastic opportunity to use it for
propaganda reasons. ... I wish that can be done over. It was a
disgraceful experience."
In his opening comments, Bush said he realizes that Americans
are worried that Iraqis will not be able to take control of
their violence-torn country.
Bush said he hears the debate from those who "wonder if these
people can ever get their act together and self govern. I'm
confident they can if we don't lose our nerve."
Defending his decision to go to war in Iraq three years later,
Bush said it was important that he follow up his words with
action when Saddam Hussein refused to cooperate with the United
Nations.
"When America speaks, we ought to mean what we said," Bush told
the World Affairs Council of Charlotte. "I meant what we said
when we embraced that resolution that said `Disclose. Disarm. Or
face serious consequences.' Words mean something in this world
if you're trying to protect the American people."
---
On the Net:
http://www.whitehouse.gov
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
14 Las Vegas SUN: 'Mushroom cloud' comment signals need for better public
disclosure about bomb test
Editorial: Comment is a real bomb
Today: April 06, 2006 at 7:21:41 PDT
Despite a Pentagon official's poor choice of words - which
linked the upcoming above-ground detonation of a huge bomb at
the Nevada Test Site with "a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas" -
federal officials say Las Vegas Valley residents have nothing to
fear from the June test.
Still, James Tegnelia, director of the Pentagon's Defense Threat
Reduction Agency, created a lingering cloud of questions by
saying last week that the bomb test represents "the first time
in Nevada that you'll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since
we stopped testing nuclear weapons (in 1963)." This is not the
type of remark that sits well in a region where people were
repeatedly exposed to radioactive fallout from nuclear bomb
tests.
The bomb to be tested June 2 isn't nuclear. But it is awfully
big - 700 tons of a heavy ammonium-nitrate and fuel-oil mixture
that is expected to produce a blast equivalent to 593 tons of
TNT. Bigger blasts have been conducted at New Mexico's White
Sands Missile Range. But this is to be the largest open-air
chemical explosion ever conducted at the Test Site, 65 miles
northwest of Las Vegas.
Defense Department officials are looking for a bomb that can
effectively snuff underground targets, such as military
headquarters and weapons stockpiles. This particular bomb offers
a conventional alternative to the nuclear weapon that the Bush
administration proposed and that Congress rejected.
Tegnelia later said that local residents are not likely to see,
hear or feel anything. But this is a test, meaning that
officials don't know what, exactly, the effects will be. Without
Tegnelia's explosively thoughtless comment, the bomb might have
been detonated with little - if any - public scrutiny or
knowledge.
Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., is to meet with Tegnelia today to
discuss the test's objectives. But Nevadans deserve more than a
report to the state's senior senator. The government should
conduct public information meetings to address residents'
concerns.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
15 Las Vegas SUN: Papers: Cheney Aide Says Bush OK'd Leak
Today: April 06, 2006 at 11:56:0 PDT
By PETE YOST ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -
0406dv-libby-cia Vice President Dick Cheney's former top aide
told prosecutors President Bush authorized the leak of sensitive
intelligence information about Iraq, according to court papers
filed by prosecutors in the CIA leak case.
Before his indictment, I. Lewis Libby testified to the grand
jury investigating the CIA leak that Cheney told him to pass on
information and that it was Bush who authorized the disclosure,
the court papers say. According to the documents, the
authorization led to the July 8, 2003, conversation between
Libby and New York Times reporter Judith Miller.
There was no indication in the filing that either Bush or Cheney
authorized Libby to disclose Valerie Plame's CIA identity.
But the disclosure in documents filed Wednesday means that the
president and the vice president put Libby in play as a secret
provider of information to reporters about prewar intelligence
on Iraq.
Bush's political foes jumped on the revelation about Libby's
testimony.
"The fact that the president was willing to reveal classified
information for political gain and put interests of his
political party ahead of Americas security shows that he can no
longer be trusted to keep America safe," Democratic National
Committee Chairman Howard Dean said.
Libby's testimony also puts the president and the vice president
in the awkward position of authorizing leaks - a practice both
men have long said they abhor, so much so that the
administration has put in motion criminal investigations to hunt
down leakers.
The most recent instance is the administration's launching of a
probe into who disclosed to The New York Times the existence of
the warrantless domestic surveillance program authorized by Bush
shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks.
The authorization involving intelligence information came as the
Bush administration faced mounting criticism about its failure
to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the main reason the
president and his aides had given for going to war.
Libby's participation in a critical conversation with Miller on
July 8, 2003 "occurred only after the vice president advised
defendant that the president specifically had authorized
defendant to disclose certain information in the National
Intelligence Estimate," the papers by Special Counsel Patrick
Fitzgerald stated. The filing did not specify the "certain
information."
"Defendant testified that the circumstances of his conversation
with reporter Miller - getting approval from the president
through the vice president to discuss material that would be
classified but for that approval - were unique in his
recollection," the papers added.
Libby is asking for voluminous amounts of classified information
from the government in order to defend himself against five
counts of perjury, obstruction and lying to the FBI in the Plame
affair.
He is accused of making false statements about how he learned of
Plame's CIA employment and what he told reporters about it.
Her CIA status was publicly disclosed eight days after her
husband, former U.S. Ambassador Joseph Wilson, accused the Bush
administration of twisting prewar intelligence to exaggerate the
Iraqi threat from weapons of mass destruction.
In 2002, Wilson had been dispatched to Africa by the CIA to
check out intelligence that Iraq had an agreement to acquire
uranium yellowcake from Niger, and Wilson had concluded that
there was no such arrangement.
Libby says he needs extensive classified files from the
government to demonstrate that Plame's CIA connection was a
peripheral matter that he never focused on, and that the role of
Wilson's wife was a small piece in a building public controversy
over the failure to find WMD in Iraq.
Fitzgerald said in the new court filing that Libby's requests
for information go too far and the prosecutor cited Libby's own
statements to investigators in an attempt to limit the amount of
information the government must turn over to Cheney's former
chief of staff for his criminal defense.
According to Miller's grand jury testimony, Libby told her about
Plame's CIA status in the July 8, 2003 conversation that took
place shortly after the White House aide - according to the new
court filing - was authorized by Bush through Cheney to disclose
sensitive intelligence about Iraq and WMD contained in a
National Intelligence Estimate.
The court filing was first disclosed by The New York Sun.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
16 Salt Lake Tribune: Test blast in Nevada - A nuclear rehearsal
Article Last Updated: 04/06/2006 7:47 AM MDT
Pentagon apparently looks for an optimal size of a 'bunker
buster'
By Robert Gehrke The Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON - A powerful blast scheduled at the Nevada Test
Site in June is designed to help war planners figure out the
smallest nuclear weapon able to destroy underground targets. And
it has caused a concern that it signals a renewed push toward
tactical nuclear weapons.
The detonation, called Divine Strake, is intended to "develop
a planning tool to improve the warfighter's confidence in
selecting the smallest proper nuclear yield necessary to destroy
underground facilities while minimizing collateral damage,"
according to Defense Department budget documents.
Irene Smith, a spokeswoman for the Pentagon's Defense Threat
Reduction Agency, said the document doesn't imply that Divine
Strake "is a nuclear simulation." She said it will be used to
assess computer programs that predict ground shaking in a major
blast.
While it will not be a nuclear explosion - no nuclear or
radioactive material will be used - the Divine Strake blast will
be five times larger than the military's largest conventional
weapon, the Massive Ordinance Air Blast Bomb, or MOAB, nicknamed
the Mother of All Bombs. It will still be many times less
powerful than the smallest weapon in the U.S. nuclear stockpile.
"It seems like what they're doing is trying to use the
explosive power to shake the interior into pieces, rather than
sending an earth penetrator down to dig it up," said Hans
Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert with the Federation of
American Scientists. "What it apparently does is envision the
use of the nuke on the surface, and that is a very dirty
business, because it sucks up the material and throws it into
the atmosphere."
Divine Strake has some advocates concerned that the Bush
administration is using the test to pursue development of
low-yield, tactical nuclear weapons.
"We certainly have reason for concern," said Vanessa Pierce,
a project director with Health Environment Alliance of Utah. "I
think this test shows that the weapons designers are so obsessed
with creating new nuclear weapons like mini-nukes that they'll
do whatever it takes to get their fix."
"There really is a deep commitment on the part of this
administration to creating new types of nuclear weapons," Pierce
said.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid has expressed concern about
the mushroom cloud the test will produce, and asked Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld for a classified briefing on Divine
Strake. Reid is scheduled to meet with James Tegnelia of the
Defense Threat Reduction Agency this afternoon.
The June 2 test will entail piling 700 tons of ammonium
nitrate and fuel oil atop a buried limestone tunnel on the
Nevada Test Site, then detonating it to measure the damage that
would be done to the chambers.
The mixture that will be used is similar to the bomb that
Timothy McVeigh used to blow up the Alfred P. Murrah federal
building in Oklahoma City in 1995, only the Nevada bomb will use
280 times as much material.
Equipment inside and near the tunnel will monitor damage and
ground shaking from the blast. Dust from the mushroom cloud,
which could reach heights of 10,000 feet, will also be tracked.
J. Preston Truman, director of the group Downwinders, which
represents individuals sickened by radioactive fallout from Cold
War-era nuclear tests, scoffs at the Pentagon's suggestion that
it is not a nuclear simulation, arguing no military plane could
drop a 700-ton conventional bomb.
"It's for one thing and one thing only," he said. "It just
says they're still pursuing these stupid, insane weapons."
The nuclear tie-in to Divine Strake test was rooted out by
Kristensen and Andrew Lichterman, a nuclear weapons opponent and
blogger.
"It's not a step toward nuclear testing. It is nuclear
testing. It's just nuclear testing the way it's done today,"
since actual nuclear tests are banned by treaties, Kristensen
said.
Similar above-ground detonations, some many times larger,
have been conducted at White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico,
according to planning documents for Divine Strake, but none
since 1991.
The Defense Department's 2001 Nuclear Posture Review lays out
a new, broader role envisioned for nuclear weapons than the part
played during the Cold War.
"Non-nuclear strike capabilities may be particularly useful
to limit collateral damage and conflict escalation. Nuclear
weapons could be employed against targets able to withstand
non-nuclear attack, (for example, deep underground bunkers or
bio-weapon facilities)," the report says.
In addition, the Bush administration has pushed for funding
for a nuclear bunker buster, and money to enable the Nevada Test
Site to be able to test a weapon within two years if an order is
given.
It has also supported the repeal of a 1994 congressional ban
on the development of low-yield mini-nuclear weapons.
The ban was repealed by Congress in 2003, allowing research
of low-yield nuclear weapons, but requiring specific approval by
Congress before engineering or other work on mini-nukes can
begin.
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
17 OpEd News: Strange How This Generation Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb
April 6, 2006
The Bush regime today of their blueprint for rebuilding the U.S.
nuclear weapons complex and declared their intention to put the
cold-war facility back in the business of building bombs.
The nuclear hawks want the ability to produce 125 new nuclear
bombs a year by 2022. How did it come to this?
The Bush administration's nuclear program is a shell game with
their ambitions hidden within the Energy and Defense bills, most
under the guise of research. Their proposals originated in a
position paper which is referenced in the Energy Policy Act of
2003, entitled, "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in
the United States by 2010".
The nuclear industry, along with government supporters,
developed a roadmap for the realization of these goals. They
intend to portray nukes as a safe, clean alternative to CO2
based plants. The energy bill references the "Generation IV
Nuclear Energy Systems Program."
This is a determined, deliberate hard sell to get the nation
back in the nuclear game. The nuclear provisions in the Energy
bill are a tough read but they are designed to confuse.
The legislation designates INEEL, The Idaho Engineering and
Environmental Laboratories, as the lead facility for nuclear R.
This has been the nation's primary lab for all of the nuclear
madness since 1952. INEEL's primary function since the mid 70's
was the clean-up of their own toxic waste. This clean-up is
still going on. There is money allocated in this bill for that.
New plants are contemplated in the Energy and Defense
legislation which would utilize the new generation of recycled
nuclear fuels (MOX mixed-oxide, hydrogen based, depleted
uranium, etc.). These centers will almost certainly be formatted
to accommodate the next generation of nuclear weapons, such as,
mini tactical nukes and bunker- busters.
INEEL will undoubtably be at the center of this effort.
At the end of the decade support for nuclear energy was on the
decline because of waste and safety issues and disarmament.
Right before Bush II got in office, the industry, still fat from
clean-up money sought to bolster their flagging industry. (INEEL
gets 70% of their funding for waste disposal) Waste storage had
become so controversial that it had soured the public to the
idea of more nukes and more nuke plants. (Yucca Mountain,
storage sites in New Mexico, transportation, safety issues,
etc.).
So, they began promoting the view that the 'spent' nuclear fuel
from decommissioned weapons and nuclear power plants could be
broken down and reconstituted for weapons (depleted uranium) and
a new generation of nuclear plants which would accommodate
(recycle) and use the waste instead of immobilizing it in glass
and storing it.
The industry makes the dubious claim that the recycled waste
keeps it out of the hands of terrorists and makes proliferation
more difficult. It will more likely disperse the waste and
create more opportunity for abuse or mishap. But, they are
pressing on, perhaps emboldened by the lack of effective
opposition, or maybe it's just the last gasp of a fracturing
plutocracy as they rape the Treasury to benefit their military
industry benafactors.
I often wonder why there was no massive outcry from the public
as Bush packed the government with military industry cronies
from the start of his administration. I'm equally puzzled why we
seemed to shrug off the scrapping of a generation of nuclear
disarmament without so much as a blink as the Bush regime
continues to advance their plans for a new generation of nuclear
weaponry with new justifications for its use.
People of my generation, and the ones before mine fought a
valiant battle against nuclear weapons. Perhaps the desire grew
out of our childhood spent crouching under our school desks
every Wednesday or Friday as the air raid siren blared out its
nuclear drill. 'Duck and cover!' counseled Bert the animated
turtle in the '60's era filmstrip. I grew to fear and hate
communists and dread the inevitable nuclear attack.
The Japanese started campaigning against nuclear weapons in 1946
after the U.S. dropped the bomb on them. Citizens' groups in
Hiroshima started a mass movement after March 1954, when a U.S.
nuclear test dropped radiation on the crew of a Japanese fishing
boat, the Lucky Dragon, and citizens of Bikini. An petition was
drawn up and signed by 32 million people in the world's largest
anti-nuclear protest. In August 1955 the First World Conference
Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs met in Hiroshima. The Japan
Council Against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Gensuikyo) was
organized in Japan at the same time.
In the years that followed we saw the enactment of the Partial
Test Ban Treaty; the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaties (I and
II); the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty; the Strategic
Arms Reduction Treaties (I and II); and the Comprehensive Test
Ban Treaty.
These important restraints on the proliferation and spread of
nuclear weaponry did not occur in a vacuum. These restraints
were the result of direct action by communities and individuals
engaging in massive, worldwide campaigns of public protest, over
the strenuous objections of ruling parties and government
powers. Notable among the modern nuclear resistors in the United
States, included the Federation of American Scientists, the
Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy (SANE), Women Strike for
Peace, Physicians for Social Responsibility, and the Nuclear
Weapons Freeze Campaign.
In 1980 Randall Caroline Forsberg, Executive Director of the
Institute for Defense and Disarmament Studies, wrote the "Call
to Halt the Nuclear Arms Race which launched the national
Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign. In 1989 Forsberg briefed BushI
and his Cabinet officials on US-Soviet arms control issues. In
1995 she was appointed by President Clinton to the Advisory
Committee of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. In
March 1981, representatives from over 30 states met at
Georgetown University in a campaign for a comprehensive nuclear
freeze between the U.S. and Soviet Union.
Although Reagan deployed nuclear missiles to Western Europe
during his term, in October 1983, he proposed eliminating all
nuclear weapons in a speech in January 1984. Earlier, in April
1982, obviously affected by the Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign,
he had pronounced that "a nuclear war cannot be won and must
never be fought. And, he also improbably declared, "To those who
protest against nuclear war, I can only say: 'I'm with you!'"
Gorbachev subsequently initiated a unilateral Soviet nuclear
testing moratorium and decided against building a Star Wars
anti-missile system. Reagan refused to abandon the U.S. version
of Star Wars, but the disarmament die had been cast. Gorbachev
put the U.S. on the defensive by exercising what was termed the
'zero option', agreeing to remove all nuclear missiles from
Europe.
In late 1984, twenty-two people got themselves arrested as they
blocked the entrance to the Great Lakes Naval Training Center in
Wake Forest, Illinois to protest U.S. warships in Central
America and to protest the Navy’s part in spreading weapons and
ammunition to the countries in the region. Sixteen went to
trial, charges against eight were dropped and a ninth was
dismissed. Seven protesters stood trial in the People v. Jarka
No. 002170 in the Circuit Court of Lake County, Waukegan,
Illinois.
After a one-week trial defendants were found “not guilty” by the
jury. The judge in the case, Alphonse F. Witt, gave the
following instruction to the jury regarding international law:
— International law is binding on the United States and on the
State of Illinois.
— The use or threat of use of nuclear weapons is a war crime or
an attempted war crime because such use would violate
international law by causing unnecessary suffering, failure to
distinguish between combatants and noncombatants, and poisoning
targets by radiation.
(Source: Robert Aldridge and Virginia Stark, “Nuclear War,
Citizen Intervention, and the Necessity Defense,” Santa Clara
Law Review 26, no. 2 : 324—325.)
The Jarka trial served as the basis for the defense of
subsequent actions and protests against the Reagan
administration's escalating militarism, mindless military
buildup, and meddling military interventions abroad.
In the years that followed the anti-nuclear activism, New
Zealand banned nuclear warships from their ports, Australia
banned the testing of MX missiles, India halted work on nuclear
weapons, and called for nuclear disarmament, the Philippines
voted for a no nuke constitution and closed down U.S. military
bases harboring nuclear weapons. South Africa abandoned an
infant nuclear weapons program. BushI was intimidated into
unilaterally withdrawing short-range missiles from Western
Europe.
