***************************************************************** 12/18/02 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 10.327 ***************************************************************** 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 NK Buys Plutonium Extraction Chemical 2 US: Ensign appointed to Senate Armed Services Committee 3 UNMOVIC/IAEA Press Statement on Inspection Activities in Iraq, 4 IAEA chief says inspections still in early stages 5 IAEA chief says inspections still in early stages 6 No nukes found in Iraq so far: IAEA chief 7 Russia wants Iran to be nuclear-free 8 US: Release of North American Energy Efficiency Report 9 Experts: Nuke use unlikely in Iraq* 10 US: Lott bill unpopular with TUB, other TVA power distributors* 11 US and Britain lambast Iraq dossier 12 US: Pentagon Seen Seeking $14 Billion Spending Hike* 13 Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program NUCLEAR REACTORS 14 US: Blast scheduled to take down crane at Maine Yankee* 15 Support for Chernobyl 16 UK: Ministers defer nuclear plant edict 17 US: State police investigate incident near Surry nuclear plant* 18 US: Perry plant neighbors to get pills for radiation 19 Ukrainians Demand Reopening of Nuke Plant 20 US: State Legislature to decide future of nuclear energy 21 CEZ, which owns the Temelin nuclear plant, may be forced to 22 US: NRC fines nuclear plant (Prairie Island) 23 US: NRC: Regulatory guide comment request 24 US: Diablo Canyon Security Zone NUCLEAR SAFETY 25 US: Energy Employees Compensation Program Home Page 26 US: Nuclear plant neighbors to get pills 27 US: Water water everywhere; but not really NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 28 Nuclear waste storage depot in northwest Russia nearly full - 29 Poor B.C. waste site management threatens health, environment, says 30 US: Officials: Cask tests have PR value 31 US: *Experts: More radioactive waste wanted at dumps* 32 US: Transuranic Waste Shipments Headed for Hanford 33 US: *Landfill radiation plan slammed* 34 US: Xcel comes begging for more nuclear waste storage 35 US: NRC proposal to change Pathfinder contamination levels 36 Yucca Mountain Whistleblower speaks out NUCLEAR WEAPONS 37 DIA: North Korea has Two Nuclear Weapons 38 India says taking steps against nuclear attacks 39 India says taking steps against nuclear attacks 40 US: Hagel Clearly Remembers Our Nuclear Nightmares 41 The banalization of nuclear weaponry 42 US: Nuclear security agency's reorganization plan calls for job cuts US DEPT. OF ENERGY 43 Gerald Boyd, Oak Ridge executive, to be manager of Energy Dept. 44 AC exploring taxing DOE contractors 45 DOE nuclear security agency slashes Nevada jobs 46 PNNL's next director must build on vision 47 DOE agency overhaul will benefit state 48 Boyd is new ORO manager 49 Fed work force at NTS to be cut OTHER NUCLEAR 50 State provides security for radioactive material* 51 Going with the wind ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 NK Buys Plutonium Extraction Chemical Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English Updated Dec.18,2002 16:37 KST by Kang In-sun (insun@chosun.com) WASHINGTON - The Washington Times reported Tuesday (local time) that North Korea has bought 20 tons of tributyl phosphate (TPB), a dual use chemical from Chinese companies. TBP can be used in making plastics, ink, and paint, but also is a key chemical for the plutonium-uranium extraction process, or purex, which produces weapons grade nuclear material, either plutonium or uranium. The daily stated that intelligence officials believe Pyongyang will use the chemical for the latter, based on sensitive information. The director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Gary Milhollin was quoted as saying the news was ominous because it was evidence the North planned to extract more plutonium. North Korea recently demanded the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to unseal storage facilities for spent plutonium fuel rods that could be used as a base for the extraction. White House press secretary Ari Fleischer told reporters on December 16 that China was not helping the North's nuclear program, but was instead aiding the United States, South Korea, Japan and Russia in keeping the peninsula non-nuclear. Regarding the latest developments, the White House had no comment. ***************************************************************** 2 Ensign appointed to Senate Armed Services Committee Las Vegas SUN: December 17, 2002 By Benjamin Grove WASHINGTON -- When the new session of Congress begins next month with an anticipated focus on a possible war with Iraq, Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., will have a front row seat for the discussion. Ensign has been appointed to the Armed Services Committee. He also sits on the Senate Commerce Committee and is angling for one more spot, on the Budget Committee. If he gets that post, he likely will give up his seats on the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee and the Special Aging Committee. The Senate Republican Conference is expected to finalize assignments in the next week or two. Armed Services has jurisdiction over a wide range of issues that affect the military branches. It also oversees military research and development, nuclear weapons policy, and space weapons proposals. "Our nation's military is at a critical juncture today," Ensign said. "With the ongoing reality of terrorism and regional instability around the world, there is an incredible amount of pressure on our troops, our weapons systems and our installations." Ensign said the new post gives him a seat at the table when decisions are made that affect Nellis Air Force Base and the Nevada National Guard, and the committee also has some jurisdiction over the Nevada Test Site. The Armed Services panel's jurisdiction does not include setting budgets for the Defense Department -- most military money matters are decided in the Appropriations Committee. But the Armed Services Committee has some jurisdiction over military pay and benefits issues. Ensign said he would work to assure that soldiers, sailors and airmen "have the quality of life they deserve." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 3 UNMOVIC/IAEA Press Statement on Inspection Activities in Iraq, Media Advisory 2002/54 - 17 December 2002 [www.iaea.org] News Update on Iraq Inspections 17 December 2002 -- One UNMOVIC biological team inspected the Department of Biotechnology-College of Sciences at Baghdad University at Al-Jadiriyia in Baghdad. The University is a State-run institution and under the Ministry of Education. This site was previously declared and monitored. The Department carries out basic research and teaching for Master's and Doctoral degree students. Another biological team headed for Mosul to inspect previously declared biological sites in the region. Two UNMOVIC teams of missile inspectors visited separate locations involved in missile activity. One team visited the Oxidiser Production plant, which is located about 50 km northwest of Baghdad. The plant is owned by the Ministry of Industry and Minerals. It comprises a small plant engaged in the production of fuel and oxidizer for missiles, such as the Volga/SA-2 and the Al Samood. The second team inspected the Al-Almeen Factory, located 124 km southwest of Baghdad. The Factory produces the motor cases and nozzle housings for the Al-Fet'h and the Al-Abour Missiles. The Factory employs 165 people. The UNMOVIC chemical team inspected the Falluja II site. One IAEA team inspected two sites in Baghdad: the Radwan Factory and the Iraqi Plant. Both are previously declared sites. The rest of the IAEA team left in the direction of Mosul this morning. I cannot confirm their inspection sites until I receive their reports. Today, an additional 8 inspectors from UNMOVIC arrived in Baghdad, bringing the total number of UNMOVIC inspectors to 94. The IAEA has 19 inspectors. The grand total of inspectors from UNMOVIC and the IAEA now stands at 113. Hiro Ueki Spokesman for UNMOVIC and the IAEA in Baghdad ***************************************************************** 4 IAEA chief says inspections still in early stages 18 Dec 2002 11:39 CAIRO, Dec 18 (Reuters) - The head of the United Nations' nuclear agency said in remarks published on Wednesday he had no proof so far that Iraq tried to build up a forbidden weapons programme since U.N. inspectors left the country four years ago. "No evidence has surfaced so far that facilities have been changed since 1998," the International Atomic Energy Agency's Mohamed ElBaradei told the Egyptian daily al-Ahram in reference to the year when weapon inspections in Iraq stopped. But ElBaradei said: "We have to be certain. Inspections are still in their initial stage." More than 100 U.N. inspectors are starting the fourth week of their hunt for President Saddam Hussein's alleged doomsday arsenal, testing Baghdad's claim that it no longer has any long-range missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programmes. ElBaradei and U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix are due to give preliminary findings to the Security Council in New York on Thursday. Al-Ahram quoted ElBaradei as saying the IAEA would say in its report that "in order to reach a conclusion, inspections in Iraq should continue...several interviews with Iraqi officials should be carried out and much work done so that we are sure Iraq's (report) is full and precise". U.S. officials and U.N. diplomats have said an early review of the 12,000-page weapons declaration which Iraq submitted earlier this month shows it appears to fall short of the full disclosure required by a tough U.N. Security Council resolution, which demanded Iraq disarm or face severe consequences. But ElBaradei said at the weekend the United Nations would need a few months to reach a conclusion about Iraq's declaration on its weapons programme. Many Arabs are concerned that the United States, which seeks to oust Saddam, could try to use any perceived violation of the November 8 resolution -- such as an incomplete weapons declaration -- as a pretext for war. reuters ***************************************************************** 5 IAEA chief says inspections still in early stages Reuters AlertNet - 18 Dec 2002 11:39 CAIRO, Dec 18 (Reuters) - The head of the United Nations' nuclear agency said in remarks published on Wednesday he had no proof so far that Iraq tried to build up a forbidden weapons programme since U.N. inspectors left the country four years ago. "No evidence has surfaced so far that facilities have been changed since 1998," the International Atomic Energy Agency's Mohamed ElBaradei told the Egyptian daily al-Ahram in reference to the year when weapon inspections in Iraq stopped. But ElBaradei said: "We have to be certain. Inspections are still in their initial stage." More than 100 U.N. inspectors are starting the fourth week of their hunt for President Saddam Hussein's alleged doomsday arsenal, testing Baghdad's claim that it no longer has any long-range missiles, or nuclear, chemical or biological weapons programmes. ElBaradei and U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix are due to give preliminary findings to the Security Council in New York on Thursday. Al-Ahram quoted ElBaradei as saying the IAEA would say in its report that "in order to reach a conclusion, inspections in Iraq should continue...several interviews with Iraqi officials should be carried out and much work done so that we are sure Iraq's (report) is full and precise". U.S. officials and U.N. diplomats have said an early review of the 12,000-page weapons declaration which Iraq submitted earlier this month shows it appears to fall short of the full disclosure required by a tough U.N. Security Council resolution, which demanded Iraq disarm or face severe consequences. But ElBaradei said at the weekend the United Nations would need a few months to reach a conclusion about Iraq's declaration on its weapons programme. Many Arabs are concerned that the United States, which seeks to oust Saddam, could try to use any perceived violation of the November 8 resolution -- such as an incomplete weapons declaration -- as a pretext for war. ***************************************************************** 6 No nukes found in Iraq so far: IAEA chief Iraq daily Newspaper ABU DHABI, AGENCIES Mohammed El Baradei, Director-General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said in Abu Dhabi that it was too early to come to