Later there were the influential protests at the Nevada Test
Site which fostered a Nevada-based, Semipalatinsk nuclear
disarmament movement in the Soviet Union which led to the
closure of the Soviet nuclear test sites.
In 1992 underground nuclear testing was halted for nine months,
and stringent restrictions were enacted on further U.S. testing,
and test ban negotiations and an end to U.S. testing by late
1996 were initiated.
The Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) was achieved, despite
resistance from Democrats including candidate Clinton during his
presidential campaign. In spite of the resistance, anti-nuclear
Congressmen and women organized a test ban and the Clinton
administration extended the U.S. nuclear testing moratorium,
encouraging a worldwide treaty. In September 1996, the
Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty was signed by several nuclear and
non-nuclear countries.
That was then . . .
Now, we have been made to endure the mindless idiocy of BushII.
For the first time since the U.S. banned the production of
nuclear weapons in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty; signed
by the U.S. and Russia in 1968, entered into force in 1970; and
since the moratorium on nuclear testing, which has been in place
since 1992, the nuclear arms race has been restarted by the Bush
administration, aided in part by an underground Pentagon
campaign.
Gen. Lee Butler, of the Strategic Air Command, along with former
Air Force Secretary Thomas Reed, and Col. Michael Wheeler, made
a report in 1991 which recommended the targeting of our nuclear
weaponry at "every reasonable adversary around the globe." The
report warned of nuclear weapons states which are likely to
emerge." They were aided in their pursuit by, John Deutch,
President Clinton's choice for Defense Secretary; Fred Iklé,
former Deputy Defense Secretary, associated with Jonathan
Pollard; future CIA Director R. James Woolsey; and Condoleezza
Rice, who was on the National Security Council Staff, 1989-1991.
The new nuke report recommended that U.S. nuclear weapons be
re-targeted, where U.S. forces faced conventional "impending
annihilation ... at remote places around the globe," according
to William M. Arkin and Robert S. Norris, in their criticism of
the report in the April 1992 issue of the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists ("Tiny Nukes").
At the same time, two Los Alamos (Lockheed) nuclear weapons
scientists, Thomas Dowler and Joseph Howard, published an
article in 1991 in the Strategic Review, titled "Countering the
Threat of the Well-Armed Tyrant: A Modest Proposal for Smaller
Nuclear Weapons." They argued that, "The existing U.S. nuclear
arsenal had no deterrent effect on Saddam and is unlikely to
deter a future tyrant."
They advocated for "the development of new nuclear weapons of
very low yields, with destructive power proportional to the
risks we will face in the new world environment," and they
specifically called for the development and deployment of
"micro-nukes" (with explosive yield of 10 tons), "mini-nukes"
(100 tons), and "tiny-nukes" (1 kiloton).
Their justification for the smaller nuclear weapons was their
contention that no President would authorize the use of the
nuclear weapons in our present arsenal against Third World
nations. "It is precisely this doubt that leads us to argue for
the development of sub-kiloton weapons," they wrote.
In a White House document created in April 2000, "The United
States of America Meeting its Commitment to Article VI of the
Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons," the
administration stated that, "as the United States reduces the
numbers of its nuclear weapons, it is also transforming the
means to build them."
Over the past decade, the United States has dramatically changed
the role and mission of its nuclear-weapon complex from weapon
research, development, testing, and production to weapon
dismantlement, conversion for commercial use, and stockpile
stewardship.
That was his father's nuclear program. George II wants bombs.
"The Bush administration has directed the military to prepare
contingency plans to use nuclear weapons against at least seven
countries, and to build new, smaller nuclear weapons for use in
certain battlefield situations," according to a Pentagon report
uncovered by the Los Angeles Times.
The report, which was provided to Congress on Jan. 8, 2003 says
the Pentagon needs to be prepared to use nuclear weapons against
China, Russia, Iraq, North Korea, Syria, Iran and Libya.
It says the weapons could be used in three types of situations:
against targets able to withstand non-nuclear attack, in
retaliation for attack with nuclear biological or chemical
weapons, or in the event of ‘surprising military developments.'
The new report, signed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld,
is being used by the U.S. Strategic Command in the preparation
of a nuclear war plan.
As reported by the World Policy Institute, the National
Institute for Public Policy's, January 2001 report on the
"rationale and requirements" for U.S. nuclear forces, was used
as the model for the Bush administration's Nuclear Posture
Review, which advocated an expansion of the U.S. nuclear "hit
list" and the development of a new generation of "usable,"
lower-yield nuclear weapons.
Three members of the study group that produced the NIPP report -
National Security Council members Stephen Hadley, Robert Joseph
(undersecretary of Defense), and Stephen Cambone (Pentagon
Intelligence director) - are now directly involved in
implementing the Bush nuclear policy. Stephen Hadley, who
replaced Rice as National Security Advisor, co-wrote a National
institute for Public Policy paper portraying a nuclear
bunker-buster bomb as an ideal weapon against the nuclear,
chemical or biological weapons stockpiles of rouge nations such
as Iraq. "Under certain circumstances," the report said, "very
severe nuclear threats may be needed to deter any of these
potential adversaries."
Reuters reported on the Bush administration plans to promote and
push for the expansion of the nation's nuclear arsenal with the
unveiling of an initiative produced by the ‘Defense Science
Board'. The supporting document, named the “Future Strategic
Strike Force”, outlines a reconfigured nuclear arsenal made up
of smaller-scale missiles which could be targeted at smaller
countries and other lower-scale targets. The report is a retreat
from decades of understanding that these destructive weapons
were to be used as a deterrent only; as a last resort.
In September 2004 the Senate went along with a White House push
to reduce the preparation time required for nuclear testing in
Nevada; clearing the way for a resumption of nuclear test
explosions which have been banned since 1992. It seeks to cut
the time it would take to restart testing nuclear weapons in the
Nevada desert from three years to two years. The Bush
administration wants the period cut to 18 months.
Congress plans to build the first permanent U.S. nuclear waste
repository in the desert northwest of Las Vegas, scheduled to
open in 2010 and would hold up to 77,000 tons of radioactive
waste.
The Energy bill that has emerged from the recent Congress would
provide $580 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste
disposal project in 2004 — around $11 million less than Bush had
requested but far above a $425 million limit earlier endorsed by
the Senate.
The bill would also provide $11 million for a new factory to
make plutonium "pits" for the next generation of nuclear
weapons. The last U.S. facility for manufacturing nuclear
triggers closed in 1989.
Citing "classified analyses" the DOE claims it needs to have a
new pit facility capable of producing 125-500 pits per year. The
DOE's Notice of Intent for the MPF also states that one of the
functions for the facility will be to have the ability to
produce new design pits for new types of nuclear weapons.
Most modern nuclear weapons depend on a plutonium pit as the
"primary" that begins the chain reaction resulting in a
thermonuclear explosion. A pit is a critical component of a
nuclear weapon and functions as a trigger to allow a modern
nuclear weapon to operate properly.
The Department of Energy announced on September 23, 2002, its
intent to begin an examination of several possible sites for a
Modern Pit Facility to produce plutonium pits for new and
refurbished nuclear weapons.
The United States is the only nuclear power without the
capability to manufacture a plutonium pit. About three-fourths
of the U.S. surplus plutonium is relatively pure in the form of
so-called pits, which have been removed (and deactivated) from
existing warheads.
The remaining fourth of the surplus was in the process pipeline,
mostly as plutonium residues, when processing was suddenly
discontinued. The Soviet government processed all of its
material to completion, so now all of the Russian surplus is in
the form of pits or its weapon-form equivalent.
The Foster Panel Report, also known as the FY2000 Report to
Congress of the Panel to Assess the Reliability, Safety, and
Security of the United States Nuclear Stockpile, found that it
could take 15 years from the point of developing a conceptual
design for a pit facility until the final construction of the
facility is completed.
The report stated that, "If it is determined through the
science-based Stockpile Stewardship Program that one or more of
our existing pit designs is no longer reliable, and therefore is
not certifiable, our nuclear stockpile would, in effect, be
unilaterally downsized below a level which could maintain a
strong nuclear deterrence."
That is the hook which supporters of an expanded nuclear program
will use to justify an abrogation of the treaty ban, and begin
their new-generation arms race. If they don't get their way - to
fiddle with and refurbish the existing nukes - they will argue
that deterrence is at risk; a preposterous notion, as our
existing arsenal is more than enough to blow us all to Pluto.
If new money is released, the nuclear weapons laboratories are
expected to refurbish the casings on the existing nuclear B-61
and B-83 warheads, according to Energy Department nuclear czar
and former UK Lockheed executive, Everett Beckner, in testimony
before a Senate committee. Beckner claimed that both weapons
have yields "substantially higher than five kilotons," so he has
determined that the study will not violate a 1994 U.S. law
prohibiting research on "low-yield" nuclear weapons.
A version of the B-61, modified to strike hardened and deeply
buried targets, was added to the U.S. stockpile without nuclear
testing in 1997. There is a serious question about the
effectiveness of such a weapon on underground bunkers, and there
is a concern that the neighboring effect of the radiation cloud
would be devastating.
A nuclear strike on North Korea, for example, could generate
deadly radioactive fallout, poisoning nearby countries such as
Japan or Australia. Most observers do not believe that the new
weapons can be developed without abandoning the
non-proliferation treaty and sparking a new and frightening
worldwide nuclear arms race.
The nuclear hawks are stepping out from behind their Trojan
Horses of nuclear space travel and ‘safe', new nuclear fuels and
are revealing a frightening ambition to yoke the nation to a new
legacy of imperialism. President Bush has decided that America's
image around the globe is to be one of an oppressive nuclear
bully bent on world domination.
Mohamed El Baradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy
Agency (the man at the UN charged with managing U.S. demands
against Iran's uranium enrichment) said in 2003 that developing
new nuclear weapons could hamper efforts to reach agreement with
other countries who might want to expand their nuclear programs;
like Iran and Pakistan, for example.
In September 2004 the Senate went along with a White House push
to reduce the preparation time required for nuclear testing in
Nevada; clearing the way for a resumption of nuclear test
explosions which have been banned since 1992. It seeks to cut
the time it would take to restart testing nuclear weapons in the
Nevada desert from three years to two years. The Bush
administration wants the period cut to 18 months.
Congress plans to build the first permanent U.S. nuclear waste
repository in the desert northwest of Las Vegas, scheduled to
open in 2010 and would hold up to 77,000 tons of radioactive
waste.
The Energy bill that has emerged from Congress would provide
$580 million for the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste disposal
project in 2004 — around $11 million less than Bush had
requested but far above a $425 million limit earlier endorsed by
the Senate.
The bill would also provide $11 million for a new factory to
make plutonium "pits" for the next generation of nuclear
weapons. The last U.S. facility for manufacturing nuclear
triggers closed in 1989.
President Bush recently signed into law a Defense bill for 2004
which includes $9 billion in funding for research on the next
generation of nuclear weaponry.
"It's an important signal we're sending," President Bush
remarked at the signing of the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2004, "because, you see, the war on terror
is different than any war America has ever fought."
"Our enemies seek to inflict mass casualties, without fielding
mass armies," he cautioned. "They hide in the shadows, and
they're often hard to strike. The terrorists are cunning and
ruthless and dangerous, as the world saw on September the 11th,
2001. Yet these killers are now facing the United States of
America, and a great coalition of responsible nations, and this
threat to civilization will be defeated."
This is a posture usually reserved for nation-states who
initiate or sponsor terrorists. The devastating neighboring
effect of a potential nuclear engagement would contaminate
innocent millions with the resulting radioactive fallout, and
would not deter individuals with no known base of operations.
Yet, this administration, for the first time in our nation’s
history, contemplates using nuclear weapons on countries which
themselves have no nuclear capability, or pose no nuclear threat.
In September 2000, the PNAC drafted a report entitled
"Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources
for a New Century."
The conservative foundation- funded report was authored by Bill
Kristol, Bruce Jackson, Gary Schmitt, John Bolton and others.
Bolton, now Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and
International Security, was Senior Vice President of the
conservative American Enterprise Institute. The report called
for: ". . . significant, separate allocation of forces and
budgetary resources over the next two decades for missile
defense," and claimed that despite the "residue of investments
first made in the mid- and late 1980s, over the past decade, the
pace of innovation within the Pentagon had slowed measurably."
Also that, "without the driving challenge of the Soviet military
threat, efforts at innovation had lacked urgency."
The PNAC report asserted that "while long-range precision
strikes will certainly play an increasingly large role in U.S.
military operations, American forces must remain deployed
abroad, in large numbers for decades and that U.S. forces will
continue to operate many, if not most, of today's weapons
systems for a decade or more." The PNAC document encouraged the
military to "develop and deploy global missile defenses to
defend the American homeland and American allies, and to provide
a secure basis for U.S. power projection around the world."
The paper claimed that, "Potential rivals such as China were
anxious to exploit these technologies broadly, while adversaries
like Iran, Iraq and North Korea were rushing to develop
ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons as a deterrent to
American intervention in regions they sought to dominate. Also
that, information and other new technologies – as well as
widespread technological and weapons proliferation – were
creating a ‘dynamic' that might threaten America's ability to
exercise its ‘dominant' military power."
In reference to the nation's nuclear forces, the PNAC document
asserted that, " reconfiguring its nuclear force, the United
States also must counteract the effects of the proliferation of
ballistic missiles and weapons of mass destruction that may soon
allow lesser states to deter U.S. military action by threatening
U.S. allies and the American homeland itself."
"The (Clinton) administration's stewardship of the nation's
deterrent capability has been described by Congress as "erosion
by design," the group chided.
The authors further warned that, "U.S. nuclear force planning
and related arms control policies must take account of a larger
set of variables than in the past, including the growing number
of small nuclear arsenals –from North Korea to Pakistan to,
perhaps soon, Iran and Iraq – and a modernized and expanded
Chinese nuclear force." In addition, they counseled, "there may
be a need to develop a new family of nuclear weapons designed to
address new sets of military requirements, such as would be
required in targeting the very deep underground, hardened
bunkers that are being built by many of our potential
adversaries."
The PNAC ‘Rebuilding America' report was used after the Sept.
11th terrorist attacks to draft the 2002 document entitled "The
National Security Strategy of the United States," which for the
first time in the nation's history advocated "preemptive"
attacks to prevent the emergence of opponents the administration
considered a threat to its political and economic interests.
It states that ". . . we will not hesitate to act alone, if
necessary, to exercise our right of self-defense by acting
preemptively against such terrorists, to prevent them from doing
harm against our people and our country." And that, "To
forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the
United States will, if necessary, act preemptively."
This military industry band of executives promoted the view, in
and outside of the White House that, " must be prepared to stop
rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to
threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United
States and our allies and friends. . . We must deter and defend
against the threat before it is unleashed."
Their strategy asserts that "The United States has long
maintained the option of preemptive actions to counter a
sufficient threat to our national security. The greater the
threat, the greater is the risk of inaction - and the more
compelling the case for taking anticipatory action to defend
ourselves, even if uncertainty remains as to the time and place
of the enemy's attack."
The 2002 PNAC document is a mirrored synopsis of the Bush
administration's foreign policy today. President Bush is
projecting a domineering image of the United States around the
world which has provoked lesser equipped countries to desperate,
unconventional defenses; or resigned them to a humiliating
surrender to our rape of their lands, their resources and their
communities.
President Bush intends for there to be more conquest - like in
Iraq - as the United States exercises its military force around
the world; our mandate, our justification, presumably inherent
in the mere possession of our instruments of destruction.
We are unleashing a new, unnecessary fear between the nations of
the world as we dissolve decades of firm understandings about an
America power which was to be guileless in its unassailable
defenses. The falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our
scramble for ‘useable', tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons
systems, and our new justifications for their use.
Our folly is evident in the rejection of our ambitions by even
the closest of our allies, as we reject all entreaties to
moderate our manufactured mandate to conquer. Isolation is
enveloping our nation like the warming of the atmosphere and the
creeping melt of our planet's ancient glaciers.
Who will stand up against this new generation of nuclear
madness? If we stand firm there is no limit to what we can
achieve. If we refuse to stand up against this administration's
push for new nukes, if we are indifferent, if we shrink away and
accept their weak excuses and justifications we will undo a
generation of resistance and activism.
This is our chance to make a difference. This is our moment to
rise up against another mindless escalation into a new nuclear
arms race. Are we ready?
Ron Fullwood, is an activist from Columbia, Md. and the author
of the book 'Power of Mischief' : Military Industry Executives
are Making Bush Policy and the Country is Paying the Price
Copyright © OpEdNews, 2002-2006
*****************************************************************
18 AFP: US to push for South Asian moratorium on nuclear weapons - Rice -
Thu Apr 6, 2:17 AM ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice " /> said
the United States would push for a South Asian moratorium on
nuclear weapons production to ease tensions between India and
Pakistan.
"We would like to see, obviously, in the regional sense in the
relationship between India and Pakistan and others, a look at
regional moratorium on fissile material production," Rice told a
congressional hearing on a landmark US-India civilian nuclear
deal.
"We've made it very clear that we would encourage that; that we
would encourage India and Pakistan to look at their nuclear
relationship and the way that in some of the earlier days people
were concerned about safety and security between the US and
Soviet arsenals," she said.
Fissile materials are plutonium or highly enriched uranium,
which fuel nuclear explosions.
Rice was replying to Democratic Senator John Kerry
" /> on whether the United States could offer "real leadership"
in trying to bring together the nuclear-armed neighbors, neither
of which are signatories to the nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty
(NPT).
Kerry, the failed Democratic candidate in the last presidential
election, said that it was hard to understand why India and
Pakistan would need to continue to build nuclear weapons at
levels beyond an adequate deterrent between each other and
China, an NPT signatory.
Kerry said he had raised this with Pakistani President Pervez
Musharraf, and "there seemed to be a genuine spark of interest
in the notion of trying to arrive at some agreement regionally
on the numbers of nuclear weapons."
Rice said the United States was unable to get a commitment on
nuclear controls from the South Asian nations.
"Well, what we couldn't achieve -- and I think it was unlikely
-- was a constraint unilaterally by any one state," she said.
"But the idea that has been pursued in some second-track
arrangements, some second-track of discussions between the
parties about not just absolute levels but also safety and
security and confidence-building measures, I think is something
we're very interested in and we'd like to pursue," she said.
US relations with India and Pakistan were improving rapidly
"that might make it worthwhile," she added. "I can't say that
it's going to have an immediate payoff. These things are hard."
On the question of Washington seeking an arms control pact with
India as part of the bilateral civilian nuclear deal, Rice said
it was impossible to get such an understanding without including
China and Pakistan.
"Therefore trying to use American leverage to get India to make
this unilateral move is an idea that is certain to fail. It is a
poison pill to kill any possibility for change," she said.
Under the civilian nuclear deal, energy-starved India would gain
access to long-denied civilian atomic technology in return for
placing a majority of its nuclear reactors under international
inspection.
India conducted nuclear weapons tests in May 1998 and Pakistan
in a tit-for-tat response detonated its own devices a few days
later.
The rivals have fought three wars, two of them over the
Himalayan region of Kashmir
" /> .
After averting another war in 2002, they began talks to resolve
their disputes, including Kashmir, in January 2004.
The two exchange lists of their nuclear facilities annually in
line with a 1988 accord under which they agreed to refrain from
attacking each other's nuclear facilities in the event of a war.
Copyright © 2006 Agence France Presse. All rights reserved. The
*****************************************************************
19 Rediff: 'India giving up more, gaining less from N-deal'
Onkar Singh in New Delhi | April 06, 2006 13:43 IST
Former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee has said that his
fears about the Indo-US nuclear deal have come true with the US
government arming itself with new laws to force India to give
more concessions.
Complete Coverage:
In a statement released to media persons in New Delhi on
Thursday, Vajpayee said, "In July last year, I had expressed my
reservations about the Indo-US nuclear deal. Many of my fears
have unfortunately come true, as the negotiations on this deal
have progressed. It is crystal clear that in every round of
negotiations with the US, India has ended up giving more and
more concessions."
He referred in particular to the latest draft of the
Waiver–Authority Bill introduced in the US Congress. "According
to this Bill, a waiver will be granted by the President when
India meets the seven conditions, which have been mentioned in
the Bill. The course of action of the government of India, in
future, will thus be determined not by laws passed by the
Parliament of India or by international covenants to which we
are party, but by the law framed by the US Congress," the former
prime minister said.
He expressed the shock over a particular clause, which says that
if the US government determines that India exploded a nuclear
device, the US president would be empowered to terminate waivers.
"The obligations under this Bill are far more stringent than
those under the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. The CTBT cannot
come into force until forty odd countries, including, the US,
China and Pakistan, adhere to it. The Bill, when passed, will
convert a voluntary moratorium on further tests by India into a
legally binding commitment, for all times to come, without any
possibility of withdrawal under special circumstances, as
provided for in the CTBT. This position is not acceptable," he
pointed out.
"In case of China, the US government amended the waiver for
perpetuity but in case of India it would be reviewed from time
to time. It is left to the US President to decide whether India
is adhering to its commitments or not. This is not acceptable to
us," he said.
"The least the government of India should do is to insist that
there should be an all-time waiver by the US President as in the
case of China. Further, India should retain the right to conduct
nuclear tests if any other country, such as China or Pakistan,
were to do so," Vajpayee said.
Copyright © 2006 Rediff.com India Limited. All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
20 Guardian Unlimited: Lawmakers Say They Support India Nuke Plan
From the Associated Press
[UP]
Thursday April 6, 2006 11:16 AM
AP Photo WX122
By FOSTER KLUG
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appears to
have won crucial congressional support on a landmark U.S. plan
to share civilian nuclear technology with India, although some
lawmakers still worry that the deal undermines efforts to stop
the spread of nuclear weapons.
Rice spent much of Wednesday at back-to-back congressional
hearings, working to convince often skeptical lawmakers that the
pact would help sate the massive energy needs of a country,
India, that she said always has managed its nuclear technologies
responsibly.
Her marathon performance attests to the importance the Bush
administration places on a deal it promotes as the cornerstone
of a new strategic relationship after decades of occasional
hostility between India and the United States.
Rice won praise from members of both parties for her testimony.
Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., told her, ``Regardless of one's
position on this initiative, the impression you've left is a
positive one, uniformly.''
For the deal to become a reality, Congress must exempt India
from U.S. laws that restrict trade with countries that have not
submitted to full nuclear inspections. New Delhi has refused to
sign the international Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and
critics fear Bush's plan would give outlaw countries an excuse
to build nuclear weapons programs using imported civilian
nuclear technology.
During Wednesday's hearings, senior Democrats, including Rep.
Tom Lantos of California and Sens. Joseph Biden of Delaware and
John Kerry of Massachusetts, signaled they were inclined to vote
for the agreement.
``It comes down to a simple bet we're making,'' Biden said.
``It's a bet that India appreciates, as much as we do, that the
two nations have the potential to be the anchors for stability
and security in the world going into the 21st century.''
Lantos said, ``If we fail to seize this opportunity, the door
will slam shut and undo much of the good work'' the United
States has done to improve relations with India.
Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., a longtime nonproliferation
advocate, praised the plan for allowing more inspections by the
U.N. nuclear watchdog agency. He also noted, however, that ``it
would not prevent India from expanding its nuclear arsenal.''
Several lawmakers expressed strong misgivings. Sen. Russ
Feingold, D-Wis., said, ``I fear that this deal could end up
making our world less safe rather than more safe.''
Others questioned whether the deal could lead to other
nuclear-armed countries making their own exceptions to
international nonproliferation agreements: China, for instance,
making an exception for Pakistan, or Russia making an exception
for Iran.
``You've really opened up a Pandora's box in terms of pressure
on others to act in similar ways'' as the United States, said
Rep. Jim Leach, R-Iowa.
Considered a major U.S. policy shift, the plan calls for the
United States to share nuclear technology and fuel with India to
help power its rapidly growing economy. India, for its part,
agreed to allow U.N. inspections of its civilian nuclear
reactors. India's nuclear weapons facilities would be off
limits.
Critics say the plan could weaken decades of nonprolifere to
India under this initiative will enhance its military capacity
or add to its military stockpile,'' she said.
In both the House and the Senate, lawmakers questioned India's
relationship with Iran. ``Iran is the most troubling aspect of
this deal,'' said Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, R-Fla.
In a tense exchange with Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., on port
calls that Iranian vessels have made on India, Rice acknowledged
that India has some ``low-level military-to-military contacts
with Iran.''
But, Rice said, ``The United States has made very clear to India
that we have concerns about their relationship with Iran.''
``I just think your words are a bit hollow,'' Boxer responded.
``This deal has to have more checks and balances.''
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006
*****************************************************************
21 [NukeNet] Mayor's meeting - oyster creek
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:32:16 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Coalition for Peace and Justice; UNPLUG Salem Campaign, 321 Barr Ave,
Linwood; NJ08221; 609-601-8583
-----Original Message-----
From: Janet Tauro [mailto:JTauro@comcast.net]
@cs.com; Kelly.McNicholas@SierraClub.org
Subject: Mayor's meeting
This ran in the Asbury Park Press today as an op-ed.
Mayors should pose tough questions about Oyster Creek plant
Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 04/6/06
BY JANET TAURO
National intelligence warnings that the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating
Station in Lacey is a terrorist risk are ongoing, according to an appeal
filed last week by the state Attorney General on behalf of the Department of
Environmental Protection.
Also included in the document is the DEP's assessment that AmerGen, which
operates Oyster Creek, used "incorrect" data that gave it an advantage when
calculating whether the reactor's metal components can withstand another 20
years of wear and tear. The DEP's appeal was filed with the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission and is public record.
These are facts the Ocean County mayors should have at their fingertips if
they attend a breakfast co-hosted by AmerGen and the mayor of Lacey at the
Oyster Creek Emergency Command Center in Dover Township Friday.
Mayors will be briefed by AmerGen's technical staff. Representatives from
the DEP and a coalition of citizen activists and environmental groups will
not be allowed to attend. For this reason, it is essential that the mayors
educate themselves on the DEP's contentions before the meeting, and keep in
mind that the agency's entry into the relicensing process is
precedent-setting and done from a standpoint of public safety.
The mayors should also arm themselves with a report prepared for the
coalition by the internationally known corrosion expert, Rudolf Hausler. In
that report, Hausler strongly warns about corrosion combined with other
factors around the reactor that could soon lead to a serious accident. The
only way to assess this risk is through ultrasonic testing. The Ocean County
mayors should demand immediate action.
In its appeal, the DEP uses compelling language to set forth its case that
the terror threat must be part of the NRC's relicensing review because of
ongoing national intelligence warnings that Oyster Creek is at risk. The
appeal states, "Oyster Creek is the most centrally located seaboard nuclear
facility in the densely populated corridor formed from Washington to Boston,
which makes it a prime target." For this reason, the Coast Guard remains on
patrol and on alert around Oyster Creek.
State officials also wrote that a "terrorist attack on a nuclear power plant
is reasonably foreseeable and must be considered within licensing
regulations." State officials also cited a National Academy of Sciences
report to Congress that stated an attack on a facility such as Oyster Creek
and the resultant fire could lead to long-term radiation consequences "worse
than those from the Chernobyl accident (in Ukraine)."
State officials also say AmerGen used "incorrect" measurements that
bolstered its claim that the reactor's metal components could withstand
another 20 years of stress. The appeal states Amergen used "an incorrect"
Cumulative Use Factor of 1.0 rather than 0.8 that reduced the minimum safety
standard by 25 percent.
There has been much lively public debate over relicensing, as well as a
thoroughly researched and reported series in the Asbury Park Press. AmerGen
has sent letters to public officials casting the series as misleading and
characterizing opponents as alarmists.
Our coalition does not have the resources to erect billboards, take out
full-page ads in national magazines and newspapers, or treat public
officials to breakfast. We do, however, have the resources to make sure our
leaders are given the information they need to make informed decisions.
This week, each Ocean County mayor will receive a copy of the DEP's appeal
and a copy of Hausler's chilling report. We suggest each mayor read these
documents before taking their first sip of coffee at Friday's nuclear
breakfast.
Janet Tauro, Brick, is a member of GRAMMES (Grandmothers, Mothers, and More
for Energy Safety).
E-mail article Print article Subscribe Get e-mail alerts
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
22 [NukeNet] Chernobyl Fallout Caused Trans-generational Disease
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:35:59 -0700
NukeNet Anti-Nuclear Network (nukenet@energyjustice.net)
Chernobyl Fallout Caused Transgenerational Disease
European Radiation Research 2004, August 25-28,
Budapest, Hungary
http://www.osski.hu/err2004
MUTATION PROCESS IN CHRONICALLY IRRADIATED BANK VOLE
POPULATIONS INDICATES THE TRANSGENERATIONAL GENOMIC
INSTABILITY INDUCED BY CHERNOBYL FALLOUT
R. I. Goncharova, N. I. Ryabokon
Institute of Genetics and Cytology, National Academy
of Sciences of Belarus Akademichnaya st, 27. Minsk
220072, Republic of Belarus;
e-mail: R.Goncharova@igc.bas-net.by
The objective of this investigation is analysis of mutagenesis dynamics in
bank vole populations chronically exposed to low doses of ionizing
radiation in connection with the absorbed dose dynamics and the number of
affected generations over 1986п1996.
Frequencies of different end-points (chromosome aberrations in bone marrow
cells and embryonic mortality) as well as the doserate and absorbed doses
of external and internal irradiation from caesium isotopes were determined
for four populations inhabiting the sites with different ground deposition
of 137Cs (8пâ•1526 kBq/m2).
It has been first revealed that the main feature of mutagenesis dynamics in
populations of mammals chronically exposed to very low doses of ionizing
radiation is a gradual increase in the rate of somatic mutagenesis and
embryonic lethality over 1п22 generations. At the same time, the dose rate
and whole body absorbed dose decreased in every consecutive generation after
the primary radiation insult in 1986.
The data on chromosome aberrations and embryonic lethality were fitted by
the exponential and linear functions respectively. It means that genomes of
animals from distant generations are more sensitive to the impact of very
low radiation doses in comparison with those of animals of prior generations.
The fact that dynamics of somatic mutagenesis (by the chromosome
aberration frequency in bone marrow) and embryonic lethality during the
period of the study closely resemble each other is an additional proof for
the persistence of the delayed response.
Thus, enhanced response of distant generations of mammals to low doses of
ionizing radiation is likely to be due to transgenerational genomic
instability.
Abstract 66
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe/Unsubscribe Here: http://www.energyjustice.net/nukenet/
Change your settings or access the archives at:
http://energyjustice.net/mailman/listinfo/nukenet_energyjustice.net
*****************************************************************
23 NRC: NRC Finds No Significant Environmental Impacts from Proposed Grand Gulf Early Site Permit
News Release - 2006-04
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
No. 06-047 April 5, 2006
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has issued its final
environmental impact statement (EIS) on the proposed Early Site
Permit (ESP) for the Grand Gulf site, about 25 miles south of
Vicksburg, Miss. The report contains the NRCs finding that there
are no environmental impacts that would prevent issuing the ESP.
The ESP process allows an applicant to address site-related
issues, such as environmental impacts, for possible future
construction and operation of a nuclear power plant at the site.
The Grand Gulf ESP application was filed Oct. 21, 2003, by
System Energy Resources Inc. (SERI), a subsidiary of Entergy
Nuclear. If approved, the permit would give SERI up to 20 years
to decide whether to build a new nuclear unit on the site and to
file an application with the NRC for approval to begin
construction.
The NRC staffs conclusion is based on its independent review of
a report submitted by SERI, taking into account consultations
with federal, state, tribal and local organizations and
consideration of comments received during the public scoping
process. The staffs conclusions include a finding that there are
no environmentally preferable or obviously superior sites. The
final EIS and related documents are available electronically for
public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md. They are also available on the
NRCs Web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1817
/index.html. In addition, the Harriette Person Memorial Library,
located at 606 Main St., Port Gibson, Miss., will have a copy of
the EIS available for public inspection.
Before the Commission can reach a final decision on issuing the
permit, the NRC staff must complete revisions to the ESPs safety
evaluation report (SER). The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel must also conduct a mandatory hearing on the matter. The
staff expects to issue the revised portion of the SER shortly,
and it will be available on the agencys Web site at this
address:
http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/grand-gulf.html#saf
etyeval. The NRC expects to finish the entire review process
early in 2007.
Last revised Thursday, April 06, 2006
*****************************************************************
24 NRC: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection;
FR Doc 06-3335
[Federal Register: April 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 66)]
[Notices] [Page 17500-17501] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06ap06-101]
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.C. Chapter 35).
Information pertaining to the requirement to be submitted:
1. The title of the information collection: ``Reports
Concerning
Possible Non-Routine Emergency Generic Problems.''
2. Current OMB approval number: 3150-0012.
3. How often the collection is required: On occasion.
4. Who is required or asked to report: Nuclear power reactor
licensees, research and test reactors, and materials applicants
and
licensees.
5. The number of annual respondents: 204 (104 nuclear power
reactor licensees; 100 materials applicants and licensees).
6, The number of hours needed annually to complete the
requirement or request: 369,440 (349,440 for nuclear power
reactor licensees [8 responses x 420 hrs/response x 104
licensees] and 20,000 for materials applicants and licensees [2
responses x 100 hrs/response x 100 licensees]).
Abstract. NRC is requesting approval authority to collect
information concerning possible non-routine generic problems
which would require prompt action from NRC to preclude potential
threats to public health and safety.
Submit, by June 5, 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
NR 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
[[Page 17501]]
may be directed to the NRC Clearance Officer, Brenda Jo. Shelton
(T-5 F52), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, by telephone at 301-415-7233, or by Internet
electronic mail to INFOCOLLECTS.GOV. Dated at Rockville,
Maryland, this 30th day of March 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brenda Jo. Shelton,
NRC Clearance Officer, Office of Information Services.
[FR Doc. 06-3335 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
*****************************************************************
25 Seattle Times: UW to dismantle nuclear reactor
Thursday, April 6, 2006 - Page updated at 12:31 AM
By Nick Perry
Seattle Times staff reporter
JIM BATES / THE SEATTLE TIMES
The nuclear reactor at the University of Washington campus in
Seattle was built for training and educational purposes in 1959.
A nuclear reactor in the heart of the University of Washington
campus will be dismantled beginning Monday.
The odd relic of the nuclear heyday has sat idle for nearly 20
years, its purpose unknown to many of the young students who
stream past it every day on their way to and from the gym.
But though the reactor is "teeny tiny" compared with those that
generate power, it will still cost $4 million and take six
months to remove all the dangerous materials, said Elizabeth
Peterson, the UW project manager. Testing and final approval
from federal regulators to demolish the building will take
another six months, she said.
Some students are collecting signatures and plan to wear hazmat
suits on campus today to protest the UW's choice of contractor,
New York-based LVI Services. The students say the company has a
questionable track record with safety procedures and its
treatment of workers. John Leonard, LVI's co-chief operating
officer, declined comment Wednesday.
Emily Bae, 21, a junior who is helping organize the protests,
said she found out about the reactor five months ago.
"I was outraged," she said. "I didn't know what its purpose was
and why we would still have it around."
But Alan Nygaard, a director in the UW's Capital Projects
Office, said safety is the primary concern.
"We've done a very thorough job doing background checks and
safety checks on this particular company," he said. "Extreme
precautions are being taken."
Those include tight oversight by federal regulators and expert
consultants, he said.
The reactor was built for training and educational purposes in
1959 and became operational two years later. It is perhaps the
only reactor to be contained in a glass building, Peterson said.