a conclusion on Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction. Delivering a lecture on "Peaceful uses of Nuclear Energy: The Contribution of the International Atomic Energy Agency" organised by the Abu Dhabi-based Emirates Centre for Strategic Studies and Research, Mr El Baradei said, "this process may take quite some time." “The unconditional acceptance by Iraq of resumption of inspections under Security Council Resolution 1441 and the cooperation it has extended to the inspection team has been of great help to the inspectors in their work,”he added. “However, it is too early to conclude anything”, said ElBaradei. ElBaradei said he believed with Iraq adopting unconditionally resolution 1441 of Security Council, the use of force no longer appears as first option. He, however, made it clear that Iraq must continue to cooperate with the IAEA inspectors to avert war. “So far we have made good progress and have found no evidence of any weapons of mass destruction," noted the IAEA chief. He expressed hope that full cooperation by Iraq can lead to avoidance of any force and the possibility for the suspension and eventual end to sanctions under which the Iraqi people have suffered a lot for a long time. He gave a brief description of the responsibilities and IAEA and said one of the main tasks was related to the verification of compliance with non-proliferation obligations that have been undertaken by states that are party to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT). He lamented that despite the efforts at least eight countries were believed to possess nuclear weapons, while several other states were in possession or suspected of having biological and chemical weapons. He pointed out that more than 100 weapons inspectors were working in Iraq to check and verify the 12,000-page report presented by Iraq. ***************************************************************** 7 Russia wants Iran to be nuclear-free Pravda.RU 18:28 2002-12-17 Russia has a vital stake in seeing that Iran stays nuclear-free. This is the view expressed on Tuesday at a news conference in RIA Novosti by Radzhab Safarov, director-general of the Russian centre for the study of present-day Iran. According to him, Russia "does not really want" to have on its southern borders a country possessing nuclear weapons, since "such weapons can be used as an element of pressure in deciding inter-state issues". "We do not have eternal friends, we have eternal interests," said Safarov. At the same time, he described as "totally unjustified" US fears that Iran might develop nuclear weapons and the reports about the construction of two facilities in the Iranian towns of Natanza and Araka, allegedly sites that can manufacture components for the production of nuclear weapons. Safarov recalled that the US first paid attention to these facilities on the initiative of Alireza Jafarzadeh's National Council of Resistance of Iran, functioning in Washington, following which they became a focus for American spy satellites. The expert explained that the two above-mentioned Iranian facilities are actually "part of the full cycle of nuclear power generation mechanisms" within the framework of the nuclear power plant under construction in Bushehr. Natanza is the site for a research nuclear laboratory which studies the nuclear cycle for peaceful purposes. And Araka hosts a plant to produce deuterium oxide (heavy water), which helps to enrich uranium. This, according to Safarov, "theoretically might have been proof of creation of nuclear technologies". But, the expert emphasised, the nuclear plant at Bushehr will have a light-water reactor, which cannot produce plutonium, which is the main component of nuclear weapons. Thus, Safarov concluded, "Iran lacks technical facilities for developing its own nuclear weapons". In replying to journalists' question about the role of Russian specialists in the functioning of the Natanza and Araka centres, Safarov quoted Nuclear Power Minister Alexander Rumyantsev as saying that "Russia has no hand in them, not a single Russian specialist has ever worked there or advised the Iranian side". Safarov also indicated that all earlier inspections carried out by the International Atomic Energy Agency /IAEA/ have confirmed the "scientific" nature of Iran's nuclear facilities. © RIAN Pravda.RU:Economics Copyright ©1999 by "Pravda.RU". When reproducing our materials ***************************************************************** 8 Release of North American Energy Efficiency Report energy.gov - Headquarters' Press Release RELEASE DATE: December 17, 2002 [Print Friendly WASHINGTON, DC -- U.S. Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham, Canadian Natural Resources Minister Herb Dhaliwal and Mexican Energy Secretary Ernesto Martens today released the report North American Energy Efficiency Standards And Labeling. This is the second report of the North American Energy Working Group (NAEWG), a group of senior energy officials from Canada, the United States and Mexico. "We are extremely pleased to release this report on the heels of the 10 year commemoration of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Energy efficiency standards, test procedures and appliance labeling are key elements in support of our three countries' goals of energy security, environmental protection and economic growth," Secretary Abraham said. "This work between the United States, Canada and Mexico will bring the growing market for energy-efficient goods and services to North America's door." The report issued today, North American Energy Efficiency Standards And Labeling, highlights that as a result of Mexico's recent adoption of new standards for energy efficiency, the three countries will have harmonized minimum efficiency requirements and test procedures for refrigerators, freezers, electric motors and window air-conditioners before the end of the first quarter of 2003, strengthening the market for high-efficiency products in North America. North American Energy Efficiency Standards And Labeling provides an update on the Group's progress on energy efficiency, describes why standards and labeling programs are effective instruments in meeting energy-efficiency goals, explains the different processes and institutional contexts for these programs in each country, and identifies where commonalities and differences exist. The report will serve as an important reference document and guide for participants in international trade and research. At the Summit of the Americas held in Quebec, Canada, in April 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Mexican President Vicente Fox committed to expanding energy trade among the three nations and strengthening the energy market in North America. Building on this commitment, the Canadian Minister of Natural Resources, the U.S. Secretary of Energy and the Mexican Secretary of Energy agreed to establish the North American Energy Working Group. NAEWG released its first report entitled North America -- The Energy Picture in June 2002. The report presented a range of energy information for the three countries, including an economic overview, energy data, supply and demand trends, energy projections and descriptions of infrastructure, laws and regulations. All three countries agree that this second report represents another step in fulfilling the goals of the North American Energy Working Group -- to foster communication and cooperation among the three countries on energy-related matters of common interest, and to enhance North American energy trade and interconnections, consistent with the goal of sustainable development, while respecting the domestic policies, divisions of jurisdictional authority and existing trade obligations of each country. In addition to releasing the two reports, the Working Group is examining a broad range of issues including energy science and technology, natural gas trade and interconnections, critical infrastructure protection and electricity regulatory issues. North American Energy Efficiency Standards And Labeling is available at . Media Contact: Chris Kielich, 202/586-5806 Jeanne Lopatto, 202/586-4940 ***************************************************************** 9 Experts: Nuke use unlikely in Iraq* United Press International By Scott R. Burnell UPI Science News Published 12/18/2002 7:35 PM WASHINGTON, Dec. 18 (UPI) -- A public opinion poll released Wednesday shows Americans support nuclear retaliation for Iraqi biological or chemical weapons use, but analysts said the far-reaching consequences likely would lead to a conventional response. The Washington Post said its nationwide poll of 1,200 adults, conducted in partnership with ABC News, revealed 60 percent of the respondents favor using nukes if American troops come under unconventional attack. Thirty-seven percent opposed such a response, and 3 percent had no opinion. The deterrent value of a nuclear counterstrike, however, is less than certain, said Stephen Schwartz, publisher of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientist. While the United States made fairly clear statements about retaliation during the Persian Gulf War, Iraq's Saddam Hussein reportedly still was ready to use chemical weapons, Schwartz told United Press International. Revenge would seem to be the only motivation for using nukes to respond to a weapon of mass destruction, Schwartz said. "If you're interested in achieving a certain military objective, we've got more than enough conventional weapons to do that," Schwartz said. "People might feel better (using a nuke) but step back for a second and think about what that really means." The actual physical after-effects of a nuclear detonation would depend on the bomb's size, whether it was detonated at ground level or in the air, weather conditions and other factors, said Edwin Lyman, president of the Nuclear Control Institute, an anti-proliferation think tank in Washington. "It's hard to imagine a lack of effects on other nations," Lyman told UPI. "A nuclear response would not be manageable in any sense of the word." Prevailing wind patterns create a very high probability Iran would receive fallout from a nuke used in Iraq, Lyman said. Other Persian Gulf countries, almost all being major oil producers, could also see radioactive contamination, he said. Areas even further downwind, including Russia and China, might not escape the fallout cloud, Schwartz said. The prevalence of oil fields in the area also must be taken into account, Schwartz said. Some scientists in the 1960s thought an underground nuke could help free oil and natural gas reserves from marginal deposits and, he said, while the concept basically was correct, the resulting gas was radioactive. Similar results in the Gulf could seriously impair oil production. Despite the training U.S. troops receive in dealing with a nuclear battlefield, their very presence in the area certainly would make commanders think twice about an extreme response, Lyman said. Training against chemical or biological attacks is more effective, he said, perhaps to the point where casualties would fall short of warranting an atomic warhead. Some military planners envision a nuclear "bunker buster" bomb to eliminate deep underground facilities, Schwartz said, but even this kind of precision attack would lead to fallout. Even drawing-board weapons of this type are not guaranteed to get far enough underground to keep the blast from reaching open air, meaning mass civilian casualties are quite likely. Such a toll easily could turn the Iraqi people against what would otherwise have been a welcome change, he said. The repercussions of a nuclear attack certainly would go beyond devastation on the ground, at the very least ending any chance of U.S.-led coalitions, Schwartz said. Crossing the nuclear threshold, even after a chemical or biological provocation, would show the United States is no longer content with its overwhelming conventional advantage. The rest of the world would once again scramble to obtain such weapons as a hedge against U.S. attack, he said. Copyright © 2002 United Press International ***************************************************************** 10 Lott bill unpopular with TUB, other TVA power distributors* By:JOE PATTON, Staff Writer December 17, 2002 *Public power distributors in the Tennessee Valley are sounding warnings against what they perceive as another attempt to eventually force the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) to the auction block where its power generation assets can be had for a fraction of their worth.