The idea was to allow students to peek in and show them there
was nothing to fear.
But a small leak of plutonium dust in 1972 during an experiment
probably didn't help instill confidence. When officials found
residual radiation in the reactor room floor, they covered it
with paint and tiles, which were later removed, according to a
UW report.
The reactor stopped operating in 1988, and the fuel rods were
removed in the following years. By 1992, the UW's Department of
Nuclear Engineering also was dissolved. But, despite several
efforts, UW officials could never secure state funding to
dismantle the reactor and demolish the building until now.
Inside the containment room remain 1960s-style beakers,
notebooks and control knobs, Peterson said.
Dismantling the reactor will involve enveloping the
contamination room within a larger, airtight structure before
the door can be opened and the materials removed, Nygaard said.
The radioactive waste then will be shipped to facilities at
Hanford, in Eastern Washington, and in Utah, Peterson said.
Nick Perry: 206-515-5639.
Copyright © 2006 The Seattle Times Company
*****************************************************************
26 Rutland Herald: Yankee: Another 5 percent OK'd
Rutland Vermont News & Information
April 6, 2006
By Susan Smallheer Herald Staff
BRATTLEBORO — Federal regulators gave the owners of Vermont
Yankee nuclear power plant another green light Wednesday to jump
up power production another 5 percent.
Entergy Nuclear had been in a four-day holding pattern, doing
tests and analysis, a requirement of its new federal license,
which allows it to boost power production by 20 percent. To
date, Vermont Yankee is halfway toward its goal.
Yankee had increased power early Saturday morning, but as a
condition of its license it had to wait 96 hours for testing and
analysis before increasing power another 5 percent.
"We could be increasing power as early as Thursday. That depends
on how well the preparations go overnight," said Robert
Williams, spokesman for Entergy Nuclear.
Williams said the company staff needed to make sure that the
technical oversight for the next phase of power was in place, as
well as the test program.
Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the Nuclear Regulatory Commis-sion,
said technical staff had reviewed data gathered by Entergy at
the 110 percent power level.
"All steam dryer monitoring plan acceptance criteria have been
met," Sheehan wrote in an e-mail.
"There were no significant adverse trends identified," he said.
Williams said that after the 115 percent power level, the plant
will undergo several days of testing of different plant
components.
© 2006 Rutland Herald
*****************************************************************
27 Daily Review Online: Nuclear power idea back on table
Inside Bay Area - IBA -
Article Last Updated: 04/06/2006 3:14 AM PDT
Cap on emissions may spur power companies to change energy source
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
As electric utilities look at new power plants for the next 30
years, overwhelmingly they're plowing money into burning
pulverized coal — cheap, abundant domestically and full of
carbon dioxide.
Some of the 132 new coal-fired plants proposed for the United
States won't be built, but federal energy analysts are
predicting the new plants will boost greenhouse gas emissions
for the electric industry 43 percent by 2030.
Ceres, a coalition of environmentally minded investors and
environmental groups, reported Wednesday at its meeting in
Oakland that those releases account for nearly all growth in
U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions for the next quarter century.
Ceres President MindyLubber said, "Voluntary approaches for
curbing greenhouse gas emissions are not working."
If Congress were to cap those emissions and create a market for
trading in permits to release carbon as four Senate bills now
propose, electric utilities and their customers would pay a
premium for coal-fired power or turn elsewhere for carbon-free
energy.
The least expensive alternative, according to utility analyst
Swami Venkataraman of the bond-rating firm Standard and Poors,
is to go nuclear.
No electric power company has ordered a nuclear power plant
since 1978, but the nuclear industry could be poised for a
comeback, fueled by concern about global warming and more than
$8 billion in tax credits from Congress.
The electricity industry has other options. Firms can burn
pulverized coal and capture the carbon dioxide to be piped miles
underground in places unriven by cracks and faults. But locking
up the carbon costs energy and money, boosting the price of
electricity.
Power companies also can try a new technology called integrated
gasification combined cycle, or IGCC, which can turn coal or
liquid fuels into electricity and hydrogen while producing less
carbon dioxide to be injected underground. So far, that's the
least expensive way of burning abundant U.S. coal, Venkataraman
said.
"Today if I'm a utility executive faced with a carbon-constrained
world, I will build an IGCC," he told Ceres members and utility
officials Wednesday. "I will not build a pulverized coal plant.
But that's what many are building today." Still, the cheapest
choice of all, he said, is building a nuclear power plant.
"Assuming you cannot emit carbon dioxide, it looks like nuclear
might be the option purely from a dollars and cents
perspective," Venkataraman said. "But can it be built? I don't
know."
Christopher Paine, senior nuclear analyst for the Natural
Resources Defense Council, says the heyday of nuclear power
already has passed.
"The overall picture is of an industry that has been in
stagnation for 17 years," he said. "You can buy more carbon
reduction per dollar with a package of renewables and energy
efficiency and (natural gas) cogeneration than you can with
nuclear."
Electric companies nonetheless are lining up partners to license
at least 14 new nuclear power reactor sites, overwhelmingly east
of the Mississippi.
But many of those companies and their shareholders are lukewarm
on actually building the plants. Nuclear reactors are expensive
and can take at least 13 years to license and seven years to
build, subject to rejection at any point.
Executives of Chicago-based Exelon Corp., the largest private
supplier of nuclear power in the U.S., think nuclear power is an
essential part of the U.S. energy mix to clamp down on greenhouse
gas emissions, said Helen Howes, the firm's vice president of
environment, health and safety.
"Exelon believes nuclear has to be part of the solution if we
are to address climate change in the U.S.," she said. "It's the
largest source of low-carbon energy in the country."
But Exelon won't build new plants unless licensing is more
reliable, plant designs are safer and competitively priced with
other power plants, and the federal government breaks the
impasse over disposal of reactor waste at Yucca Mountain, she
said.
"There is no point in investing in a new nuclear power plant if
you have not solved the problem of storing the fuel from
existing nuclear plants," Howes said.
© 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers | Privacy Policy
*****************************************************************
28 Oakland Tribune: Expert says carbon cap could revive nuke power
Inside Bay Area - IBA -
Article Last Updated: 04/06/2006 3:15 AM PDT
Investors and environmental groups meet in Oakland, look at
future of electric utilities
By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER
As electric utilities look at new power plants for the next 30
years, overwhelmingly they are plowing money into burning
pulverized coal — cheap, abundant domestically and full of
carbon dioxide.
Some of the 132 new coal-fired plants proposed for the United
States will not be built, but federal energy analysts are
predicting the new plants will boost greenhouse-gas emissions
for the electric industry 43 percent by 2030.
Ceres, a coalition of environmentally minded investors and
environmental groups, reported Wednesday at its meeting in
Oakland that those releases account for nearly all growth in
U.S. greenhouse-gas emissions for the next quarter-century.
"Voluntary approaches for curbing greenhouse gas emissions are
not working," Ceres President Mindy Lubber said.
If Congress were to cap those emissions and create a market for
trading in permits to release carbon as four Senate bills now
propose, electric utilities and their customers would pay a
premium for coal-fired power or turn elsewhere for carbon-free
energy.
The least-expensive alternative, according to utility analyst
Swami Venkataraman of the bond-rating firm Standard and Poor's,
is to go nuclear.
No electric-power company has ordered a nuclear power plant
since 1978, but the nuclear industry could be poised for a
comeback, fueled by concern about global warming and more than
$8 billion in tax credits from Congress.
The electricity industry has other options. Firms can burn
pulverized coal and capture the carbon dioxide to be piped miles
underground in places unriven by cracks and faults. But locking
up the carbon costs energy and money, boosting the price of
electricity.
Power companies also can try a new technology called Integrated
Gasification Combined Cycle, or IGCC, which can turn coal or
liquid fuels into both electricity and hydrogen while producing
less carbon dioxide to be injected underground. So far, that is
the least-expensive way of burning abundant U.S. coal,
Venkataraman said.
"Today if I'm a utility executive faced with a carbon-constrained
world, I will build an IGCC," he told Ceres members and utility
officials Wednesday. "I will not build a pulverized-coal plant.
But that's what many are building today."
Still, the cheapest choice of all, he said, is building a
nuclear power plant.
"Assuming you cannot emit carbon dioxide, it looks like nuclear
might be the option purely from a dollars-and-cents
perspective," Venkataraman said. "But can it be built, I don't
know."
Christopher Paine, senior nuclear analyst for the Natural
Resources Defense Council, says the heyday of nuclear power has
passed.
"The overall picture is of an industry that has been in
stagnation for 17 years," he said. "You can buy more carbon
reduction per dollar with a package of renewables and energy
efficiency and (natural gas) cogeneration than you can with
nuclear."
Electric companies nonetheless are lining up partners to license
at least 14 new nuclear power reactor sites.
But many of those companies and their shareholders are lukewarm
on actually building the plants. Nuclear reactors are expensive
and can take at least 13 years to license and seven years to
build, subject to rejection at any point.
Executives of Chicago-based Exelon Corp., the largest private
supplier of nuclear power in the United States, think nuclear
power is an essential part of the U.S. energy mix to clamp down
on greenhouse-gas emissions, said Helen Howes, the firm's vice
president for environment, health and safety.
"Exelon believes nuclear has to be part of the solution if we
are to address climate change in the U.S.," she said.
"It's the largest source of low-carbon energy in the country."
But Exelon won't build new plants unless licensing is more
reliable, plant designs are safer and competitively priced with
other power plants, and the federal government breaks the
impasse over disposal of reactor waste at Yucca Mountain, she
said.
"There is no point in investing in a new nuclear power plant if
you have not solved the problem of storing the fuel from
existing nuclear plants," Howes said.
© 2000-2006 ANG Newspapers |
*****************************************************************
29 NRC: R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC; Notice of Withdrawal of
FR Doc E6-5023
[Federal Register: April 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 66)]
[Notices] [Page 17501] From the Federal Register Online via GPO
Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06ap06-102]
Request for Release of Part of Site for Unrestricted Use The U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the
request of R.E. Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, LLC (the licensee) to
withdraw its application dated May 20, 2005, for the release of
part of the site for unrestricted use at the R.E. Ginna Nuclear
Power Plant (Ginna), located in Wayne County, New York.
The proposed request would have involved the release of a tract
of land consisting of two adjacent parcels, comprising a total of
about 15 acres along the western edge of the Ginna site boundary.
The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Receipt and
Availability for Comment of Request Regarding Release of Part of
Site for Unrestricted Use published in the Federal Register on
July 11, 2005 (70 FR 39802). However, by letter dated March 3,
2006, the licensee withdrew the proposed request.
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application dated May 20, 2005 (Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS Accession No. ML051530448), and the
licensee's letter dated March 3, 2006 (ADAMS No. ML060790446),
which withdrew the application. Documents may be examined, and/or
copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555
Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly
available records will be accessible electronically from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference
staff by telephone at 1-800- 397-4209, or 301-415-4737 or by
e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 31st
day of March 2006.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Patrick D. Milano, Senior Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch
I-1, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E6-5023 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
*****************************************************************
30 Boston Globe: Two critics want a say on Pilgrim -
PLYMOUTH
Two critics want a say on Pilgrim Against odds, they seek hearing
on new license
By Robert Knox, Globe Correspondent | April 6, 2006
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission last week announced the start
of its ''60-day window of opportunity" for anyone interested in
seeking a hearing on the application by the owner of the Pilgrim
nuclear power plant to renew its license for 20 years. Two
Duxbury residents are, against all odds, trying to win a seat at
the Pilgrim relicensing review table.
Well-known Pilgrim critic Mary Lampert, head of the municipal
Duxbury Nuclear Advisory Committee, and environmental lawyer
Molly Bartlett are on the seventh draft of the 100-page
application -- part of a demanding, complex, and expensive
process that, if successful, would give them official standing
in the hearing process.
Environmental lawyers consulted by Lampert estimated their fees
would begin at $350,000 to $400,000. Lampert said she and
Bartlett have agreed to split their costs. Such impediments,
along with the small odds of success, have discouraged other
critics of license renewal from petitioning for standing.
Pilgrim's owner, Entergy Corp., is asking federal regulators to
extend the plant's license, which expires in 2012, for 20 years.
It says the plant, built 30 years ago, is still viable.
According to NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan, any government entity,
group, or individual can submit a request for a hearing by the
regulatory commission on relicensing. But having that request
granted is a long shot, Bartlett said. ''Even if you go through
all the hoops, the likelihood of success is almost nil," she
said. And, she added, ''they keep raising the bar."
To win a hearing, groups or individuals must demonstrate that
the decision to renew Pilgrim's license will affect them, and
must also demonstrate they have ''one or more contentions worthy
of review."
''Even if you don't stop the relicensing, by bringing the issues
forward you can have an effect," Lampert said. The effort helps
put pressure on industry regulators to address problems. ''How
could you not do it with any conscience and any sense of
dignity?"
Beyond the legal requirements intimidating to the layman,
Bartlett said, the application is demanding because applicants
have to submit ''all the information you're going to rely on to
prove your case." According to the regulations, petitioners have
to provide a summary of ''the expert opinion" that backs up the
contention they intend to prove at the hearing, plus references
to ''specific sources and documents" that the petitioners intend
to rely on to establish their facts and expert opinion.
The contentions ''worthy of review" are limited by NRC rules to
two specific areas: management of the plant's ''aging effects"
and site-specific ''environmental impacts." Many of the issues
Pilgrim's neighbors say they are most concerned about -- plant
security, evacuation plans, and nuclear waste -- are out of
bounds. The petitioners must also present ''new information" --
not available to regulators when the plant was originally
licensed more than 30 years ago -- such as the rapid population
growth in the Plymouth area.
''We're rowing upstream," said Brian Sullivan of Plymouth, a
retired Federal Aviation Administration special agent who is
concerned that Pilgrim is ''vulnerable from air attack." Because
the rules do not allow people to address plant security and the
nuclear waste issues, a license extension from 2012 to 2032 is
probably a fait accompli, he said. As a result, Plymouth
residents and officials are concentrating their efforts on the
argument that the town should be compensated for bearing
additional risks.
Once their petition is complete, Lampert said, she and Bartlett
will circulate it to other groups -- ''all the people we work
with normally" -- to see if they want to sign on as petitioners.
These groups include national organizations such as the Union of
Concerned Scientists and regional groups such as the Cape
Downwinders, who have argued that Pilgrim poses risk to
communities beyond the zone recognized by the NRC. Lampert said
she will also seek to interest local boards of selectmen and
Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly in becoming petitioners.
David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the
Union of Concerned Scientists, said his group was unlikely to
become a petitioner, but would contribute to Lampert and
Bartlett's petition as an expert source on issues of plant aging
such as the plant's drywell liner. The liner in other plants has
suffered corrosion, Lochbaum said. Since the drywell liner is
underground, inspection is difficult, and critics have called
for ultrasonic testing.
Similarly, Lampert's petition will argue that more exhaustive
testing must be done of the underground pipes and tanks at
Pilgrim that collect contaminated water. Radioactive tritium
water has been found leaking from the plant at Indian Point,
N.Y.. The Union of Concerned Scientists, Lochbaum said, has
urged that monitor wells be required.
Pilgrim spokesman David Tarantino said questions about the
drywell liner and the water pipes are exactly the sort of
questions the NRC will review before ruling on relicensing. ''We
[Entergy] have done inspections, we have done ultrasounds,"
Tarantino said of the drywell liner. ''We're providing
information to the NRC, and they will conduct inspections. It's
still a viable structure."
Robert Knox can be contacted at rc.knox@gmail.com. [ /]
© Copyright 2006 Globe Newspaper Company. 12More:
*****************************************************************
31 New Scientist: How many more lives will Chernobyl claim?
[NewScientist.com]
06 April 2006
+ Rob Edwards
THE cloud of radiation spewed out by the world's worst nuclear
accident at Chernobyl 20 years ago could kill up to 60,000
people - 15 times as many as officially estimated. So say
scientists who are accusing two UN organisations, the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the World Health
Organization (WHO), of downplaying the impact of the accident.
Chernobyl reactor number 4 in Ukraine was ripped apart by an
explosion on 26 April 1986, and burned for 10 days. It disgorged
a massive amount of radioactivity - up to 14 exabecquerels (14 ×
1018 becquerels) - over Europe and the rest of the world.
“The IAEA/WHO report misrepresents reality by significantly
underestimating the number of deaths” Last September, the IAEA
and the WHO released a report which claimed to reveal "the true
scale of the accident". Its headline conclusion that radiation
from the accident would kill a total of 4000 people was widely
reported (New Scientist, 10 September 2005, p 14), but that
figure is now being challenged. In a report this week for the
Green group in the European Parliament, Ian Fairlie and David
Sumner, two independent radiation scientists from the UK, say
that the death toll from cancers caused by Chernobyl will in fact
lie somewhere between 30,000 and 60,000.
They accuse the IAEA/WHO report of ignoring its own prediction
of an extra 5000 cancer deaths in the less contaminated parts of
Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, and of failing to take account of
many thousands more deaths in other countries, where more than
half of Chernobyl's fallout ended up. "It is poor scientific
practice to issue figures which only reflect part of the real
situation," Fairlie says.
Zhanat Carr, a radiation scientist with the WHO in Geneva, says
the 5000 deaths were omitted because the report was a "political
communication tool". "Scientifically, it may not be the best
approach," she admitted to New Scientist. She also accepts that
the WHO estimates did not include predicted cancers outside
Ukraine, Belarus and Russia. The health impact in other
countries will be "negligible", she says, adding that there is
no epidemiological research showing otherwise. The WHO "has no
reasons to deliberately mislead anyone", she insists. "WHO's
position is independent, free from political issues, and based
on scientific evidence of the highest quality." The IAEA refused
to comment.
Fairlie and Sumner's accusations are backed by other experts.