* General manager Joe Loggins told the Tullahoma Utilities Board (TUB) recently that a bill by U.S. Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) bears watching. Under the heading of forging a sound business plan to include more rapid reduction of an admittedly staggering debt load, the bill would, as the Tennessee Valley Public Power Association (TVPPA) puts it, strip a three-member TVA's board of directors of much of its authority. TVA would require written approval under a 10-year strategic outlook and business plan developed by the Office of Management and Budget and from leaders of four congressional subcommittees to finance new power resources to meet increased power demand in the valley. And that means TVA would require unanimous approval of chairmen and senior minority members of transportation and appropriations committees to issue new or refinance existing debt or spend available funds to acquire, build or upgrade hydro-electric, fossil fuel and nuclear power plants. Modernization of TVA's hydro facilities and installation of pollution control equipment at coal-fired plants would also be restricted. "TVA is now facing a number of challenges with respect to its existing generating system in the form of environmental compliance, aging and obsolete plants and the urgent need to provide additional generating capacity to meet the demands of the future," Lott said. "It is my belief that the United States taxpayer is unwilling and unable to continue to bear the financial burden and risks associated with addressing these challenges." TVA planners in the 1960s, '70s and '80s overestimated future energy demand in the Tennessee Valley and overbuilt power generating facilities, racking up $28 billion in debt, mostly from nuclear plants it abandoned or never brought on line. But despite that yoke, TVA has shown the remarkable ability to dedicate roughly one-third of its $7.2 billion in annual power sales to debt servicing and debt reduction, the latter at a slower pace than suits some critics, yet avoid rate increases year after year and, among 158 distributors, maintain one of the lowest rates in the nation," notes Loggins , a past Tennessee Municipal Electric Power Association president notes. "Among the power industry, TVA is the acknowledged benchmark by which the costs of producing electric power are measured and the private for-profit are licking their chops at the thought of the removal of that benchmark." TVA has had one modest rate increase pledged to debt reduction in 16 years. Seeds of mischief Loggins said he sees in the bill include double digit rate hikes to satisfy accelerated debt reduction demands, leading to erosion of TVA's traditional base of support. "Judging from the senators own words, the bill is not intended to help preserve TVA which has seen to it that the people in the Tennessee Valley were spared the blackouts which the people of California weathered during the 2000-01 energy crisis." Washington representative Deborah R. Sliz writes in the TVPPA News that if TVA were unable to acquire or upgrade power plants to keep pace with growing power demand, consumers in the Tennessee Valley could be thrown to the mercy of merchant generators and outside, for-profit power suppliers like the consumers in California paid up to 100 times the normal price for electric power. What some observers branded as a manufactured power shortage cost thee California economy up to $70 billion. TVPPA directors have passed a resolution asking Lott to withdraw his bill from further consideration, It further states opposition to any other legislation that "threaten the electric supply and economic health of the Tennessee Valley." /©The Tullahoma News 2002/ ***************************************************************** 11 US and Britain lambast Iraq dossier BBC NEWS | Americas | Wednesday, 18 December, 2002, [US tanks in Kuwait] US forces are massing in the Gulf The United States and Britain have sharply criticised Iraq's weapons declaration to the United Nations, saying it is riddled with falsehoods and omissions. US Secretary of State Colin Powell said he was not optimistic that Iraq would co-operate with demands to disarm, and that he believed other UN Security Council members felt the same way. [George W Bush] President Bush wants Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein ousted "Our analysis of the Iraqi declaration to this point... shows problems with the declaration, gaps, omissions - and all of this is troublesome," Mr Powell said at a news conference. Mr Powell said Washington would make a formal response to the dossier on Thursday, after chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix had given his first assessment of the 12,000-page document. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said President George W Bush was also concerned with what he called problems and omissions in the document. The Americans have said they will lead a coalition to disarm Iraq by force if it fails to close down what Washington describes as its weapons of mass destruction programme. But BBC Washington correspondent Rob Watson says both Mr Powell and Mr Fleischer stressed the determination of the administration to work within what they called the UN process. He says this suggests there will be no rush to war, however flawed Washington considers the declaration to be. 'Obvious falsehood' UK Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has also criticised the Iraqi declaration, saying it was not "the full and complete" version demanded by the UN Security Council. [UN arms inspectors] Inspections timetable: + 8 December: Iraqi declaration of chemical, biological, nuclear and missile programmes. + 19 December: Chief weapons inspector to brief UN Security Council + 26 January: Inspectors have 60 days from start of inspections to report on progress. + Inspections can be halted at any time, and "serious consequences" ensue if inspectors are obstructed. See also: The timetable in detail Resolution 1441 "This will fool nobody," Mr Straw said in a statement. "If Saddam persists in this obvious falsehood, it will become clear that he has rejected the pathway to peace." Prime Minister Tony Blair said that Britain would give its formal response to the declaration after Christmas. But he added: "I think most people who have looked at this obviously very long document are very sceptical about the claims it makes." Britain has been the strongest international supporter of President Bush's tough line on Iraq. Not all members of the UN Security Council, however, appear to believe there are deficiencies in Iraq's report and some have expressed unease at the US and UK's "pre-empting" of Mr Blix's statement. In a BBC interview, Syrian Foreign Minister Farouq al-Sharaa said that waging war on Iraq was "unjustified, unnecessary and unlikely". Syria has been angered by the US decision to only provide the full version of the Iraqi document to the permanent members of the Security Council, and on Wednesday said it would return its copy in protest. Norway has also said that it wants a full copy. The edited declaration, distributed to the non-permanent members of the council, runs to 3,500 pages, compared with the original's 12,000 pages. Correspondents say the US may next want to interview Iraqi scientists outside Iraq - an option laid out in last month's UN Security Council resolution. The Bush administration believes Iraq will resist the move, and can then be declared in material breach of the resolution. Resolution 1441 warns Baghdad of "serious consequences" if it fails to comply with UN disarmament demands, and led to the return of weapons inspectors to Iraq. © MMII | News Sources | Privacy ***************************************************************** 12 Pentagon Seen Seeking $14 Billion Spending Hike* / Tue December 17, 2002 06:43 PM ET / By Andrea Shalal-Esa WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his senior advisers are finalizing a budget that would boost defense spending by about $14 billion to $378 billion in fiscal 2004, defense officials said on Tuesday. Rumsfeld is hoping to send the budget to the White House by the end of the week or early next, the officials said. President Bush will present his overall fiscal 2004 budget to Congress in February. The fiscal year begins Oct. 1. The budget increase of about 2.5 percent is aimed at covering the costs of the U.S. war on terrorism and Rumsfeld's drive to modernize the U.S. military. The budget does not call for cancellation of any major weapons programs, but some Pentagon officials are already calling for more funding to pay for new weapons and sustain the U.S. war in Afghanistan. One senior administration official said the proposed budget was not yet "set in stone," but the basic numbers were not likely to change much during a series of high-level meetings this week. Rumsfeld last spring ordered the services to examine a series of major weapons programs with an eye to possibly canceling any programs deemed outdated or unnecessary. But the 2004 budget continues funding for all major weapons programs, including the costly F/A-22 stealth fighter built by Lockheed Martin Corp., the Northrop Grumman Corp. CNNX aircraft carrier and the V-22 Osprey experimental aircraft being tested by a joint venture of Boeing Co. and Textron Inc. . HARD DECISIONS DEFERRED Steve Kosiak, budget analyst for the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said top defense officials had apparently not made "hard decisions" to scrap any weapons systems -- decisions that would be needed to cover costs when several big new weapons go into production later this decade. "If it survives, the $14 billion increase is probably not a big enough increase to pay for the administration's modernization drive in the long term," he said. He also noted the budget did not yet include U.S. spending on nuclear arms developments, which is controlled by the Energy Department. In addition, the administration would likely seek supplemental funding from Congress to pay for any war in Iraq or military action elsewhere in the world, he said. "The budget that they request for 2004 is not the end of the story," he said. One program that has escaped major cuts is the F/A-22 "Raptor," a $60 billion program facing potential cost overruns of $690 million. Rumsfeld's proposed 2004 budget foresees continuing production plans for the F/A-22 through 2010 at a level of 36 aircraft per year. That is a slight decline from 38 planes a year, but nowhere near the deep cuts that had been under discussion earlier in the year. Lockheed officials said they were working closely with the Air Force to trim costs and keep the program alive. The F/A-22, designed to be nearly invisible to radar, is scheduled to replace the F-15C as the top U.S. air-to-air fighter starting in 2005. Each plane is due to cost $99.7 million in current year dollars, not including $20 billion in development costs. John Isaacs at the Council for a Livable World, said he was dismayed that top Pentagon planners were continuing to fund the F/A-22 which was first conceived during the Cold War to fight a Soviet enemy that no longer exists. "The F-22 has little relevance to getting Osama bin Laden out of some cave in Afghanistan, or even in confronting the Iraqi Air Force," he said. One program that will be cut, but escaped being canceled is the Army's RAH-66 Comanche helicopter, built by Boeing and United Technologies Corp. . The budget calls for a cut in the Comanche to 650 from 1,207, defense officials said. Pentagon leaders agreed with the Navy to upgrade the technology aboard the CVNX-1 aircraft carrier, rather than delaying its development. Under the 2004-2009 budget plan, the Navy would add $384 million in funding for the carrier, with total funding earmarked at $8.2 billion. Reuters The Company Products & ***************************************************************** 13 Iraq Used Many Suppliers for Nuke Program Las Vegas SUN: December 17, 2002 By DAFNA LINZER ASSOCIATED PRESS UNITED NATIONS (AP) - Dozens of suppliers, most in Europe, the United States and Japan, provided the components and know-how Saddam Hussein needed to build an atomic bomb, according to Iraq's 1996 accounting of its nuclear program. The secret declaration, shown to The Associated Press, is virtually identical to the one submitted to U.N. inspectors on Dec. 7, according to U.N. officials. The reports have not been made public to prevent nuclear know-how from falling into the wrong hands and also to protect the names of companies that wittingly or unwittingly supplied Iraq with the means to make nuclear weapons. U.N. officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the only difference between the two reports is that the latest has a 300-page section in Arabic on civilian nuclear programs and a slightly larger typeface that stretches it to 2,100 pages. That foreign companies helped Iraq has long been known, and some of them have been identified before, but the Iraqi accounting adds up to the most exhaustive list so far of companies involved. Iraq's report says the equipment was either sold or made by more than 30 German companies, 10 American companies, 11 British companies and a handful of Swiss, Japanese, Italian, French, Swedish and Brazilian firms. It says more than 30 countries supplied its nuclear program. It details nuclear efforts from the early 1980s to the Gulf War and contains diagrams, plans and test results in uranium enrichment, detonation, implosion testing and warhead construction. In one chapter, Iraq admits to having a pilot plan in September 1990 - one month after it invaded Kuwait - to increase the enrichment of recovered uranium to 93 percent using centrifuges. The process is a complicated extraction and purification method that at full scale requires thousands of connected, high speed centrifuges. According to Iraq's report, the most detailed accounting of its former nuclear weapons program, it was also pursuing electromagnetic isotope separation as another method to enrich uranium, the key ingredient for an atomic explosion. The Iraqis had everything they needed to make nuclear weapons, said Gary Milhollin, director of the Wisconsin Project, a Washington-based think tank on nuclear arms control. "They weren't missing any components or any knowledge," he said in a phone interview. "It was simply a matter of time." Milhollin said that had it not been for the 1991 Gulf War, Iraq would have had nuclear weapons by now, thanks to hundreds of suppliers who sold it an impressive array of equipment and expertise, often with their government's approval and without being aware of the ultimate purpose. According to the Iraqi accounting, induction and electron beam furnaces, which could be used in shaping uranium parts for an atomic bomb, came from Consarc Corp. of Rancocas, N.J. The company says the items were never delivered, however. Newport Corp. of Irvine, Calif., is listed as a supplier of optical fiber, a product with uses ranging from communications to medical equipment. But the company said it doesn't carry the model listed in the declaration. EEV Inc., based outside New York City, is listed as a supplier of a thyratron, which the company says is used in medical imaging equipment. It could not immediately verify the sale of the item. Motorola Inc., was listed as the seller of fast photodetectors, but company spokeswoman Jennifer Weyrauch said she found no record to support the claim. "A photodetector product is not part of Motorola's current portfolio." Most of the sales were legal and often made with the knowledge of governments. In 1985-90, the U.S. Commerce Department, for example, licensed $1.5 billion in sales to Iraq of American technology with potential military uses. Iraq was then getting Western support for its war against Iran, which at the time was regarded as the main threat to stability in the oil-rich Gulf region. But inspectors have discovered over the years that Iraq often obtained supplies through middlemen or by lying to companies about the products' intended use. "It was useful in the past and it will be useful in the future to go to companies and ask them questions," said Ewan Buchanan, spokesman for the U.N. weapons inspectors. While the Iraqi declaration provides a lot of important information, the companies can often give inspectors insight into the real extent of Iraq's programs. Since the Gulf War, dozens of companies have either admitted to sales or were prosecuted in Europe for helping arm Iraq. Several no longer exist. "Revealing company names can discourage other companies from getting involved in deals with countries like Iraq where you don't really know the true end-use of your products," said David Albright, an American nuclear expert and a weapons inspector in 1996. According to Iraq's accounting, the real help came from German experts and companies, in particular H Metallform, which sold the Iraqis old designs for centrifuges. Cooperation with H "was fruitful and it was called upon to render technical assistance and consultations in various activities," Iraq wrote in its nuclear declaration. In 1993, German courts found two H employees guilty of violating export law and sentenced them to over two years in prison for working with Iraq. German companies allegedly involved in other aspects of Iraq's former weapons programs were named in a report Tuesday in the German daily Die Tag. Some of Iraq's nuclear materials were destroyed during previous U.N. inspections, and Iraq is now banned from repurchasing much of it. But reconnaissance photos released by the Bush administration in October indicate the Iraqis have been rebuilding sites previously used for nuclear development. A recent U.S. intelligence report says Iraq may have nuclear weapons by 2010. Iraq acknowledged to inspectors last month that it was importing aluminum tubes which it said were for conventional weapons. The Bush administration said the tubes could be used to construct centrifuges for uranium enrichment. But nuclear experts differ on whether the tubes are of the proper size and material. What Iraq still has, however, is the expertise to start again. Albright said the new evidence, coupled with long-running suspicions "that Iraq continued its nuclear weapons program even while inspectors were on the ground in the '90s," is what makes the latest declaration such a disappointment. Mohammed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, said last week that the new submission amounts to a rehash of the 1996 report and covers "material we already had before." A line-by-line comparison of the table of contents from the 1996 declaration and the 2002 version which was released last week by the United Nations finds subtle differences, mainly in translation, but not in substance. Inspectors were not surprised that Iraq resubmitted old reports since Baghdad claims it hasn't been working on weapons of mass destruction since the 1991 Gulf War. A submission of anything new would have contradicted that claim. EDITOR'S NOTE: Associated Press National Writer Matt Crenson, investigative researcher Randy Herschaft and Frankfurt correspondent Melissa Eddy contributed to this report. On The Net: International Atomic Energy Agency: www.iaea.org U.N. Monitoring Verification and Inspection Commission: www.unmovic.org All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 14 Blast scheduled to take down crane at Maine Yankee* MaineToday.com Wednesday,December18,2002,2:03 PM *By NewsRadio WMTW Staff 870/1470 AM and 106.7 FM* WISCASSETT -- Workers will use explosives to bring down a big crane inside the dome at the old Maine Yankee nuclear power plant Thursday. Plant spokesman Eric Howes said neighbors won't be able to see it, but they will probably hear the blast. "It's the safest way to do it, it's the same decision that we made for the demolition of our turbine building last year," Howes said. "It's just simply safer to get a large structure like that to a lower elevation so that it can be cut up safely and then removed." The blast is scheduled to go off at 11 a.m. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2002 WorldNow ***************************************************************** 15 Support for Chernobyl The New York Times International *December 18, 2002* *By THE NEW YORK TIMES* *Albert Einstein, 1934* MOSCOW, Dec. 17 ? Two years after Ukraine closed the last working reactor at the Chernobyl nuclear plant, thousands of people gathered today in Kiev, the capital, to demand its reopening. The protesters, saying they had seen little from promises by Western nations to compensate Chernobyl's workers and their families for their lost jobs, demanded that the government account for its use of Chernobyl-related funds. In 1986 the power station was the scene of the world's worst nuclear accident. The last active reactor at Chernobyl was shut down in 2000. World Briefing | Europe: Millions Still Affected By Chernobyl (April 2, 2002) The World; Life After Death: Chernobyl Today (April 22, 2001) *$* Workers Bid Ill-Fated Chernobyl a Bitter Farewell (December 15, 2000) *$* The Neediest Cases; Help With Grief and Money After a Daughter's Death (December 11, 2000) *$* Copyright The New York Times Company ***************************************************************** 16 UK: Ministers defer nuclear plant edict FT.com Wednesday Dec 18 2002. All times are London time. By Jean Eaglesham and Andrew Taylor Published: December 18 2002 22:00 | Last Updated: December 18 2002 22:00 UK Nuclear power Ministers have decided against endorsing a new generation of nuclear power stations but will keep the option "under review" while strongly backing renewable sources of energy. The decision about whether to replace the country's ageing nuclear power plants, which produce about a quarter of its electricity, split the cabinet, with the Treasury understood to be sceptical about the cost benefits of new stations. Brian Wilson, energy minister, admitted that ministers had "different views, there's no secret about that". Because of the conflicting positions, Patricia Hewitt, the trade and industry secretary, has decided to defer a decision on building new power plants when she publishes a white paper in the spring. "Her strong view is that both the 'proceed to build now' and 'rule out nuclear for ever' views are wrong," a senior official said. "It's hard to envisage a lot of new nuclear power stations but we will keep it under review and respond if it becomes more likely nuclear will be needed to meet our environmental targets." The official denied this was fudging the issue, saying it was "pragmatic". But supporters of nuclear power, such as Mr Wilson, argue that a decision cannot be delayed too long - only one existing station, Sizewell B in Suffolk, is due to be operating in 2024. Mr Wilson is lobbying for the "review" option to leave the industry some hope of new stations. "The white paper's not going to say 'go out and build nuclear power stations tomorrow' and I doubt if it's going to say 'never build a nuclear power station again'. The area of debate is somewhere in between and how you give meaning to the formulation of keeping the option open," Mr Wilson said. The final wording of the paper - expected in February or March - may offer less succour to nuclear operators than Mr Wilson would hope. FT.com trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy policy ***************************************************************** 17 State police investigate incident near Surry nuclear plant* By the Associated Press Published December 18, 2002 SURRY, Va. -- Virginia State Police are investigating a report of suspicious behavior by a group of people aboard a state-operated car ferry near a nuclear power plant in Surry County. The Virginia Department of Transportation, which operates the ferry, reported the incident to state police, said Erin Gregg, a VDOT spokeswoman. "There was an incident on Sunday in which people were asking questions that our crews deemed most unusual," Gregg said Wednesday. She declined to provide details, referring questions to state police. State police spokesman Larry Hill said his department is investigating the incident, but he declined to provide any details. The Smithfield Times reported Wednesday that four people traveling Sunday on the ferry that crosses the James River from Jamestown to Scotland appeared to be measuring the boat and asked crew members about procedures that would be followed in a hijacking. The newspaper, citing police reports, said two members of the group also asked crew members about the depth of the water at the power plant--which is a few miles downriver from the ferry landing at Scotland--and the size of the security force there. Richard Zuercher, spokesman for nuclear affairs for Dominion Resources Inc., which owns the Surry Power Station, declined to comment on the incident, citing company security policy. He said the incident is a state police matter but noted that security at the Surry plant was increased after the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and remains high. "Our plant is very safe and secure," he said. Surry County Sheriff Harold D. Brown said his office was notified of the incident by Dominion but is not involved in the investigation. The Times reported that two men and two women were involved in the incident. The two men were seen pacing off the length of the ferry's deck, while the two women questioned crew members. The newspaper said that according to police reports, the group was traveling in a brown Ford Explorer with Florida license plates that include the characters "U92." "U" is the chemical symbol for uranium, which has the atomic number 92 and is used as fuel in nuclear reactors. Copyright © 2002, Daily Press ***************************************************************** 18 Perry plant neighbors to get pills for radiation 12/18/02 Plain Dealer Reporter Just in time for the holidays, the government has a special gift to help people after a nuclear accident or attack. This week, about 50,000 businesses and homes in Lake, Geauga and Ashtabula counties within 10 miles of the Perry nuclear power plant will begin receiving coupons good for two free potassium iodide pills. SRC="http://ads1.advance.net/RealMedia/ads/adstream_nx.ads/www.cl eveland.com/xml/story/n/nohio/@StoryAd?x"> Information with the coupons will include where they can be redeemed for pills, including 21 local pharmacies, and how and when to take them. The pills can prevent thyroid cancer caused by exposure to radioactive iodine, one of the dozens of radioactive gases that can be released from a nuclear plant. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has spent $1.6 million so far to provide pills to 17 states. Health officials cautioned that potassium iodide is not a substitute for evacuation. The NRC provided the pills to the Ohio Department of Health in June, but it took several months for state officials to develop a system to distribute more than a half-million pills to the estimated 320,000 Ohioans who are eligible for them. Ottawa County officials are waiting until January to send coupons to neighbors of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant because they didn't want them to get mixed up with the holiday mail, said Jeanie Wertenbach director of health education for the county health department. Robert Morehead, Columbiana County's health commissioner, said the coupons will be mailed next week to residents within 10 miles of the Beaver Valley nuclear plant, located just over the Ohio border in Shippingport, Pa. Schools and businesses within the NRC's 10-mile emergency zone can also request a supply of the pills, said Kay Duffy, director of community and public health services at the Lake County General Health District. Anyone who loses the coupon can still get the pills from a county health department by providing proof of residence, said Bret Atkins, a spokesman at the Ohio Department of Health. Morehead acknowledged that the 10-mile distribution limit may be puzzling. "You could live on one side of the street and get the pill and live on the other side of the street and not get it," he said. "Is there that much difference between 60 feet of concrete?" Those who are left out will have to buy the pills themselves, Atkins said. Further information is available from the state health department, 1-866-936-4636 after Jan. 5 or your local health department. To reach this Plain Dealer reporter: sjaffe@plaind.com, 216-999-4822 © 2002 The Plain Dealer. Used with permission. ***************************************************************** 19 Ukrainians Demand Reopening of Nuke Plant Las Vegas SUN: December 17, 2002 By TIM VICKERY ASSOCIATED PRESS KIEV, Ukraine (AP) - Braving freezing weather, thousands of Ukrainians rallied Tuesday to call for the reopening of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant and to demand funding promised when the plant closed two years ago. Some 8,000 to 10,000 people, including hundreds of pensioners and children who suffered health damage from the Chernobyl accident, came to Kiev's central Sofia Square. Protesters demanded that Ukrainian and Western governments restore benefits to some 3.3 million people affected by the accident, or that the plant be partially reopened to provide electricity and jobs. They waved banners reading "Give Chernobyl a second life" and "No money, no safety." Chernobyl was the site of world's worst nuclear disaster in 1986, when one of its reactors exploded, sending a radioactive cloud over much of Europe. "We want to restore everything that has been taken from these kids' lives - medicine is not provided, there's no rehabilitation, no food. Everything has been taken from the children," said Nadezhda Matyesh, director of the Chernobyl Children's Fund for Survival. After the one-hour protest, demonstrators broke into groups to picket the embassies of the Group of Seven richest nations, demanding their governments finance programs to meet Ukraine's energy needs and solve problems caused by Chernobyl's closure. A U.S. Embassy representative attended the demonstration and received a letter of demands. "We will read it and give it consideration," the embassy said. Ukraine's cash-strapped government has been unable to meet its generous Soviet-era obligations to provide social protections for survivors of the accident. Demonstrators also protested cuts in Chernobyl benefits planned for the 2003 budget. The Canadian Embassy said the G-7 countries and the European Union never agreed to provide funds to cover the social effects of Chernobyl's closure, adding in a statement that they have pledged $200 million more for technical work than was originally agreed in 1995. Ukraine shuttered Chernobyl's last reactor in December 2000 and appealed for Western help in completing the Rivne and Khmelnytskyi reactors to compensate for the lost electricity capacity. In April, officials at the Chernobyl plant said gaps in the concrete and steel shell, or so-called sarcophagus, that covers the damaged reactor total more than 10,700 square feet. The Chernobyl Fund, composed of Western governments, the 15-nation EU and Ukraine, pledged more than $700 million to replace the existing sarcophagus over the reactor. Ukraine earmarked the remaining $50 million, but as of June only $130 million had been spent. Work to construct a new covering is not expected to start before 2004 and should be completed by 2008. Yuriy Andreyev, president of the advocacy group Ukrainian Union of Chernobyl that organized the demonstration, said one reactor at the Chernobyl plant could be restarted in two to three weeks "if the West refuses to keep its promises." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 20 State Legislature to decide future of nuclear energy MPR Home | News | Music to learn more. In the late 1970s, farmers tried to stop construction of a 400-mile-long transmission line that would cross their land on the way from North Dakota to the Twin Cities. A system, which line opponents said was unfair, turned ordinary people into radicals. newsletters Resources Document Prairie Island Indian Community web site Document Xcel Energy Document Nuclear Regulatory Agency Minnesota Public Radio December 18, 2002 Larger view While Xcel Energy has yet to officially request more dry cask storage at its Prairie Island plant, many legislators expect the issue to come up during the next legislative session. (Photo courtesy of Nuclear Regulatory Commission) Almost nine years ago after a contentious debate the state of Minnesota approved on-site nuclear waste storage for the Prairie Island nuclear plant. At the time Northern States Power, now Xcel Energy, said it expected to be able to move the waste to a federal repository within a few years. That repository has yet to materialize. Now Xcel says it may have to close down the Prairie Island facility if it doesn't get more storage space. While Xcel has not officially asked for more storage many observers say its almost inevitable that it will be part of the upcoming legislative session. Rochester, Minn. — Minnesota's two nuclear power plants supply roughly 30 percent of the state's electricity. Both plants are constantly producing highly radioactive nuclear waste and both will be forced to close within a few years unless the plants can build more storage space. Xcel's Director of Community Service Laura McCarten says the company needs a decision from the state by the end of 2003. "The state has to decided what is the right course of action going forward - whether to retain the nuclear option or if not how to replace it," says McCarten. But plans to add storage space are controversial, especially at Prairie Island. Residents on the neighboring Mdewakanton Dakota reservation say they've suffered health problems as a result of the plant. Jake Reint, a spokesperson for the Prairie Island tribe, says safety concerns have been ignored. "The tribe remains opposed to any additional storage at Prairie Island," Reint says. "That position has been consistent since 1994 when the state and Xcel first sought to store nuclear waste 600 yards from their homes and businesses." The tribe is willing to negotiate with the energy company. They have two main demands. They want a second evacuation route off of the reservation for use in the event of a disaster. They would also like new reservation land away from the nuclear plant. So far weekly conversations between Xcel and tribe have yielded little. In fact, tensions may even have increased. That's because Xcel officials say its up to state lawmakers to decide on additional cask storage space. While the Indian community maintains that under the 1994 agreement, they're guaranteed a seat at the decision making table. Tribal spokesperson Jake Reint says the community intends to defend that position. "That's the only thing the tribe got back in 1994. If its not, they truly got nothing," he says. "Secondly, if it is a valid agreement, then Xcel would breaking a legal contract or it entered into a contract that it never intended to keep." Meanwhile, many of the legislative players on the waste issue in 1994 are no longer around. And it's unclear who will spearhead the new effort. In another shift, the Prairie Island tribe has forged a new allegiance with the GOP. Back in 1994, the tribe was closely aligned with Democrats. In the last election tribal leadership contributed more than $30,000 dollars to Republican candidates. Wy Spano, the co-editor and publisher of /Politics in Minnesota/, says the party switch was politically astute. "Right now," he says, "It looks like the tribes that have done more to support Republican candidates in the past, are ready to acquiesce to the GOP position and say the leave the casks where they are will get something else for proving service to the state." One thing that hasn't changed over the past decade is unwavering opposition from anti-nuclear activists. Back in 1994 George Crocker helped lead the Prairie Island Coalition, a group formed to fight the dry cask storage. Crocker says this time the group will be known as Nuclear Energy Now and will represent groups opposed to the Prairie Island and Monticello plants. Crocker says he respects the Prairie Island tribe's decision to chart its own course. "But," Crocker says, "We will also continue to pursue an agenda for a much a more responsible electric utility system than the one that continues to foster and promote the kinds of liabilities and destructiveness associated with nuclear power." Crocker says he expects to be one of many people at the state Capitol this session to debate the nuclear waste issue. story in the MPR News Forum ***************************************************************** 21 CEZ, which owns the Temelin nuclear plant, may be forced to sell off some of its holdings. The Prague Post Online Distributors, investors praise energy ruling CEZ objects to limitations; others foresee favorable utility costs for consumers, business By Ben Schiller Staff Writer, The Prague PostThe Prague Post --> (December 18, 2002) Regional electricity providers and foreign investors have reacted favorably to a ruling from the Anti-Monopoly Office (UOHS) calling for significant modifications to a government plan to merge eight distributors with the country's main energy producer, CEZ. But CEZ says that the decision places unfair restrictions on the company and raises questions about the independence