The IAEA/WHO report "misrepresents reality by significantly
underestimating the number of cancer deaths", says Timothy
Mousseau of the University of South Carolina in Columbia. A
paper co-authored by Mousseau and published this week in Trends
in Ecology and Evolution (DOI: 10.1016/j.tree.2006.01.008)
points to studies suggesting that fallout from Chernobyl has
already caused germline mutations in animals and plants.
Elizabeth Cardis, a radiation specialist from the WHO's
International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France,
says that 30,000 to 60,000 cancer deaths is "the right order of
magnitude". She is due to publish a study later this month that
will estimate the number of excess cancers attributable to
Chernobyl amongst 570 million Europeans. Though they will be
difficult to detect, as they will only form a tiny proportion of
the millions of cancer deaths from all causes, this doesn't mean
that they should be ignored, Cardis says. "They are real people
who suffer from the accident."
*****************************************************************
32 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Brunswick Nuclear Plant
News Release - Region II - 2006-01
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region II
61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303
No. II-06-013 April 5, 2006
CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov
with Progress Energy officials on Wednesday, April 12, to
discuss the agencys assessment of safety performance last year
at the Brunswick nuclear power plant, located near Southport in
southeastern North Carolina.
The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin
at 1:00 p.m. in the Brunswick Media Center Auditorium near the
entrance to the plant site. The NRC staff will present the
results of the assessment and be available to respond to
questions or comments from the public before the close of the
meeting.
The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Brunswick
plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities,
NRC Region II Administrator William Travers said. This meeting
is a chance for us to discuss that safety performance with the
company, with local officials and with people living near the
plant.
A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/bru_2005q4.pdf [PDF
Icon] .
The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance
indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start
with green and then increase to white, yellow or red, depending
on the safety significance of the issues involved.
The NRC said the Brunswick plant operated safely during 2005
with all inspection findings being green, or very low safety
significance, and all performance indicators also indicating
performance at levels requiring no additional NRC oversight
during the first, second and third quarters. Brunswick Unit 1
continued to operate in the fourth quarter with only green
inspection findings and performance indicators, but Unit 2
crossed the threshold from green to white for the unplanned
scrams (shutdowns) performance indicator in the fourth quarter.
As a result, the NRC staff plans to conduct a supplemental
inspection of Unit 2 activities this year in addition to the
baseline or routine inspections planned.
Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in
Rockville, Md.
Current information for the Brunswick plant is available on the
NRC web site at:
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BRU1/bru1_chart.html and
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BRU2/bru2_chart.html.
Last revised Wednesday, April 05, 2006
*****************************************************************
33 FOX Carolina: Group Opposes Nuclear Power Plant
Cherokee County, SC
If approved, a new nuclear power plant wouldn't be built in the
Carolinas for at least a decade. Now, a group against the
proposed plant in Cherokee County plans to use every second of
that time to make its case.
FOX Carolina’s Jamie Guirola reports, Just last month this
land on Broad River became the focus of what promises to be a
lot of controversy. And a group called the Blue Ridge
Environmental Defense League will be right in the middle of
it—starting with a campaign launched Wednesday-- dubbed
Carolina Safe Energy.
Louis Zeller/B.R.E.D.: "Carolina Safe Energy is just what it
sounds like. There are better ways to boil water than splitting
atoms".
The Defense League has been fighting nuclear energy plans in the
southeast for many years. It claims success in delaying a new
proposed plant in Virginia where nuclear power plants already
exists and are blamed by the Defense League on fatal illnesses.
Zeller: "We found a huge increase in the amount of infant
deaths, childhood deaths and all the different age ranges after
the plant opened".
Some of the ways the Defense League will fight Duke’s proposal
include diving into the energy company’s track record on
violations and promoting alternatives to nuclear energy.
Zeller: "And the whole host of alternatives are there. They're
cheaper, safer, better for our health and would promise more
jobs".
Duke Energy says a nuclear power plant in Cherokee would ensure
growing and future demands for energy.
jamie.guirola@foxcarolina.com
.gif"> All content © Copyright 2001 - 2006 WorldNow and FOX
*****************************************************************
34 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Duane Arnold Nuclear Power Plant
News Release - Region III - 2006-01
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region III
801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532
No. III-06-013 April 5, 2006
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with
representatives of FPL Energy on Tuesday, April 11, to discuss
the agencys assessment of safety performance for last year at
the companys Duane Arnold Energy Center. The plant is located at
Palo, Iowa.
The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin
at 1 p.m. at the Palo Community Center, 1006 1st Street, in
Palo. The NRC staff will present the results of the assessment
and be available to respond to questions or comments from the
public before the close of the meeting.
The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Duane Arnold
plant and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities,
NRC Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. This meeting
will provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual
assessment of safety performance with the company and with local
officials and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to
explain the NRC oversight process and make as much information
as possible available to the public regarding our regulation of
these facilities.
A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/duan_2005q4.pdf[P
DF Icon] .
The NRCs assessment concluded that the Duane Arnold plant
operated safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded
inspection findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear
plant performance. The colors start with green and then increase
to white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety
significance of the issues involved.
All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for
Duane Arnold during 2005 were determined to be green. As a
result of this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal,
baseline level of inspections during the upcoming year.
However, the NRC identified a weakness in the area of human
performance, involving inadequate use and adherence to plant
procedures. The NRC asked the utility to discuss its corrective
actions to address this issue during the meeting.
The NRC will conduct an inspection in 2006 to assess the
utilitys progress in improving human performance at the plant.
Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agencys headquarters
in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be
inspected this year by NRC specialists are the licensed operator
requalification program, emergency preparedness, access control
to radiologically significant areas, and radioactive material
processing and transportation.
Current performance information for Duane Arnold is available on
the NRCs web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/DUAN/duan_chart.html.
Last revised Wednesday, April 05, 2006
*****************************************************************
35 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance at Hatch Nuclear Plant
News Release - Region II - 2006-01
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region II
61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, GA 30303
No. II-06-014 April 6, 2006
CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416
Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov
with Southern Nuclear Operating Company officials on Wednesday,
April 12, to discuss the agencys assessment of safety
performance last year at the Hatch nuclear power plant, located
near Baxley in southern Georgia.
The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin
at 7:00 p.m. in the Appling County Courthouse in Baxley. The NRC
staff will present the results of the assessment and be
available to respond to questions or comments from the public
before the close of the meeting.
The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Hatch plant
and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities, NRC
Region II Administrator William Travers said. This meeting is a
chance for us to discuss that safety performance with the
company, with local officials and with people living near the
plant.
A letter sent from the NRC Region II Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/hat_2005q4.pdf [PDF
Icon] .
The NRC uses color-coded inspection findings and performance
indicators to assess nuclear plant performance. The colors start
with green and then increase to white, yellow or red, depending
on the safety significance of the issues involved.
The NRC said the Hatch plant operated safely during 2005 with
all inspection findings being green, or very low safety
significance, and all performance indicators also indicating
performance at levels requiring no additional NRC oversight in
early 2005. However, during the second quarter of 2005, the NRC
identified an emergency preparedness issue relating to the
removal of the plants Technical Support Center from service for
more than a week without prior NRC approval. That issue was
later determined to be white, but a supplemental NRC inspection
found Southern Nuclears investigation and corrective actions for
that issue to be adequate and the NRC plans no further action.
As a result, the NRC plans to conduct only routine baseline
inspections at the plant for the rest of 2006. The NRC staff
will also perform a non-routine inspection of the independent
spent fuel storage installation at the Hatch plant.
Routine inspections are performed by NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region II Office in Atlanta, and the agencys headquarters in
Rockville, Md.
Current information for the Hatch plant is available on the NRC
web site at:
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/HAT1/hat1_chart.html and
www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/HAT2/hat2_chart.html.
Last revised Thursday, April 06, 2006
*****************************************************************
36 NRC: NRC to Discuss 2005 Performance Assessment for Byron Nuclear Power Plant
News Release - Region III - 2006-01
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs, Region III
801 Warrenville Road, Lisle IL 60532
No. III-06-014 April 6, 2006
CONTACT: Jan Strasma (630) 829-9663
Viktoria Mitlyng (630) 829-9662 E-mail: opa3@nrc.gov
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will meet with
representatives of Exelon Generation Co. on Monday, April 10, to
discuss the agencys assessment of safety performance for last
year at the companys Byron Nuclear Power Plant. The plant is
located at Byron, Ill.
The meeting, which will be open to the public, is scheduled to
begin at 6 p.m. at the Byron Station Training Center, Room 107,
4448 N. German Church Road, Byron. The NRC staff will present
the results of the assessment and be available to respond to
questions or comments from the public before the close of the
meeting.
The NRC continually reviews the performance of the Byron plant
and the nations other commercial nuclear power facilities, NRC
Region III Administrator James Caldwell said. This meeting will
provide an opportunity for a discussion of our annual assessment
of safety performance with the company and with local officials
and residents who live near the plant. Our goal is to explain
the NRC oversight process and make as much information as
possible available to the public regarding our regulation of
these facilities.
A letter sent from the NRC Region III Office to plant officials
addresses the performance of the plant during the period and
will serve as the basis for the meeting discussion. It is
available on the NRC web site at:
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/byro_2005q4.pdf
[PDF Icon] .
The NRCs assessment concluded that the Byron plant operated
safely during the period. The NRC uses color-coded inspection
findings and performance indicators to assess nuclear plant
performance. The colors start with green and then increase to
white, yellow or red, commensurate with the safety significance
of the issues involved.
All of the inspection findings and performance indicators for
Byron during 2005 were determined to be green. As a result of
this performance, the NRC will conduct the normal, baseline
level of inspections during the upcoming year.
During the year NRC inspectors identified several instances, all
of very low safety significance, in which personnel performance
was not adequate. These human performance issues are considered
cross cutting in that they potentially affect multiple aspects
of plant performance. The NRC intends to focus on these human
performance issues during an inspection this year.
Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors
assigned to the plant and by inspection specialists from the
Region III Office in Lisle, Ill., and the agencys headquarters
in Rockville, Md. Among the areas of plant operations to be
inspected this year by NRC specialists are emergency
preparedness, radioactive waste processing and transportation,
security, and radiation protection.
Current performance information for Byron is available on the
NRCs web site at: (Unit 1)
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BYRO1/byro1_chart.html
and (Unit 2)
http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/BYRO2/byro2_chart.html.
Last revised Thursday, April 06, 2006
*****************************************************************
37 NRC: NRC to Meet with Westinghouse Nuclear Fuel Plant Officials to Discuss Facility
Safety Performance
News Release - Region II - 2006-01 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II 61 Forsyth Street
SW, Atlanta, GA 30303 No. II-06-015 April
6, 2006 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah
(404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov
Nuclear Regulatory Commission officials will meet with officials
of the Westinghouse commercial nuclear fuel plant in Columbia,
S.C., on Wednesday, April 12, to discuss the agencys latest
review of the facilitys safety performance.
The meeting, which is open to the public, is scheduled to begin
at 4:00 p.m. in the Red Room of the South Carolina State Museum,
located at 301 Gervais Street in Columbia. The NRC staff will
present the results of the review and be available to respond to
questions or comments from the public before the close of the
meeting.
The NRC staff will discuss with Westinghouse safety performance
in the major areas of safety operations, radiological controls,
facility support and special topics. The evaluation covers a
period from January 23, 2005, through February 17, 2006.
The review found that Westinghouse had conducted its activities
safely during the period of review and is currently engaged in
significant upgrades to its human performance and criticality
safety programs. The NRC said the results of those efforts were
evident because the more significant issues covered in the
performance review occurred early in 2005 and in some cases were
identified by activities begun by Westinghouse to monitor
compliance.
However, Westinghouses performance still warrants additional NRC
oversight beyond the routine inspection program for fuel
facilities. Additional NRC inspections will focus on nuclear
criticality safety program improvements, safety bases revisions,
identification of controls and compliance with procedures. The
NRC will also conduct the next Licensee Performance Review at
Westinghouse again in 12 months, rather than the normal 24-month
frequency for such plants.
A copy of the NRC letter to Westinghouse which outlines details
of the review is available by contacting OPA2@nrc.govor from the
NRC web site at
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html as document
ML060750108.
Last revised Thursday, April 06, 2006
*****************************************************************
38 [du-list] VA: Foot-dragging seen...in Contacting Former
Date: Thu, 06 Apr 2006 15:33:15 -0700
VA: Foot-dragging seen
Thousands of former servicemen who volunteered for chemical and
biological tests in the 1960s and 70s might have been exposed to highly
toxic substances that could jeopardize their health, and the U.S.
government is scrambling to locate them.
By Lisa Friedman, From our Washington bureau
Long Beach Press
Telegram http://www.presstelegram.com/news/ci_3666200 WASHINGTON —
Thousands of former servicemen who volunteered for chemical and biological
tests in the 1960s and 70s might have been exposed to highly toxic
substances that could jeopardize their health, and the U.S. government is
scrambling to locate them. The new list of nearly 7,000 names provided
last year to the Department of Veterans Affairs servicemen who allowed
themselves to be exposed to a range of agents, from nerve gases to
Tularemia significantly increases the number of veterans who could become
eligible for disability benefits.
VA officials say they are working as quickly as possible to verify the
identities of the servicemen and the agents to which they were exposed, and
to send out notifications. But veterans' advocates and some members of
Congress note the government took more than a decade to notify World War II
personnel they'd been exposed to chemical tests, and they're already
skeptical of the pace this time around.
"You want to believe that they're serious, but there is, from my
perspective, a lack of trust," said Rep. Ted Strickland, D-Ohio, the
leading Democrat on the House Veterans Affairs Oversight and Investigations
Subcommittee. "I don't want to be cynical here, but quite often the
strategy of the department may be to let time pass."
Years of tests
The United States has conducted chemical and biological tests since
before the Civil War. During World War II which has been called the
"unfought chemical war" both sides produced, yet never used, millions of
tons of chemical weapons. In the meantime, thousands of servicemen were
used as subjects in the chemical defense research. Many tests continued
through the 1970s.
Army historian Jeffrey Smart has spent the past 22 years at Aberdeen
Proving Ground, formerly the Edgewood Arsenal, where many of the chemical
tests particularly on protective equipment were conducted. He said
documents show the men knew they were participating in potentially
dangerous tests, but not the specific agents being used.
Ken Jones of Riverside said he knew exactly what he was doing when he
volunteered in 1954 to be among 2,300 subjects in a germ-warfare project
known as Operation White Coat. The studies, which ran from 1954 to 1973,
used mostly Seventh-day Adventist draftees like Jones whose religious
beliefs discouraged combat and who were instead given the option of serving
as human test volunteers. While many veterans later said they felt
pressured to sign the consent forms, Jones said he never felt coerced.
'Eight Ball'
He can still recall the day he and two other men exchanged their
fatigues for scrubs and entered the fabled "Eight Ball" at Fort Detrick,
Md. a 1-million-liter test sphere used to study static microbial aerosols
and strapped on gas masks before breathing in Q-fever for about five
minutes. "I'm not going to be out on the streets protesting, because I
feel like what I did was a benefit to humanity," Jones said, noting that
the tests helped the government develop hazmat suits, gas masks and
vaccines. Jones went into quarantine for 17 days and says he never
developed health problems from the experience. Many others did, though, and
Jones thinks the government should help those veterans. House Veterans
Affairs Committee aide Len Sistek said that's the goal of notifying
veterans. The new list his staff provided to the government includes the
names of military personnel who underwent testing at Fort Detrick; Edgewood
Arsenal, now known as Aberdeen Proving Ground in
Maryland; and Dougway Proving Ground in Utah.
"There's been a sea change in how America perceives this stuff," he
said. "Whoever allowed the bad guy to get ahead of them with chemical or
biological weaponry was at a huge disadvantage on the battlefield. It was
part of the war effort." Still, he and others argued, the government has
a responsibility to provide benefits to those who did experience health
problems. "When you sign on the dotted line, you sign up for a broad
spectrum of risks. But just because you were a volunteer does not mean
America doesn't have a duty to you."
VA "concerned"
Leaders at the Department of Veterans Affairs said they
agree. "Obviously we're concerned, and we want to provide outreach to
anyone who may have been harmed by toxic chemical tests," said Thomas
Pamperin, VA assistant director for policy. He and Kim Tibbitts, the
agency's assistant director for procedures for compensation and pension
services, said they first have to determine who the servicemen are and what
agents they were exposed to. Many names on the list, Tibbitts said, include
only a name but no Social Security number, and identify chemicals by codes
that must be tracked down with the Department of Defense.
From there, he said, the agency plans to use personnel records and
address locating services to determine if the serviceman is still living,
or has surviving relatives. In the notification letters, Pamperin said,
veterans will be told the chemical they were exposed to and the dosage, and
be encouraged to seek hospital tests to determine if they suffered related
injuries. "If and, hopefully, none of them have been harmed they will
receive the kind of compensation they're entitled to," Pamperin said.
Rick Weidman of the Vietnam Veterans of America accused the VA of
dragging its feet. "The VA is incredibly slow," he said. "They don't
really want to do it. They will screw around with that list for a year or
longer, and then they'll say they cannot find a lot of the veterans. If you
wait long enough, we'll all be dead."
Notices coming
Pamperin strongly disputed the criticisms. "I understand that some
frustrated veterans believe that to be true," he said. "Our responsibility
is to implement (veterans' benefits) to the full extent Congress has
authorized it, without regard to how much is spent," he said. Noting that
over the past five years about 200,000 veterans have successfully sought
compensation, he said, "I am unaware of anyone who has been formally or
informally been telling us to slow down our ratings to save
money." Pamperin and Tibbitts said even if all 7,000 people on the new
list apply for and obtain benefits, that's still a drop in the bucket
compared with the 825,000 disability determinations it handles. The
agency is expected to start notifying the first 1,000 veterans on the list
by July, according to the committee. "It's just incumbent upon the
department to find out and put this thing behind us," Strickland said. "It
is going to take resources and effort, but it's something that needs to be
done."
The Veterans Administration help line is (800) 749-8387.
Lisa Friedman can be reached at (202) 662-8731.
*****************************************************************
39 NRC: NRC Advisory Committee on Medical Uses of Isotopes to Meet April 25-26, 2006
News Release - 2006-04
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200
Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov
No. 06-048 April 6, 2006
The Nuclear Regulatory Commissions Advisory Committee on Medical
Uses of Isotopes will hold a public meeting April 25 and 26 in
Bethesda, Md. Committee members will discuss agenda items
including: (1) Updates on Proposed Regulations to Include
Discrete Radium Sources and Accelerator-Produced Radioactive
Materials in 10 CFR 35; (2) the Regulatory Issue Summary on
Visitor Dose Limits; (3) Part 35, Training and Experience; (4)
Supply of High Enriched Uranium for Molybdenum-99 Generation;
(5) Training and Experience for Use of Microspheres for Therapy;
and (6) ACMUI Review of Medical Events Involving I-131.
The public portion of the meeting will be from 10:30 a.m. to 5
p.m. on Tuesday and from 8 a.m. to 12 p.m. on Wednesday. The
meeting will be held at the National Institute of Health,
Natcher Conference Center, 45 Center Dr. Bethesda, Md., in
Balcony B for the Tuesday session and Room E1/E2 for the
Wednesday portion. Any member of the public wishing to submit a
written statement or needing special assistance must contact
Mohammad S. Saba, at 301-415-7608 or mss@nrc.gov. A transcript
and written comments will be available on the NRCs Web site, at
http://www.nrc.gov and through the NRC Public Document Room on
or about July 20, 2006.
Last revised Thursday, April 06, 2006
*****************************************************************
40 NIOSH: Radiation Avisory Board
FR Doc 06-3305
[Federal Register: April 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 66)]
[Notices]
[Page 17470]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access
[wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06ap06-76]
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH);
Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH); Meetings
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), the Centers for Disease Control
and
Prevention announces the following committee meeting:
Name: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health,
National
Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and Subcommittee
for Dose
Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews (SDRSPR).
Subcommittee Meeting Time and Date:
9 a.m.-2 p.m., April 25, 2006.
Committee Meeting Times and Dates:
2:30 p.m.-5 p.m., April 25, 2006.
8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., April 26, 2006.
8:30 a.m.-4:30 p.m., April 27, 2006.
Public Comment Time and Date:
7 p.m.-8:30 p.m., April 26, 2006.
Place: Four Points by Sheraton Denver Cherry Creek Hotel,
600 South
Colorado Boulevard, Denver, Colorado 80246. Phone 303.757.3341,
Fax
303.756.6670.
Status: Open to the public, limited only by the space
available.
The meeting space accommodates approximately 75 people.
Background: The ABRWH was established under the Energy
Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000
to advise the President on a variety of policy and technical
functions required to implement and effectively manage the new
compensation program. Key functions of the Board include
providing advice on the development of probability of causation
guidelines which have been promulgated by the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final rule, advice on
methods of dose reconstruction which have also been promulgated
by HHS as a final rule, advice on the scientific validity and
quality of dose estimation and reconstruction efforts being
performed for purposes of the compensation program, and advice on
petitions to add classes of workers to the Special Exposure
Cohort (SEC).
In December 2000, the President delegated responsibility for
funding, staffing, and operating the Board to HHS, which
subsequently delegated this authority to the CDC. NIOSH
implements this responsibility for CDC. The charter was issued on
August 3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, and will expire
on August 3, 2007.
Purpose: This board is charged with (a) providing advice to
the Secretary, HHS, on the development of guidelines under
Executive Order 13179; (b) providing advice to the Secretary,
HHS, on the scientific validity and quality of dose
reconstruction efforts performed for this program; and (c) upon
request by the Secretary, HHS, advise the Secretary on whether
there is a class of employees at any Department of Energy
facility who were exposed to radiation but for whom it is not
feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and on whether there
is reasonable likelihood that such radiation doses may have
endangered the health of members of this class.
Matters to be Discussed: The agenda for the Subcommittee
meeting includes Y-12 and Rocky Flats Site Profiles; Procedures
Review Update; Selection of 5th and 6th Round of Individual Dose
Reconstructions; and Individual Dose Reconstruction Reviews. The
agenda for the Board meeting includes the Subcommittee Report on
the following topics: Y-12 Site and Rocky Flats Site Profiles,
Procedures Review Update, Selection of 5th and 6th Round of
Individual Dose Reconstructions, and Individual Dose
Reconstruction Reviews. There will be a report on the S. Cohen &
Associates (SC) SEC Activities, specifically Ames, Procedures,
Rocky Flats and Y-12; Board SEC Procedures; Conflict of Interest;
Y-12 and Rocky Flats SEC Petitions; Program Updates from the
Office of Compensation Analysis and Support on General Items,
Bethlehem Steel Site Profile, and Science Issues; Program Updates
from the Department of Labor; General SC Contract Issues; Board
Correspondence; Future Schedules and Agendas; Nevada Test Site
SEC Petition; and Pacific Proving Ground SEC Petition.
The agenda is subject to change as priorities dictate. In the
event an individual cannot attend, written comments may be
submitted. Any written comments received will be provided at the
meeting and should be submitted to the contact person below well
in advance of the meeting. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Lewis V. Wade, Executive Secretary, NIOSH, CDC, 4676 Columbia
Parkway, Cincinnati, Ohio 45226, telephone 513.533.6825, fax
513.533.6826.
The Director, Management Analysis and Services Office, has
been delegated the authority to sign Federal Register notices
pertaining to announcements of meetings and other committee
management activities, for both CDC and the Agency for Toxic
Substances and Disease Registry.
Dated: March 30, 2006. Alvin Hall, Director, Management
Analysis and Services Office, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention. [FR Doc. 06-3305 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE
4163-18-P
*****************************************************************
41 Honolulu Advertiser: Customs gets radiation sniffer
Thursday, April 6, 2006
By Advertiser Staff Writer
A truck hauling a shipping container stops under a device that
detects whether radiation is being emitted from within. The $2
million monitor was installed last week by U.S. Customs and
Border Protection.
The local office of the U.S. Customs and Border Protection
office has a new weapon in its arsenal of devices designed to
thwart attempts by would-be terrorists — or anyone else — to
smuggle radiological material into the country.
The $2 million drive-through Radiation Portal Monitor has been
in operation for the past week or so at Fort Armstrong, across
from Restaurant Row, and has been used to screen 300 to 500
vehicles a day at Pier 1, where most freight from foreign
countries arrives in Hawai'i, said Customs spokesman Jim Kosciuk.
"The best way to prevent a terrorist attack is by preventing
terrorists or terrorist weapons from entering the U.S.," said
Hilda Montoya, acting director of the Port of Honolulu.
The device was designed to detect materials that could be used
to build full-on nuclear bombs as well as "dirty bombs," but is
so sensitive it can detect minute amounts of radiation such as
that found in earthenware, smoke detectors and agricultural
products.
"It will also provide a 'hit' on people who have undergone
nuclear medicine treatments," Kosciuk said.
Two exit lanes at the harbor lead through the machine, and if it
sounds an alert, a red light will remain on and Customs and
Border Protection officers will "begin a dialogue" with the
driver of the vehicle that has been flagged, Kosciuk said.
Other gadgets the CPB officers have at their disposal can
quickly identify the the various radioactive isotopes that have
triggered an alarm and, if need be, information can be
transmitted electronically to agency scientists on the Mainland
to determine exactly what has caused the alarm to sound.
Response to a positive hit can range from a conversation with
the person driving the car or truck, to checking manifests
against the actual cargo in a shipping container and ultimately
off-loading all of the cargo and going through it piece by
piece, Kosciuk said.
Montoya said the new radiation detector is a "passive device,"
meaning it does not emit radiation. She said her agency worked
closely with the state health and transportation departments in
having the device installed.
Customs and Border Protection began using the monitors elsewhere
in 2003, Kosciuk said.
Reach David Waite at .
© COPYRIGHT 2006 The Honolulu Advertiser, a division of . Inc.
*****************************************************************
42 Mos News: Russian Who Prevented Nuclear Sub Explosion Nominated for Nobel Prize -
MOSNEWS.COM
Photo from www.nakanune.ru
Created: 06.04.2006 16:00 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 16:00 MSK
MosNews
Russian Nikolai Batarev has been nominated for the Nobel Peace
Prize for preventing an explosion which could have started a
nuclear war in 1961. Batarev, now 68, was a member of a Soviet
nuclear submarine crew.
In 1961 K-19, the first Soviet nuclear submarine, was taking
part in military exercises, her role being to imitate enemy
actions, when an accident took place on board on July 4. The sub
was 100 miles from a U.S. naval base in the North Atlantic.
The submarine’s reactor system broke down. A separate accident
had disabled her long-range radio system, so the sub could not
contact Moscow. The main danger was the possibility of a uranium
leak into the water, while in case of an explosion both the USSR
and the United States could have considered it as an attempted
attack.
Nine crew members died during the operation to repair the
reactor — Batarev was among those who prevented the nuclear
explosion.
On February 1, 2005, former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev
proposed in a letter to the Norwegian Nobel Committee that the
crew of K-19 should be nominated for the Peace Prize.
Write us: info@mosnews.com
Copyright © 2004 MOSNEWS.COM
*****************************************************************
43 Yggdrasil: `Consequences of Nuclear Testing
A project of Earth Island Institute
Double Language of the Defense Ministry
Lyon — Papeete , April 3, 2006
At the moment when M. Jurien de la Gravière goes to
Tahiti to “inform” the Polynesians, the ministry of defense is
distributing to members of parliament a document that throws
daylight on the double language of the government. The
associations Moruroa e tatou, l’Aven and l’Observatoire des
armes nucléaires demand that the defense ministry immediately
withdraw this unacceptable text which constitutes a major
obstacle to any constructive dialogue on the health and
environmental consequences of French nuclear testing in the
Sahara and in French Polynesia .
Responding to the more and more numerous legal proceedings
instituted by the veterans of French testing in the courts in
metropolitan France and to the recommendations of the French
Polynesian Assembly questioning the official thesis that the
tests were harmless (available on the site ), the ministry of
defense has been distributing since February 20, 2006—the eve of
the colloquium in the National Assembly where elected Polynesian
representatives presented the results of their inquiry
commission—an unacceptable document to members of the national
parliament and has posted it on the opening page of its Internet
site ().
“It is a veritable backfire, denying all the work
undertaken by the inquiry commission set up by the Polynesian
representatives. Without citing the commission’s report, the
defense ministry repeats all the worn-out arguments on “clean
tests” while promising transparency and consultation. It is
unacceptable,” states Roland Oldham, president of Moruroa e
tatou.
Presenting his vision of the consequences of nuclear
testing in French Polynesia, the ministry, in this document,
completely ignores the recommendations of the inquiry commission
of the French Polynesian Assembly and “forgets” to recall that
its representative —M. Jurien de la Gravière—admitted before the
Polynesian representatives and confirmed in the televised
journal of France 3, last February 21, that a dozen of the
aerial tests contaminated all of inhabited Polynesia between
1966 and 1974; it states that the stipulations in the French
regulations in regard to pensions and the indemnifying of
victims is satisfactory and do not necessitate any modification
although hundreds of proceedings are underway in the courts; he
categorically rejects all bills filed by French members of
parliament to respond to the legitimate questions of veterans of
nuclear testing, former workers in Muroroa and the Sahara and
residents of Polynesia.
“Our associations Moruroa e tatou, Aven, and the
Observatoire des armes nucléaires are astonished at the position
of the defense ministry, which goes counter to all the
information published for years,” states Dr. Jean-Louis Valatx,
president of Aven, when the 97 senators of the socialist group
in the Senate have just filed a demand for an inquiry
commission, when the group of socialist deputies in the National
Assembly is preparing to file a new bill, and a deputy from the
UMP is preparing to do the same.”
Contacts:
Observatoire des armes nucléaires/CDRPC
187 montée de Choulans , 69005 Lyon; tel. 04-78-36-93-03; ;
Association Moruroa e tatou
403 bd. Pomare, Papette, Tahiti ; tel. 689-430905;
Association des veterans des essays nucléaires (Aven)
187 montée de Choulans , 69005 Lyon; tel. 04-78-36-93-03; ;
www.aven.org
--Posted April 6, 2006
Yggdrasil is a project of
P.O. Box 910476, Lexington, KY 40591-0476
*****************************************************************
44 Deseret News: Trio's letter slams PFS N-proposal
Thursday, April 6, 2006
By Suzanne Struglinski
Deseret Morning News
WASHINGTON — Just in case anyone on Capitol Hill forgot, Utah's
House members sent out a reminder that it strongly opposes
Private Fuel Storage's idea to store nuclear waste in Utah.
Rep. Rob Bishop, R-Utah, hand-delivered a letter to Rep.
David Hobson, R-Ohio, on Tuesday stating that while the country
needs to do something about nuclear waste, PFS's project is not
the answer. Bishop, Rep. Jim Matheson, D-Utah, and Rep. Chris
Cannon, R-Utah, all signed the letter.
Hobson is head of the House Appropriations Energy and
Water Development Subcommittee, which writes the House's version
of the energy spending bill each year. Copies also went to the
subcommittee's top Democrat Pete Visclosky of Indiana and the
House Energy and Commerce Committee leadership.
Hobson is a strong supporter of the government's plan to
store nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las
Vegas, but also wants waste to move off commercial sites as soon
as possible, possibly to an interim storage site on federal
property.
In the letter, Bishop, Matheson and Cannon reminded
Hobson that on May 24, 2005, he said on the House floor: "I do
not see any reason for the secretary to consider making a
private site or a site on tribal land, into a DOE site for
interim storage. My intent is for the secretary to evaluate
storage options at existing DOE sites."
Bishop said the letter was to reinforce that statement
"in case anyone wants to change it around this year." A similar
statement was made on the floor in the Senate at the time, he
said.
Bishop said that Hobson said no state would be forced to
take government-owned waste to a private site against its will.
He said this still allows PFS to "head hunt" for other companies
that would want to move waste, but Hobson said government-owned
waste would not be involved.
Private Fuel Storage Chairman John Parkyn sent a letter
to Congress asking to allow the Energy Department to become a
client for its planned nuclear waste storage facility in Tooele
County. The department could take title to the waste and move it
to Utah until Yucca would be finished or at least reimburse
companies that want to move their waste to PFS.
"PFS is not a company with discernible assets other than
a regulated license," the Utah House members wrote. "Mr. Parkyn,
having lost over half of his original investors, seems anxious
and desperate to find new victims for his venture in Utah."
They also pointed to the new wilderness area approved by
Congress last year to protect the Utah Test and Training Range,
which also blocks the area where PFS wanted to build a rail line.
"PFS could not have chosen a worse location, as it is
directly underneath the well-established flight-path for all
types of military aircraft utilizing the range, including F-16s
and F-22s." they wrote. "One would have to be incredibly stupid
to knowingly build an above-ground, high-level nuclear waste
storage facility underneath the airspace corridor of a heavily
used military training range which supports 2,000 sorties per
year involving live munitions."
PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said she was not aware of any
replies from the Energy Department or members of Congress on
Parkyn's proposal. She said they continue to work on marketing
and meeting with people in the industry to move the project
ahead.
Meanwhile, the Energy Department sent a major Yucca
Mountain bill to Congress Wednesday after months of cautious
speculation and rumor on what would actually be in the bill from
those that follow the issue.
The bill, which still needs to be introduced officially
by a member of Congress, would withdraw permanently from public
use the land at and surrounding the Yucca Mountain repository
site in Nevada, and would change how Congress allocates money to
the project.
The proposed bill would also eliminate the current 70,000
metric ton limit on Yucca, which was only a legal limit, because
the site can technically hold more.
The summary from the Energy Department does not include
any specific language on federal interim storage, but Bob Loux,
Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency director, the state's top Yucca
critic, said as he reads certain parts of it, if the bill is
approved, waste could begin moving the next day.
While no rail line currently exists to the Yucca project,
proposed rail routes to get nuclear waste from across the
country to Nevada could go through Salt Lake City, according to
a 2002 analysis by the Energy Department.
E-mail: suzanne@desnews.com
© 2006 Deseret News Publishing Company
*****************************************************************
45 AU ABC: Company to start uranium drilling in SA
Thursday, 6 April 2006. 14:43 (AEDT)Thursday, 6 April 2006.
An Australian minerals exploration company has announced it is
drilling for uranium in South Australia.
Western Plains Gold says it is exploring for uranium in the
Curnamona province, in the north-east of the state.
An aerial survey has already been made of the region and the
company hopes that drilling will uncover vein-style uranium
deposits.
The company says it has also uncovered deposits of gold and base
metals in the region which it will also explore further.
*****************************************************************
46 RIA Novosti: Nuclear Agency cleans radioactive Techa River
Opinion &analysis -
06/ 04/ 2006
MOSCOW. (RIA Novosti commentator Tatyana Sinitsyna.) - New head
of the Russian Federal Agency for Nuclear Power Sergei Kiriyenko
has channeled his efforts into solving one of the most odious
problems - the Techa Reservoir Cascade (TRC).
The reservoir has long been a symbol of radioactive
contamination. For many years, ecologists and human rights
champions have been lashing out at the Russian authorities for
their inability to solve a package of problems related to the
Techa River and its "daughter" - the man-made reservoir cascade,
and the agency was particularly lambasted. Now, however,
Kiriyenko seems to have decided to do something about it.
Kiriyenko's adviser, Igor Konyshev, has announced a program for
dealing with the TRC's ecological problems. It provides for
measures to strengthen the dam, which keeps the water inside the
reservoir system; to build an industrial water reclamation
facility and a combined sewage system; to monitor the condition
of the ground, etc. This year, the agency has set aside 250
million rubles ($9.07 million) for this purpose and announced a
tender for all types of work.
The powerful ecological project provides for an independent
contest called Techa-2006 and is based on support for public
initiatives. Konyshev said the agency is expecting to receive
proposals on the social protection of the population in the
contaminated areas, on ecological reports to the public, summer
break and pediatric preventative medicine, and various
public-awareness programs.
Here is some history on the dismal Techa problem. This beautiful
river in the southern Urals, which flows into the Gulf of Ob,
was unlucky. In the late 1940s the town of Ozersk, located on
the river's bank, was chosen as a site for the first atomic
plant - Mayak, which was supposed to produce weapons-grade
plutonium. The Cold War was on and the U.S.S.R. was building up
its military might in an effort to reach nuclear parity with the
U.S.
To get plutonium, uranium fuel was exposed to radiation in
nuclear plants, most of which had an open-loop cooling water
system. The water to cool the plant was pumped in from the
nearby source, stored for the decay of short-lived radioactive
isotopes and discharged back into the water. Initially,
plutonium production was accompanied by huge amounts of liquid
radioactive waste. This was the case in all nuclear countries.
The Americans dumped it into the Hudson, the Brits into the
Irish Sea and the Russians into the Techa River. At that time,
there was no other way of dealing with radioactive waste. Later
on, the Russians invented a method of storing liquid waste deep
underground where it was as harmless as an oil deposit.
But the Techa River was an ill-fated pioneer. When signs of
heavy contamination became obvious in the late 1950s, the
authorities decided to limit the flow of radioactive waste by
building a cascade of water reservoirs, which would be separated
from the riverbed by a dam. The local soil made it impossible to
use the said method of underground nuclear waste disposal.
Experts estimated that if Mayak were located 300 km away from
where it was built, the Techa problem would not have been so
sizeable. But today, they have to deal with the heavy
radionuclides - strontium, cesium and others - that seeped into
the riverbed and contaminated the river, mud and sand. The same
happened in the cascade of reservoirs.
By the 1990s, all plutonium-producing plants were shut down one
by one. But Mayak still has its nuclear waste disposal facility,
the only one in Russia. It also requires water. Today, Mayak is
reprocessing nuclear waste from domestic nuclear plants and from
abroad, as well as the nuclear fuel of decommissioned nuclear
powered submarines.
Mayak directors had substantial funds to deal with the
ecological repercussions, but they were not very enthusiastic.
After the inspections conducted by the Federal Agency for
Nuclear Power and the Prosecutor's Office Mayak's general
director Vitaly Sadovnikov was dismissed. He was charged with
violating the nature-protection clauses of the Criminal Code -
rules on environmental protection and the handling ecologically
hazardous substances.
Today, the Techa River is isolated by barbed wire entanglements
and ridden with radiation warnings. Teachers tell children that
they should not be swimming in the river. But forbidden fruit is
always tempting and some bans are not always observed. Local
residents undergo frequent medical check-ups. Konyshev quoted
doctors as saying that the disease rates of the local people are
not beyond the norm.
Resettlement of people from the Techa River area is a serious
humanitarian operation with both material and psychological
aspects. The terms of the Techa-2006 contest provide for a
radical solution to the problem. It will be clear by April which
projects are the most realistic ones to see through.
The full resettlement of people (up to 3,000) will take about 15
years. "We are ready to spend [the agency's] money for moving
all those who wish to do so into ecologically clean areas, into
new houses," Konyshev said. "But in each case we should have
them legally renounce their old dwellings. Otherwise, some
receive new housing and then return to the old place, saying
that they are nostalgic or do not fit in."
© 2005 RIA Novosti
*****************************************************************
47 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Bush betrays Nevada again (Yucca)
Today: April 06, 2006 at 7:21:41 PDT
Ignoring what he said as a candidate, the president goes whole
hog on Yucca Mountain
It came as no real surprise Tuesday when the Bush administration
announced plans for overstuffing Yucca Mountain with nuclear
waste and for rendering all state and local transportation laws
moot to expedite the delivery of the deadly material.
The Energy Department, at the bidding of President Bush,
proposed to do away with the current limit on how much waste can
be stored at Yucca if it opens. The department wants a
"standard" that says fill up the mountain with as much as can
possibly be crammed into it.
Since Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, was
chosen in 1987 to be the sole site under consideration for a
national nuclear-waste repository, a congressionally mandated
cap of 77,000 tons has been in place. Bush's proposal reminds us
of the saying "10 pounds in a five-pound bag." The tonnage would
increase to at least 132,000 tons, and likely a lot more.
The administration has yet to develop a transportation plan for
getting the waste to Yucca, but has said the routes would be
"mostly rail" augmented by trucking routes. Under Bush's new
proposals, the federal government would be able to pre-empt
state and local transportation safety laws and use its own
discretion in transporting the waste over the nation's highways
and railroads.
Ineptness in federal planning for major events has already been
demonstrated in Iraq and Hurricane Katrina. How safe can anyone
feel knowing that the federal government wants to have total
control over hauling the most deadly cargo known to man past
their homes and communities?
Why none of this is a surprise dates to May 3, 2000. On that
day, then-presidential candidate Bush wrote a letter to Gov.
Kenny Guinn, finally stating his official position on Yucca
Mountain. He wrote: "I believe sound science, and not politics,
must prevail in the designation of any high-level nuclear-waste
repository."
Bush continued, "As president, I would not sign legislation that
would send nuclear waste to any proposed site unless it's been
deemed scientifically safe. I also believe the federal
government must work with the local and state governments that
will be affected to address safety and transportation issues."
Of course, Bush went back on his word and signed legislation on
July 23, 2002, making official the federal government's plan to
develop and open Yucca Mountain. To this day Yucca Mountain has
not been "deemed scientifically safe," and we do not believe any
scientist concerned about his credibility would ever do so.
And now Bush is going back on his word to work with local
governments on safety and transportation issues. We trust that
our congressional delegation, whose members are unified in their
belief that Yucca Mountain cannot ever be made safe, will
prevail in blocking Bush's latest betrayal of Nevada.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
48 reviewjournal.com: YUCCA MOUNTAIN: Measure a 'water grab'
Apr. 06, 2006
Repository bill usurps rights, Nevadans say
By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON -- Nevada officials charged the Bush administration is
mounting a "water grab" and other attacks on state powers in a
bill sent Wednesday to Congress that seeks to speed the proposed
Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository.
The bill contains provisions that would streamline repository
development and shorten a final license review that is required
before nuclear waste could be moved to the site, 100 miles
northwest of Las Vegas.
In sending the bill to Capitol Hill, Energy Secretary Samuel
Bodman urged House and Senate leaders to "enact this important
legislation as soon as possible" to promote expanded use of
nuclear energy and "a more diverse fuel supply for the nation."
Nevada officials Wednesday focused on water rights, an issue in
which they said the Energy Department appears to take the state
head-on.
State engineers have denied applications for DOE to pump 140.2
million gallons annually from a groundwater basin in Nye County,
but the new legislation would make doing that again harder,
analysts said.
"The Bush plan calls on Congress to take away Nevada's ability
to block water from going to Yucca Mountain and would set a
terrible precedent for destroying long-standing local control
over one of our state's most important natural resources," said
Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev.
Lawyers for the state raised questions about hazardous-waste
rules at the site, air quality regulation and state powers over
transportation matters.
In those areas, they said, the bill appears to diminish the
state's role in favor of federal management.
In some cases, they warned, the measure could hamper the ability
of other states, not just Nevada, to exercise jurisdiction in
nuclear waste matters.
"It's a nightmarish view, just about every part of it," said
Marta Adams, senior deputy attorney general for the state.
DOE spokesman Craig Stevens said Yucca opponents were employing
"hysteria and hyperbole" in criticizing the bill.
"The Department of Energy is committed to using only sound
science to prepare Yucca Mountain for licensing, construction,
and operation," Stevens said.
DOE officials could not provide responses to queries Wednesday
night as to how the measure would affect state authorities.
On water, the bill declares that use of the resource for a
repository "is declared to be a use that is beneficial to
interstate commerce and that does not threaten to prove
detrimental to the public interest.
"A state shall not enact or apply a law that discriminates
against this use," the measure said.
Adams said the language seems no coincidence because those were
the grounds under which state engineers Mike Turnipseed and Hugh
Ricci denied DOE water applications in 2000 and 2003.
Stevens said the bill if passed would allow the government to
reapply for water under more favorable conditions than before.
He said the bill probably would bring to an end a water rights
lawsuit the department and the state have been waging for four
years.
But Adams said the DOE's legislation would provoke new lawsuits
from Nevada and probably other states concerned about precedent.
"It would buy years of litigation with us, and we do have a lot
of precedent leaving water rights to the states," Adams said.
"We also would have allies that would reject this wholesale
attempt to tell a state what is and what is not in the public
interest."
Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2006
Stephens Media GroupPrivacy Statement
*****************************************************************
49 Salt Lake Tribune: Utah trio asks House boss to scrap PFS offer
Article Last Updated: 04/06/2006 7:40 AM MDT
The Salt Lake Tribune
WASHINGTON - Utah's House members are urging a key budget
leader to reject an offer from Private Fuel Storage to store
most of the nation's nuclear waste on a Utah Indian reservation.
The letter to House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee
Chairman David Hobson lays out the familiar list of reasons they
oppose the PFS site: Its proximity to the Air Force training
range, a lack of financial assurances, questions about
governance of the Skull Valley Goshute tribe. It was signed by
Reps. Rob Bishop, Jim Matheson and Chris Cannon and
hand-delivered by Bishop on Tuesday. In an earlier letter to
Hobson and others, PFS Chairman John Parkyn offered to contract
with the Energy Department to store 44,000 tons of spent nuclear
fuel on the site at a cost of about $60 million annually until a
permanent waste repository can be built at Yucca Mountain, Nev.
Hobson asked the Energy Department to look at the proposal, but
he did not endorse it. - Robert Gehrke
© Copyright 2006, The Salt Lake Tribune.
*****************************************************************
50 Las Vegas SUN: Nevada candidates touts renewable energy plan
Today: April 06, 2006 at 11:17:23 PDT
ASSOCIATED PRESS
RENO, Nev. (AP) - State Sen. Dina Titus, a Democratic candidate
for Nevada governor, says that if elected she will try to shift
the state's focus to renewable energy rather than relying on
traditional energy programs.
Titus on Wednesday also criticized her primary opponent,
Henderson Mayor Jim Gibson, and the Republican front-runner,
U.S. Rep. Jim Gibbons, saying they are part of the status quo on
energy issues.
"My emphasis on renewable energy will be a great contrast with
the status quo," she said. "We haven't done enough. We still
consider renewable energy a novelty instead of a substantive
resources that we can turn into economic development."
Among Titus's proposals are to rename the governor's Office of
Energy the Office of Renewable Energy, appoint consumer-friendly
representatives to the Public Utilities Commission, promote
renewable energy production as an economic development tool and
position Nevada to be a "clean energy exporter" to other states
in the region.
The energy platform did not address the rising prices of
gasoline, but she said she'll discuss that when she announces
her environmental platform.
Gibson also recently unveiled an energy plan. His proposal
includes tax incentives for fuel-efficient and hybrid vehicles
as well as ethanol and other bio-diesel fuels. He also said he
would push for more university research of alternative fuel use
and producing crops for ethanol.
"As your next governor, I will be fully committed to exploring
alternative energy sources to significantly reduce our
dependence on foreign and nonrenewable fuels," Gibson said in a
written release.
Gibbons, the Republican, has not yet announced an energy policy.
All contents copyright 2005 Las Vegas SUN, Inc.
*****************************************************************
51 Rep. Shelley Berkley: Bush Makes Yucca Mountain Water Grab -
News From U.S. Representative
Shelley Berkley (NV-01)
www.house.gov/berkley
For Immediate Release Contact: David
Cherry (202) 226 7578
BUSH MAKES YUCCA MOUNTAIN WATER GRAB
Berkley: "Vicious Assault on Nevadans"
(April 5, 2006 -- Washington, D.C.) Congresswoman Shelley
Berkley (D-NV) today said that the Bush Administration's new
plan to speed the opening of Yucca Mountain will destroy
Nevada's ability to protect its water resources and limit the
ability of the State to fight the proposed nuclear garbage dump.
"The Bush Administration's Yucca Mountain bill tramples all over
Nevada's right to determine how water is used to benefit the
families of our State. If President Bush and his allies succeed
in passing this bill, Nevada will be unable to block the
Department of Energy from using unlimited amounts of water for
burying nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain," said Berkley.
"The State of Nevada has determined that Yucca Mountain
threatens to pollute vital water sources and has denied DOE the
ability to tap local water reserves. The Bush plan calls on
Congress to take away Nevada's ability to block water from going
to Yucca Mountain and would set a terrible precedent for
destroying long-standing local control over one of our State's
most important natural resources," Berkley said.
"The entire Yucca Mountain process has shown that President Bush
and his Republican allies have absolutely no respect for
Nevada's rights as a state, our laws, or the health and safety
of our families," said Berkley.
"This is but one of the vicious assaults on Nevadans included in
the Bush Yucca Mountain package, which also eliminates all
restrictions on how much waste can be sent to Nevada and limits
local challenges against the proposed dump and dangerous
shipments to the facility," Berkley said.
SUMMARY OF WATER RIGHTS PROVISIONS:
The State of Nevada has determined that it is not in Nevada's
public interest to allow the water to be used for the
development of Yucca Mountain. This provision would give the
Department of Energy access to the water it says is needed to
run Yucca Mountain. The provision also would authorize the
Secretary to obtain water rights, by purchase or otherwise, to
carry out the Department's functions under the Nuclear Waste
Policy Act. This provision also bars Nevada from enacting laws
to block DOE's use of water at the proposed dump site.
# # #
*****************************************************************
52 Senator Reid: REID, ENSIGN SLAM YUCCA MOUNTAIN BILL
For Immediate Release
Tuesday, April 4, 2006
Contact: Sharyn Stein (Reid) 202-224-1619 Jack Finn (Ensign)
202-224-4302
DOE Legislation Called “Dead on Arrival”
Washington, D.C. – Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign today
criticized a new Yucca Mountain bill for being a continuation of
the failed policies of the past.
The Department of Energy will send the legislation to Capitol
Hill tomorrow morning. Lawmakers have not had a chance to study
the bill yet, but Reid and Ensign say they know enough about it
to realize that it would be harmful to Nevada.
“I received a call from a DOE official today. I didn’t hear all
the details of the bill, but I heard enough to know there’s
nothing new or original,” said Reid. “The DOE is following the
same road that has led them to countless health, safety, and
scientific violations. This bill has no future; it’s dead when
it gets here. We need to move away from these failed policies
and towards on-site dry cask storage of nuclear waste. Dry cask
storage would save our country billions of dollars and keep us
safer. It’s already being used successfully at 34 nuclear
sites.”
“The bill being brought before us is yet another attempt to
twist the data and make Yucca Mountain appear scientifically
sound,” said Ensign. “This bill will go nowhere. The Nevada
delegation is as united as ever on stopping Yucca Mountain and
interim storage, and misguided legislation such as this will
only bolster our cause. No doctored data, cartoon character or
amount of scientific malpractice will make Yucca Mountain
suitable.”
Reid and Ensign plan to study the bill closely in the next few
days, but both said they expect the legislation to look even
worse with more scrutiny.
###
*****************************************************************
53 KVBC: Nevada Senators react to Yucca Mountain bill
The Bush Administration wants to speed up getting nuclear waste
to Yucca Mountain. The Energy Department wants to lift the
77,000 ton storage cap on the waste site.
Under the new Yucca Mountain bill, federal officials hoping to
ship the nuclear waste by rail would be able to preempt state
and local transportation regulations.
Nevada Senators Harry Reid and John Ensign say they are pleased
with one aspect of the bill. A provision to allow interim
storage of nuclear waste was not included in the bill. However,
the senators criticized other aspects that would jeopardize the
health and safety of Nevadans. The senators expect the bill to
die in the senate.
.gif"> All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KVBC.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
54 KLASTV: Nevada Leadership Opposes Latest Yucca Mountain Bill
Edward Lawrence, Reporter
Nevada's congressional delegation is digging in and promising to
kill the latest Yucca Mountain bill the Department of Energy,
with the support of President Bush, sent to Congress on
Wednesday.
The plan increases the amount of radioactive waste that could be
stored at the site. The DOE also wants access to a special
nuclear waste fund created to ensure adequate funding for Yucca
Mountain.
Senators Harry Reid (D-NV) and John Ensign (R-NV) say their
first line of defense will involve delay tactics to stall the
efforts to move the project forward.
"There were many proposals that violated environmental laws,"
said Ensign. "Things the president was trying to do to speed up
the process. Yucca Mountain is in trouble by itself. The good
thing about this legislation is that they don't have any fast
track authority to move it through the congress."
That bill is now in committee and it hasn't reached the full
senate but already it's sparked some sharp criticism and some
praise here in Southern Nevada.
Plain language in the bill gives the DOE more authority and
takes away avenues the state used to block the project.
One of the most successful ways our representatives and senators
delayed the project from opening was to cut the budget.
The new bill allows the DOE to tap into the nuclear waste fund.
Every utility company with a nuclear power plant pays into the
fund. The $700 million collected each year is designated for the
operation of the Yucca Mountain waste repository.
The bill will allow the use of the money for building the waste
site.
"That is one of the tools that frankly is now going to get wiped
out it appears, said former Nevada governor and now nuclear
energy consultant Bob List, who supports the Yucca Mountain
project.
Peggy Maze Johnson opposes it. She runs Citizen Alert and joined
with the state of Nevada to block the project.
"They want to tap into the fund and not have congress have any
oversight, said Johnson.
The DOE says an appropriations committee will still have to
approve the budget, but more than enough money to finish the
project is already in the fund.
The bill would also remove a cap on how much nuclear waste can
be stored at Yucca Mountain. It currently can store 77,000 tons,
but could increase up to 132,000 tons would also take water
rights from the state and give them to the department of energy.
Yucca Mountain will still need a water use permit from the state
but the law says the state couldn't deny it, and that the DOE
can take all the water it needs to finish and run the nuclear
repository.
The fight over the Yucca Mountain project is one that's going to
stay in the headlines for the coming months and years. The DOE
with the support of the Bush Administration want to entomb the
nation's most highly radioactive nuclear material in one
underground location at Yucca Mountain, which is about 90 miles
northwest of Las Vegas.
State leaders are fighting the project saying there are numerous
health and safety dangers. The repository was supposed to open
in 2010 but that won't happen because of work delays and
investigations of allegations that scientists have falsified
work to cover up problems.
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2006 WorldNow and KLAS.
All Rights Reserved.
*****************************************************************
55 Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: Second landfill rejects contaminated ash -
PittsburghLIVE.com
By Liz Hayes
TRIBUNE-REVIEW NEWS SERVICE
Thursday, April 6, 2006
An Elk County landfill on Wednesday withdrew its proposal to
accept waste contaminated by nuclear materials from an Allegheny
Township water authority.
Onyx Greentree Landfill in Kersey, Fox Township, was the low
bidder last week when the Kiski Valley Water Pollution Control
Authority opened proposals for the disposal of about 12,000
cubic meters of the contaminated ash from a former wastewater
treatment lagoon in Westmoreland County.
The company's area manager yesterday confirmed the landfill
would rescind its bid in response to concerns from local
residents.
This is the second time a landfill has withdrawn its application
to accept the material. Green Ridge Landfill in East Huntingdon
in November rescinded its bid after nearby residents and
officials protested.
The authority board had not yet voted on Onyx's bid, which means
it still can accept the proposal from the next lowest bidder.
The only other bidder was U.S. Ecology, a subsidiary of American
Ecology Corp., which operates disposal sites for hazardous and
radioactive waste in four Western states, according to the
company's Web site. However, at $756,000, U.S. Ecology's
proposal was roughly twice the cost of the Onyx bid -- which
already was about $150,000 higher than the Green Ridge bid last
year. The U.S. Ecology bid does not include the entire cost of
transporting the material to the treatment sites.
Liz Hayes can be reached at lhayes@tribweb.comor (724) 226-4680.
copyright © 2006 by The Tribune-Review
Publishing Co.
*****************************************************************
56 CONTRA COSTA TIMES: Plutonium won't stay in Livermore
Thursday, Apr 06, 2006 Today in the
By Betsy Mason
[Lawrence Livermore National Lab scientists working with
radioactive material.] Lawrence Livermore National Lab Lawrence
Livermore National Lab scientists working with radioactive
material.
The Department of Energy announced plans Wednesday to move
plutonium from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory by 2014 and to
consolidate all U.S. work involving plutonium at a single
facility by 2022.
The move, intended to enhance security and increase efficiency,
is part of a larger plan to renovate the nuclear weapons complex
by 2030.
"We're looking to make the complex safer and more secure," said
Bryan Wilkes, spokesman for the National Nuclear Security
Administration -- the DOE branch that oversees the weapons
complex.
Plutonium is now scattered across the country at seven different
DOE facilities, requiring high-level security tailored to each
site. Livermore may be the most problematic because of its
proximity to the surrounding community, and to the densely
populated Bay Area.
Livermore recently beefed up defense of its plutonium facility
with the addition of multiple six-barreled Gatling guns, capable
of firing more than 50 shots per second.
Community groups including Livermore-based Tri-Valley
Communities Against a Radioactive Environment have long argued
that the 7 million people living within a 50-mile radius of the
lab make it an inappropriate place to store plutonium.
The new plan, outlined by the NNSA during a House Armed Services
Committee meeting in Washington, involves moving plutonium from
Livermore to Los Alamos Laboratory in New Mexico. A new facility
being built there would ramp up to take over the production of
pits -- the explosive cores of nuclear warheads -- and the
plutonium work currently being done at both labs. By 2022, the
plutonium would be moved again to a new facility whose location
has not been determined.
Peter Stockton of the Project on Government Oversight says
plutonium needs to be moved from Livermore, but doesn't think it
should wait until 2014.
"We totally don't agree with the time frame," he said. "I'd say
we want it out of there in a year."
Rep. Ellen Tauscher, D-Alamo, a member of the House Armed
Services Committee who has opposed removing all plutonium from
the lab in the past, is supportive of the new plan.
"My priority has always been to buy down the risk for the
community while at the same time assuring there is no
diminishment of the lab's role, its pedigree and its
opportunities," she said.
The plutonium issue has come to a head in Livermore in recent
years.
In April 2004, NNSA administrator Linton Brooks testified before
Congress that eliminating plutonium from Livermore would get in
the way of important work related to maintaining the current
weapons stockpile.
But the following month, then-Secretary of Energy Spencer
Abraham hinted during a speech in South Carolina that he would
consider moving nuclear materials from Livermore.
Less than a year later, in April 2005, in a move directly
counter to Abraham's suggestion, the NNSA proposed doubling
plutonium allowed at Livermore from 1,540 pounds to 3,080
pounds. That plan was approved in November. The actual amount of
plutonium currently stored at the lab is classified, but the
official amount is 880 pounds.
In January 2005, safety concerns led to a nine-month stand-down
of operations at Livermore's plutonium site.
Several recent assessments recommended consolidation of all
special nuclear materials -- plutonium and highly enriched
uranium that can be used to make nuclear weapons -- to a single
site.
In September, an independent security review of the complex by
retired Adm. Richard Mies pointed to the Nevada Test Site or an
underground storage facility at Idaho National Lab as potential
places to store the material.
The DOE's new plan is in response to a fairly negative
assessment released in October by a special task force
commissioned by Abraham that concluded the weapons complex is
"neither robust, nor agile, nor responsive, with little evidence
of a master plan."
The task force also recommended a new facility to house all
special nuclear materials.
"They pose a threat to the civilian community," report author
David Overskei said in October when the report was approved.
NNSA deputy administrator Tom D'Agostino presented the NNSA's
response to the report on Wednesday.
"It's the first time a senior official has laid out a blueprint
like this," said NNSA spokesman Wilkes. "It's all about
maintaining a nuclear deterrent while reducing the total number
of weapons in the stockpile."
Among the most sweeping plans D'Agostino laid out are designing
a nuclear warhead to replace existing Cold War-era weapons, and
consolidating all special nuclear materials to one site.
The plan also includes shutting down the Livermore lab's Site
300 hydrodynamic facility near Tracy.
Wilkes stressed the plan to move Livermore's plutonium does not
mean the NNSA questions the lab's future. "We will always have a
need for Livermore lab," he said. "Livermore lab has a bright
future."
Times staff writer Dogen Hannah contributed to this story. Reach
Betsy Mason at 925-847-2158 or bmason@cctimes.com.
LAWRENCE LIVERMORE LAB AND PLUTONIUM
• The lab has 880 pounds of plutonium and is allowed to have
about 3,080 pounds.
• In Livermore and at two facilities in Nevada, the lab uses
plutonium for nuclear weapons research. It conducts experiments
to learn how plutonium performs as it ages; how it behaves under
high pressure, such as with the impact of high explosives; and
how to dismantle nuclear weapons safely, without causing
contamination.
• Plutonium is dangerous to humans when inhaled or taken into
the body. For instance, it can cause mutations that can lead to
cancer.
• Amassing too much plutonium can trigger a "criticality," or a
spontaneous release of energy that includes harmful radiation.
How much is too much depends on the plutonium's shape,
temperature and other factors. A criticality is not a nuclear
detonation.
*****************************************************************
57 DOE: DOE Announces $52.5 Million Solicitation for Basic Hydrogen
Research Supporting President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative
April 6, 2006
DOE Announces $52.5 Million Solicitation for Basic Hydrogen
Research Supporting President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative
DETROIT , MI - Secretary Bodman announced a three-year, $52.5
million solicitation to support new innovations in hydrogen
technology. The solicitation, to be released later this month,
supports President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative - which
seeks to reduce dependence on foreign oil - and will support
research to assist in overcoming the scientific challenges
associated with the production, use and storage of hydrogen.
Secretary Bodman made the announcement while speaking to the
2006 SAE World Congress today.
This investment in basic research is designed to spur new
innovation and breakthroughs that will help us build a
hydrogen-based economy, Secretary Bodman said.
Our automotive industry is undergoing change, and we hope that
this funding will enable America to lead the world in developing
clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles that will be emissions-free
and reduce our dependence on imported oil. I believe this will
help us overcome technical barriers and bring hydrogen and fuel
cell technology one step closer to the showroom. The
solicitation will target the challenges that crosscut hydrogen
storage, production and utilization identified in DOEs report
Basic Research Needs for the Hydrogen Economy. The areas will
include novel hydrogen storage materials, catalysts, and
membranes.
It will also create new information
to expand upon DOEs already-existing basic research and will
provide the longer-term knowledge necessary to move toward a
hydrogen economy. If DOE's research - in partnership with
industry, national labs and universities - succeeds in meeting
consumer requirements by 2015, a mass-market penetration of
hydrogen fuel cell vehicles can begin by 2020, achieving
President Bushs goal of enabling todays children to take their
future driver's tests in completely pollution-free cars.
Secretary Bodman made this announcement while promoting
President Bushs Advanced Energy Initiative (AEI), aimed at
breaking our dependence on foreign energy sources. The AEI is a
22 percent increase in clean-energy research at DOE that will
accelerate breakthroughs in the way we power our cars, homes and
businesses.
The Fiscal Year 2007 budget requests more than $2.1 billion for
AEI-related programs. While hydrogen remains at the center of
our nations long-term strategy for energy independence and
reduction of criteria pollutants and greenhouse gases, Secretary
Bodman also discussed nearer-term technologies for breaking our
foreign oil dependence. Secretary Bodman implored all automakers
to make vehicles that run on clean burning E-85 fuel. This is a
mixture of 85% renewable ethanol with 15% gasoline.
The Secretary also announced that DOE will solicit proposals for
public-private partnerships to make E-85 more widely available.
Secretary Bodman also expressed his desire to see automakers
expand their hybrid-electric vehicle line and announced that DOE
is requesting more funding for advanced batteries to expand the
all-electric, zero-emission range and fuel economy of these
vehicles. DOE believes that the robust near-term and long-term
technology approaches under the Presidents AEI will result in
vehicles Americans want to buy while also providing significant
energy security and environmental benefits.
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 |
*****************************************************************
58 Hanford News: Energy Dept. plans to consolidate plutonium to increase security
This story was published Thursday, April 6th, 2006
By H. Josef Hebert, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Energy Department announced plans
Wednesday to consolidate virtually all of the government's
weapons research and development involving plutonium at a single
site to enhance security.
The plan, which is part of a broader overhaul of the weapons
program over the next two decades, calls for removing plutonium
stocks now at the Livermore National Laboratory in California by
2014 and from all current facilities by 2022.
Plutonium is now kept at seven facilities within the
government's weapons production and research complex, posing
difficult and expensive security issues at some of them.
Community activists at Livermore have complained that the
plutonium poses too high a risk at the government weapons lab,
located in a heavily populated suburban area 40 miles from
downtown San Francisco.
The actual amount of plutonium at the lab's "Superblock," where
weapons research is conducted, is classified. The official
inventory is 880 pounds, said Livermore spokesman David
Schwoegler.
The radioactive material, which is deadly if inhaled or
ingested, is used at Livermore for research into weapons
components and the reliability of existing warheads. Schwoegler
said "80 percent of the plutonium on site we don't need."
Thomas D'Agostino, deputy administrator of the National Nuclear
Security Administration, told a House hearing that the
department wants to create a central plutonium research center
as part of the weapons complex overhaul.
"We will improve the security posture of our national
laboratories by phasing out (plutonium) operations" at those
facilities, he said.
Weapons research involving substantial amounts of plutonium is
conducted at seven locations across the country, including the
Livermore lab and the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New
Mexico.
D'Agostino said the Livermore and Los Alamos labs would continue
to be centers for nuclear weapons design and development, but
plutonium research and development "would be relocated to a
single site" elsewhere.
No decision has been made on the location of the plutonium
research facility. Department officials said it is envisioned
the site also would include a new plant to manufacture plutonium
"pits" - the softball-size core of a nuclear weapon.
The NNSA, the semiautonomous agency within the Energy Department
that oversees nuclear weapons research and production, has had
difficulty getting some of the facilities to meet new, more
stringent security requirements imposed since the Sept. 11,
2001, terrorist attacks.
Energy Department officials have acknowledged that meeting some
of those requirements will be extremely expensive and may not be
possible at some of the sites, such as Livermore, if the
plutonium remains there.
Peter Stockton, a former Energy Department official who is now
an investigator for the Project on Government Oversight, a
private advocacy group, told the hearing that consolidation of
weapons material should be completed faster than the Energy
Department is planning.
Putting the material at fewer places would make it easier to
defend and "could save the government billions of dollars ...
while better protecting the public from nuclear terrorism," said
Stockton.
An Energy Department senior advisory board recently recommended
that all the government's sensitive nuclear materials - highly
enriched uranium and plutonium - be consolidated by 2015.
D'Agostino said the department agreed with much of the board's
recommendations, but not its recommendation on consolidation.
Under the Energy plan, activities using highly enriched uranium
would be conducted at the Y-12 weapons facility at Oak Ridge,
Tenn.
© 2006 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved.
*****************************************************************
59 Cattle Network: US Energy Secretary: Oil Prices Eventually Will Impact Economy
CattleNetwork.com]
Today 4/6/2006 2:55:00 PM
DETROIT (Dow Jones)--U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman said
Thursday that he's "surprised" that oil price increases over the
last year haven't had a greater impact on the U.S. economy but
said, eventually, sustained high prices will have an economic
effect.
Speaking during a question-and-answer session during his speech
at the Society of Automotive Engineers World Congress, Bodman
said he's "worried" that the economy will suffer if oil prices
stay above current levels.
"At some point in time we're going to reach a limit and we will
see a real impact of increased oil prices on our economic
activity," Bodman said. "Whether its $95 or something north of
that I don't know. I can tell you I'm worried about anything
above the current levels."
Oil prices have surged over the past four years, touching $70 a
barrel last summer in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. The May
contract is trading between $67-$68 a barrel on the New York
Mercantile Exchange.
Bodman said the administration's Advanced Energy Initiative,
which calls for increases in research dollars for bio-fuels,
hybrid battery technology and hydrogen fuel, has the country "on
the right track" in terms of mitigating the impact of oil
prices.
But he warned there are no quick fixes.
"We think we're on the right track," he said. "But this country
has been decades in getting itself into the fix we're in now.
And it'll be a significant number of years working our way out
of it."
Bodman also called for the approval of the Yucca Mountain
project, which is to be built for the disposal of nuclear waste.
He said current initiatives to help along construction of
nuclear power plants will lead to a "single digit" number of new
plants on line by 2015. That's because the issue of what to do
with nuclear waste, such as spent fuel rods, has yet to be
addressed.
"This country doesn't need four (nuclear power) plants," he said
during a press conference after his speech. "We need 14 or we
need 24. To get a general rebirth, if you will, of the nuclear
industry in this country will require Yucca Mountain be built."
Bodman said demand for electricity in the U.S. will increase 50%
over the next 20-25 years and "the only thing I see meeting that
is nuclear power."
-By Terry Kosdrosky, Dow Jones Newswires; 313-226-1251;
terry.kosdrosky@dowjones.com
Content Copyright ©2004 CattleNetwork.com
*****************************************************************
60 DOE: Office of Science; Fusion Energy Sciences Advisory Committee
FR Doc E6-4999
[Federal Register: April 6, 2006 (Volume 71, Number 66)]
[Notices] [Page 17461-17462] From the Federal Register Online via
GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr06ap06-59]
AGENCY: Department of Energy.
ACTION: Notice of open meeting.
SUMMARY: This notice announces a meeting of the Fusion Energy
Sciences Advisory Committee. The Federal Advisory Committee Act
(Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) requires that public notice of
these meetings be announced in the Federal Register.
DATES: Thursday, June 1, 2006, 8:30 a.m. to 6 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The Gaithersburg Hilton Hotel, 620 Perry Parkway,
Gaithersburg, Maryland, 20887, USA.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert L. Opdenaker, Office of
Fusion Energy Sciences, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-1290; Telephone:
301-903-4927.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Purpose of the Meeting: The major
purposes of the meeting are for the Fusion Energy Sciences
Advisory Committee (FESAC) to (1) complete the charge to rate the
program's progress toward meeting long-range PART measures; (2)
review the EPAct-required plan for the participation of U.S.
scientists in ITER; and, (3) hear from a small group of FESAC
members that was appointed after the last meeting to consider how
to address the charge on how the program should evolve over the
coming decade taking into account new and upgraded international
experiments, and how the U.S. program should prepare to make the
transition to ITER.
Tentative Agenda Thursday, June 1, 2006: Complete the charge on
assessing the program's progress toward achieving long-range PART
measures.
Review the EPAct-required plan for the participation of U.S.
Scientists in ITER.
[[Page 17462]] Discuss the approach to addressing the new charge
to recommend how the program should evolve over the next ten
years.
Hear Public Comments.
Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. If you
would like to file a written statement with the Committee, you
may do so either before or after the meeting. If you would like
to make oral statements regarding any of the items on the agenda,
you should contact Albert L. Opdenaker at 301-903-8584 (fax) or
albert.opdenaker@science.doe.gov (e-mail). You must make your
request for an oral statement at least 5 business days before the
meeting. Reasonable provision will be made to include the
scheduled oral statements on the agenda. The Chairperson of the
Committee will conduct the meeting to facilitate the orderly
conduct of business.
Public comment will follow the 10-minute rule.
Minutes: We will make the minutes of this meeting available for
public review and copying within 30 days at the Freedom of
Information Public Reading Room, 1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 4
p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Issued at Washington, DC, on March 30, 2006.
Rachel M. Samuel, Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E6-4999 Filed 4-5-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
*****************************************************************
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:
*****************************************************************