of Brno-based UOHS. The case has wider significance for future efforts to liberalize the energy market and could affect the price consumers and businesses pay for energy. After a failure to privatize CEZ earlier this year, the government in May announced a plan allowing the power producer to buy out the government's stakes in eight regional distribution companies. The government said the deal -- which would create a so-called "super-CEZ" -- would help it to sell its majority stake in CEZ, its most valuable remaining asset. The UOHS's Dec. 11 approval of part of that plan will enable CEZ to buy the government's shares. But UOHS also stipulated that CEZ must within a year sell minority stakes in three distributors as well as its holdings in another provider. In addition, the UOHS decision forces CEZ to give up its 100 percent stake in the country's electricity grid network (CEPS). Distributors, investors lobby In recent weeks, regional distributors and foreign investors -- including E.ON Energie, a Munich firm with stakes in six of the companies -- have lobbied vigorously against the government plan, saying it would hurt competition and would lead to higher electricity prices. On the other hand, CEZ and the government have said a merger would lead to stable electricity prices, maintain jobs at CEZ and at its suppliers and let the government get more money when it privatizes the company. POWER POLITICS The Anti-Monopoly Office decision: • CEZ may buy government shares in eight distributors • Within a year CEZ must sell its stakes in three companies, plus its entire stake in one other distributor • CEZ must sell its full stake in the power distribution grid within a year • Dec. 11 ruling is subject to appeal with 15 days The battle over the future of CEZ has pitted some prominent politicians against one another. Ivan Pilip, acting chairman of the Freedom Union (US-DEU) and a former finance minister, has lobbied vociferously for changes to the government plan. In contrast, Industry and Trade Minister Jiri Rusnok and former Industry and Trade Minister Miroslav Gregr have argued for the plan. Better prices predicted The distributors and foreign investors said the UOHS decision will increase competition and lower prices. "The decision of the antitrust office presents for the Czech electric energy a better solution than the former suggestion of a merger of all companies into one entity," said Pavel Novacek, a spokesperson for Ostrava-based Severomoravska energetika (SME), the country's largest distributor by 2001 sales. "This compromise saves the hope for competition and favorable prices for customers." Many distributors expect prices to fall next year regardless of the UOHS decision. Prazska energetika (PRE), for example, says prices could drop by up to 90 Kc ($2.90) a month for the average household, or an average of 1.7 percent across the board. Liberalization plan begins At the beginning of this year, distributors were for the first time allowed to compete outside their home territories for the largest industrial customers. It was the first step in a four-stage liberalization plan finalized in 2001. The Energy Regulation Office (ERU) says such changes have reduced energy costs to companies by at least 500 million Kc. Consumers will be able to choose providers by 2005. Petra Uhlmann, an E.ON spokesperson, said more liberalization of the market would be good for that company, which she said would be interested in acquiring further stakes from CEZ if it sells its stakes next year. "Our aim is that we have more than one company operating in the Czech Republic. It is good for a country when we have not a monopoly but some liberalization of the market," she said. Ladislav Kriz, a CEZ spokesperson, said the utility was very unhappy about the decision, though he stressed that its strategists had yet to analyze the entire UOHS announcement. Kriz added that UOHS had been swayed by lobbying from E.ON and from RWE, which has a 34 percent stake in Stredoceska energetika (STE). "I couldn't say which companies and names, but we think it is because of a strong media campaign from the other investors," he said. Kriz said the ruling would put CEZ at a disadvantage. "For our shareholders, this condition that we have to sell our minority shares and the majority share in a very short time is not good for finding good offers," he said. Buyers could get advantage Kriz added that CEZ was likely to appeal this part of the ruling. Patria Finance analyst Jiri Soustruznik said the decision would give an advantage to buyers of CEZ's stakes because they would know that it was forced to sell within a specified time frame. "The fact that the plan takes place in this form rather than in its full form is clearly good for the foreign investors and distributors," he said. OPEN CONTRIBUTION --> -- Ingrid Ludvikova and Eva Dreserova contributed to this report. Ben Schiller's e-mail address is bschiller@praguepost.com The Prague Post Online contains a selection of articles that have ***************************************************************** 22 NRC fines nuclear plant (Prairie Island) Pioneer Press | 12/18/2002 | [twincities.com - The twincities home page] Posted on Wed, Dec. 18, 2002 [story:PUB_DESC] BY DAVID HANNERS Pioneer Press The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will fine the operators of Xcel Energy's Prairie Island nuclear power plant $60,000 for withholding information from the agency when the company sought a special waiver to run the reactor without key backup safety equipment. The NRC said that if plant managers had revealed the full extent of what they knew about the equipment, it would have required extra precautions or required the plant to shut down to make repairs. The NRC fine is the largest ever against Prairie Island, though it's far from the largest in the industry. Within the past five years, regulators slapped an Illinois nuclear plant with a $650,000 fine. The firm that runs the nuclear plant, Nuclear Management Co., said it wouldn't contest the fine, which it said closes an issue "that no longer reflects the excellent human and operational performance demonstrated by our work force." Minneapolis-based Xcel said it is satisfied that NMC, which it partly owns, "has taken appropriate steps." Both companies declined requests for interviews on the NRC's decision. Also on Tuesday, the commission said it had found that a former worker of the plant violated government regulations when he removed a document from a stack of records that were to be given to special NRC inspectors as part of their investigation. The NRC said despite the former employee's "deliberate misconduct," it wouldn't take enforcement action against him because he no longer works at Prairie Island. The employee subsequently accepted a promotion within Xcel, he told the Pioneer Press, although he declined to elaborate. The violation is the fifth NRC "escalated enforcement action" at Prairie Island since 1997, and it is the third at an NMC-managed nuclear station since July. Not all violations have involved fines. An NRC official who asked not to be named said the action against Prairie Island stemmed not from willful misconduct at the plant, but rather, "stupidity." "I'm having trouble saying it differently. It was stupidity. They just had trouble putting things together," said the official. But a longtime critic of Xcel's nuclear plants, George Crocker of the North American Water Office, an environmental group, said the stupidity excuse didn't wash with him. "These people are highly trained, and they're supposed to be highly competent," Crocker said of the plant's managers. "To have a regulator say that they (managers) knew something and didn't know they should've reported it, that's not credible." Plant operators failed to report all they knew about problems with the emergency diesel generators, or EDGs, supplying backup power to Prairie Island's Unit 2 reactor, the NRC concluded. NMC officials had long been aware of the problems because they had been the subject of several industry and government warnings since the issue was first identified at another nuclear plant in 1996. Prairie Island's problem began on April 9, 2001, when workers ran a routine test on one of Unit 2's two EDGs. The French-made generators would power the reactor's cooling system if the plant had to shut down and was cut off from outside power. The cooling system prevents the reactor core from meltdown. Four hours into the test, workers noticed the generator wasn't working properly. They declared it inoperable, leaving Unit 2 with only one generator. Under the terms of Prairie Island's NRC license, it can run the reactor for only seven days with one generator. NMC officials decided it would take longer than a week to fix the generator, so they asked the NRC for a special waiver, known as a Notice of Enforcement Discretion, to run the plant longer with only one generator. "The plant was asking us to let them violate the conditions of their license for a couple of days. It's OK, as long as there is no increased risk. But if we don't get all the information we need to make the judgment, it's a real problem," said Viktoria Mitlyng, a spokeswoman for the NRC's regional office in Chicago. Based upon the information NMC managers gave it, the NRC granted the waiver. In May, workers at the plant concluded that the problem had been caused by an incompatibility between the generator's fuel oil and lubricant, an issue first identified in 1996 at a reactor in Maryland. The earlier discovery prompted a number of industry notices and warnings about the compatibility issue, and the NRC later determined that workers at Prairie Island were aware of them. NMC officials didn't mention the compatibility issue to the NRC because they thought — wrongly, the NRC said — that the problems didn't apply to their generators. J.E. Dyer, the NRC's regional administrator, told NMC officials in a letter that failing to mention the compatibility issue when it asked for the waiver was a serious omission. "Your failure to provide complete and accurate information affected the NRC's ability to perform its regulatory function in that the NRC granted the (waiver) with an incomplete understanding of the potential safety impact to the plant," Dyer said in a letter to Mano Nazar, who is NMC's site vice president at Prairie Island. If the NRC had known the full extent of Prairie Island's problem, it might have required additional safety measures at the plant or required it to shut down, Dyer said. When the cause of the problem was determined, both of Unit 2's generators were declared inoperable and the reactor had to be shut down. It was out of action for a month while repairs were made. In press releases issued at the time, NMC said the reactor was shut down "for maintenance" and to make "improvements" to the generators. The company didn't mention that NRC regulations forced the shutdown. In a special inspection conducted in May 2001, the NRC found that plant officials had noted the generators' deteriorating performance in tests for two years, but "the results were not adequately reviewed for trends," it said in a 23-page report issued in June 2001. The NRC also issued a "notice of violation" involving Scott Hiedeman, the employee who removed a document from a pile of records that were to be turned over to the NRC's special inspection team. Hiedeman, 38, of Hastings, declined to be interviewed but sent a written statement to the Pioneer Press in which he said he was "very disappointed" in the NRC's actions. "I never intended to mislead the NRC or to withhold accurate or reliable information," he wrote. "I was only trying to assist the investigation." He said the document he removed was a magazine article "because it was misleading and had not been relied upon by Prairie Island staff." "I removed the article in plain view of others. I had nothing to hide," he wrote. A co-worker reported the removal to the NRC, which launched an investigation. David Hanners can be reached at dhanners@pioneerpress.comor (651) 228-5551. ***************************************************************** 23 NRC: Regulatory guide comment request FR Doc 02-31872 [Federal Register: December 18, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 243)] [Notices] [Page 77530-77531] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18de02-155] REGULATORY COMMISSION Draft Regulatory Guide and Associated Standard Review Plan; Issuance, Availability, Workshop The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued for public comment a draft of a regulatory guide (and its associated Standard Review Plan). Regulatory Guides are developed to describe and make available to the public such information as methods acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the NRC's regulations, techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or postulated accidents, and data needed by the staff in its review of applications for permits and licenses. The draft guide is temporarily identified by its task number, DG- 1122, which should be mentioned in all correspondence concerning this draft guide. Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1122, ``An Approach for Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk-Informed Activities,'' is being developed to provide guidance to licensees in determining the technical adequacy of a PRA used in a risk-informed integrated decision making process, and to endorse standards and industry guidance. Guidance is provided in four areas: (1) A minimal set of functional requirements of a technically acceptable PRA. (2) NRC position on consensus PRA standards and industry PRA program documents. (3) Demonstration that the PRA (in toto or specific parts) used in regulatory applications is of sufficient technical adequacy. (4) Documentation that the PRA (in toto or specific parts) used in regulatory applications is of sufficient technical adequacy. DG-1122 proposes to endorse, with certain clarifications and substitutions, ASME Standard RA-S-2002, ``Standard for Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications,'' and Revision A3 of NEI-00-02, ``Probabilistic Risk (PRA) Peer Review Process Guidance,'' with its August 16, 2002 supplemental guidance on industry self-assessment. Chapter 19.1 of the Standard Review Plan (SRP), ``Determining the Technical Adequacy of Probabilistic Risk Assessment Results for Risk- Informed Activities,'' is being developed to provide guidance to the NRC staff on how to determine that the PRA that provides the results being used in a decision is technically adequate. This draft guide and draft standard review plan chapter have not received complete staff approval and do not represent an official NRC staff position. It is the NRC's intent to update this RG when a new or revised PRA standard or industry program is published. If a new standard or program is published, an additional appendix will be added to set forth the staff position. If a revision of a current standard or program would impact the staff position, the appropriate appendix would be revised. The NRC intends to conduct a workshop on January 9, 2003, to be held in the auditorium at NRC headquarters, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, (the agenda will be announced in a future public notice), to discuss and explain the material contained in DG 1122 and SRP Chapter 19.1, and to answer questions and receive comments and feedback on the proposed documents. The purpose of the workshop is to facilitate the comment process. In the workshop, the staff will describe each document and its basis and solicit comment and feedback on their completeness, correctness, and usefulness. Since these documents cover a wide range of technical areas, many topics will be discussed. Listed below are particular topics (not limited to) on which discussion and feedback are sought at the workshop: (1) Is the relationship of this regulatory guide to other regulatory guides (e.g., RG 1.174, RG 1.177) clear? Is it clear how this guide is to be used to support risk-informed applications? If more discussion is needed, what level of detail is needed? (2) Is the associated SRP the appropriate place for the staff review guidance, or should the guidance be included in the application specific SRPs? (3) Is the level of detail in the proposed guidance clear and sufficient to demonstrate the technical adequacy of the PRA to support a regulatory application? Or is more detailed guidance necessary? What level of detail is needed? (4) Is the level of detail in the proposed guidance clear and sufficient in regard to the scope, level of detail and technical adequacy of the PRA? Or is more detailed guidance necessary? What level of detail is needed? (5) Is the staff regulatory position on consensus PRA standards and industry PRA programs clear and sufficient? Or is more detailed guidance necessary? What level of detail is needed? (6) Is the level of detail in the proposed guidance clear and sufficient in regard to documentation and submittal? Or is more detailed guidance necessary? What level of detail is needed? (7) Is the staff position in the appendices of the proposed regulatory guide clear? Or is more discussion necessary? What level of detail is needed? (8) In Appendix A, is the discussion provided on the ``issue'' helpful or necessary in providing the bases for the staff position? If not, should this column be removed? Is more discussion needed and what would be the appropriate level of detail? (9) In Appendix A, the staff has provided ``clarifications'' to the definition regarding ``dominant,'' ``significant,'' and ``important.'' Clarification of these terms is provided because in places, these terms are used interchangeably (to have the same meaning) and in other places, they may be used to convey different meanings. In the context of a PRA, these terms generally are indicating that the entity under question is a major factor to the outcome under consideration. In this general sense, these terms can be used interchangeably (e.g., an important sequence, a significant sequence, a dominant sequence). However, if these terms are used to distinguish whether a requirement is imposed, a common and [[Page 77531]] specific understanding (i.e., quantitative) of these terms is needed. Is this the appropriate quantitative definition? If not, what quantitative definition is appropriate? (10) In Appendix B, the staff review of NEI-00-02 and its supplemental guidance, is based on the perspective that this document is primarily historical in that almost all the licensee's PRAs have been peer reviewed using NEI-00-02, Revision A3. Consequently, the staff endorsement does not address future use of this document. If the staff has an objection to this document, the resolution would be addressed via a licensee's self assessment. Is this approach appropriate? That is, should the staff extend its review so that industry would have the staff position regarding this process for future use? In order to gain experience and more detailed insights into the use of the approach proposed in DG-1122 and the associated draft SRP section, during the public comment period the NRC desires to conduct a review of one or more pilot applications (e.g., Risk-Informed Technical Specifications Initiative 4b, ``Configuration Risk Management for Completion Times'') using this approach. The experience and insights gained from the practical application of the approach proposed in DG- 1122 and the associated draft SRP section will support the staff's risk-informed regulatory initiatives, consistent with the NRC's policy statement on PRA. The lessons learned from the pilot applications will be documented and reflected in the final regulatory guide. Since these pilot applications will assist the NRC in developing a regulatory guide, the Chief Financial Officer will waive the review fees in accordance with 10 CFR 170.11(b)(1). By granting this waiver for the pilot applications, the NRC continues its longstanding policy of granting fee exemptions for the review of license applications accepted for review as a pilot application. The NRC staff is soliciting comments on these proposed documents. Comments may be accompanied by relevant information or supporting data. Written comments may be submitted to the Rules and Directives Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Copies of comments received may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD. Comments will be most helpful if received by February 14, 2003. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date. You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking web site through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site provides the ability to upload comments as files (any format) if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking web site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-5905; e-mail CAG@NRC.GOV. For information about the draft guide and the related standard review plan chapter, contact Ms. M.T. Drouin at (301) 415-6675; e-mail MXD@NRC.GOV. Although a time limit is given for comments on this draft guide, comments and suggestions in connection with items for inclusion in guides currently being developed or improvements in all published guides are encouraged at any time. Electronic copies of this draft RG are available on the NRC's Web site http://www.nrc.gov in the Reference Library under Regulatory Guides. Electronic copies are also available in NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at the same Web site; DG-1122 is under ADAMS Accession Number ML023360076. Regulatory guides are available for inspection at the NRC's Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4205; fax (301) 415-3548; e-mail PDR@NRC.GOV. Requests for single copies of draft or final guides (which may be reproduced) or for placement on an automatic distribution list for single copies of future draft guides in specific divisions should be made in writing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Reproduction and Distribution Services Section; or by e-mail to DISTRIBUTION@NRC.GOV; or by fax to (301) 415- 2289. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce them. (5 U.S.C. 552(a)) Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 22nd day of November, 2002. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Scott F. Newberry, Director, Division of Risk Analysis and Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. [FR Doc. 02-31872 Filed 12-17-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 24 Diablo Canyon Security Zone FR Doc 02-31767 [Federal Register: December 18, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 243)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 77428-77430] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18de02-13] DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Coast Guard 33 CFR Part 165 [COTP Los Angeles-Long Beach 02-006] RIN 2115-AA97 Security Zone; Waters Adjacent to Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Avila Beach, CA AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has established a security zone in the waters adjacent to Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near Avila Beach, California. This action is necessary to ensure public safety and prevent sabotage or terrorist acts against the power plant and individuals near or in the power plant facilities and the surrounding communities. Entry into this zone will be prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Los Angeles-Long Beach. DATES: This rule is effective January 17, 2003. ADDRESSES: Comments and material received from the public, as well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the docket, are part of docket [COTP Los Angeles-Long Beach 02-006] and are available for inspection or copying at U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Office/Group Los Angeles-Long Beach, 1001 South Seaside Avenue, Building 20, San Pedro, California, 90731 between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lieutenant Junior Grade Rob Griffiths, Assistant Chief of Waterways Management Division, at (310) 732-2020. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulatory Information On March 29, 2002, we published an interim rule with request for comments entitled ``Security Zone; Waters Adjacent to Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Avila Beach, CA'' in the Federal Register (67 FR 15117). We received no letters commenting on the rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Previously, on October 24, 2001, we published a temporary final rule (TFR) entitled ``Security Zones: Los Angeles Harbor, Los Angeles, CA and Avila Beach, CA'' in the Federal Register (66 FR 53713) that expired on March 29, 2002. [[Page 77429]] The Captain of the Port has determined the need for continued security regulations exists. Accordingly, this rulemaking makes permanent the temporary security zone published in the Federal Register on March 29, 2002. Background and Purpose Since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center in New York, the Pentagon in Arlington, Virginia and Flight 93, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has issued several warnings concerning the potential for additional terrorist attacks within the United States. In addition, the ongoing hostilities in Afghanistan and growing tensions in Iraq have made it prudent for U.S. ports and properties of national significance to be on a higher state of alert because the al Qaeda organization and other similar organizations have declared an ongoing intention to conduct armed attacks on U.S. interests worldwide. In its effort to thwart terrorist activity, the Coast Guard has increased safety and security measures on the waterfronts of nuclear power plants by establishing security zones to aid in the waterside protection of these facilities. As part of the Diplomatic Security and Antiterrorism Act of 1986 (Pub. L. 99-399), Congress amended section 7 of the Ports and Waterways Safety Act (PWSA), 33 U.S.C. 1226, to allow the Coast Guard to take actions, including the establishment of security and safety zones, to prevent or respond to acts of terrorism against individuals, vessels, or public or commercial structures. In this particular rulemaking, to address the aforementioned security concerns, and to take steps to prevent the catastrophic impact that a terrorist attack against a nuclear power plant would have on the surrounding area and communities, the Coast Guard is establishing a security zone around the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant near Avila Beach, California. This security zone helps the Coast Guard to prevent vessels or persons from engaging in terrorist actions against nuclear power plants. Discussion of Comments and Changes We received no letters commenting on the interim rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Therefore, we have made no changes and will implement the provisions of the interim rule as written. Regulatory Evaluation This rule is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that Order. The Office of Management and Budget has not reviewed it under that Order. It is not ``significant'' under the regulatory policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT)(44 FR 11040, February 26, l979). We received no letters commenting on the interim rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Small Entities Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612), we have considered whether this rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The term ``small entities'' comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. We received no letters commenting on the interim rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Assistance for Small Entities Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we offered to assist small entities in understanding the rule so that they could better evaluate its effects on them and participate in the rulemaking process. We received no letters commenting on the interim rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). Collection of Information This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). Federalism A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on State or local governments and would either preempt State law or impose a substantial direct cost of compliance on them. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it does not have implications for federalism. We received no letters commenting on the interim rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble. We received no letters commenting on the interim rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Taking of Private Property This rule will not effect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630, Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights. We received no letters commenting on the interim rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Civil Justice Reform This rule meets applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, to minimize litigation, eliminate ambiguity, and reduce burden. We received no letters commenting on the interim rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Protection of Children We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks. This rule is not an economically significant rule and does not create an environmental risk to health or risk to safety that may disproportionately affect children. We received no letters commenting on the interim rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Indian Tribal Governments This rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, [[Page 77430]] because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. We received no letters commenting on the interim rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Energy Effects We have analyzed this rule under Executive Order 13211, Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use. We have determined that it is not a ``significant energy action'' under that order because it is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866 and is not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. It has not been designated by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs as a significant energy action. Therefore, it does not require a Statement of Energy Effects under Executive Order 13211. We received no letters commenting on the interim rule. No public hearing was requested, and none was held. Environment We have considered the environmental impact of this rule and concluded that under figure 2-1, paragraph (34)(g), of Commandant Instruction M16475.lD, this rule is categorically excluded from further environmental documentation because we are establishing a security zone. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination'' is available in the docket for inspection or copying where indicated under ADDRESSES. List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways. For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows: PART 165--REGULATED NAVIGATION AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 165 continues to read as follows: Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191, 33 CFR 1.05-1(g), 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; 49 CFR 1.46. 2. Add Sec. 165.1155 to read as follows: Sec. 165.1155 Security Zone; Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Avila Beach, California. (a) Location. The following area is a security zone: all waters of the Pacific Ocean, from surface to bottom, within a 2,000 yard radius of Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant centered at position 35[deg]12'23'' N, 120[deg]51'23'' W. [Datum: NAD 83]. (b) Regulations. (1) In accordance with the general regulations in Sec. 165.33 of this part, entry into or remaining in this zone is prohibited unless authorized by the Coast Guard Captain of the Port, Los Angeles-Long Beach, or his or her designated representative. (2) Persons desiring to transit the area of the security zone may contact the Captain of the Port at telephone number 1-800-221-8724 or on VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). If permission is granted, all persons and vessels must comply with the instructions of the Captain of the Port or his or her designated representative. (c) Authority. In addition to 33 U.S.C. 1231, the authority for this section includes 33 U.S.C. 1226. Dated: December 6, 2002. J. M. Holmes, Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port, Los Angeles-Long Beach. [FR Doc. 02-31767 Filed 12-17-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-15-P ***************************************************************** 25 Energy Employees Compensation Program Home Page OWCP - U.S. Department of Labor Employment Standards Administration [Photos representing the workforce - Digital Imagery© copyright 2001 PhotoDisc, Inc.] Office of Workers' Compensation Programs www.dol.gov/esa Published Decisions The following are links to individual Published Decisions of the Final Adjudication Branch of EEOICP. The Decisions are identified by Docket Number. Claimant identifying information has been removed to protect the confidentiality of these individuals. 10959-2002 15200-2002 2960-2002 11460-2002 1587-2002 3001-2002 11833-2002 15960-2002 3198-2002 1230-2002 15963-2002 4474-2002 1245-2002 1685-2002 7060-2002 1400-2002 1726-2002 753-2002 14606-2002 2037-2002 9238-2002 15199-2002 2874-2002 10819-2002 U.S. Department of Labor Frances Perkins Building 200 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20210 1-866-4-USA-DOL, TTY: 1-877-889-5627 Contact Us ***************************************************************** 26 Nuclear plant neighbors to get pills AP Wire | 12/18/2002 | [The Beacon Journal] Associated Press NORTH PERRY, Ohio - About 50,000 businesses and homes within 10 miles of the Perry nuclear power plant in northeast Ohio will begin receiving coupons this week for two free potassium iodide pills. The pills can be taken to prevent thyroid cancer caused by exposure to radioactive iodine in the event of a nuclear accident or attack. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission has spent $1.6 million so far to provide pills to 17 states. The coupons include information on where they can be redeemed for pills, including 21 local pharmacies, and how and when to take them. Health officials cautioned that potassium iodide is not a substitute for evacuation. The NRC provided the pills to the Ohio Department of Health in June, but it took several months for state officials to develop a system to distribute more than a half-million pills to the estimated 320,000 Ohioans who are eligible for them. Ottawa County officials are waiting until January to send coupons to neighbors of the Davis-Besse nuclear plant because they didn't want them to get mixed up with the holiday mail, said Jeanie Wertenbach director of health education for the county health department. Robert Morehead, Columbiana County's health commissioner, said the coupons will be mailed next week to residents within 10 miles of the Beaver Valley nuclear plant, located just over the Ohio border in Shippingport, Pa. Information from: The Plain Dealer ***************************************************************** 27 Water water everywhere; but not really idaho mountain express : December 18 - 23, 2002 Produced & Maintained by Idaho Mountain Express, Box 1013, Ketchum, ID 83340-1013 208.726.8060 Voice 208.726.2329 Fax Copyright © 2002 Express Publishing Inc. Commentary by DICK DORWORTH Most of the living tissue of every human being is composed of water, constituting about 92 percent of blood plasma, 80 percent of muscle tissue, and 60 percent of red blood cells and over half of most other tissues. Water is an important component of the tissues of most living things. This (in its unpolluted, natural state) odorless, tasteless, transparent substance is the world’s most familiar and abundant liquid, covering about 70 percent of the surface of the earth, some of it in solid form (ice). In varying amounts it exists as well in the atmosphere. Water is the lifeblood of planet earth. Put another way: as goes water, so goes life on earth. Water is the ultimate indicator. Thirty years ago all indications were that the water of the U.S. wasn’t doing too well. Some people knew that, but many more were too busy or detached to know it, or, perhaps, too invested in the status quo of industrial pollution to want to know. It took something dramatic to get the country’s attention. On June 22, 1969, a train on a bridge above the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland, Ohio dropped a few sparks into the waters of that river which were so polluted with industrial wastes that these sparks ignited a fire. Flames roared 50 feet into the air from these waters, and the images from this event were covered in the national media. Even the busy, the detached and the overly invested could not ignore the wrongness of the waters of life on fire. Rivers are supposed to nurture life, not burn it. Water is for putting out fires, not fueling them. The public indignation over the Cuyahoga River fire eventually led to legislation known as the Clean Water Act, one of the most successful environmental laws in American history. It was enacted in October 1972. At the time only 30 to 40 percent of America’s rivers, lakes and coastal waters were considered safe for fishing or swimming. Thanks to the Clean Water Act of 1972, today nearly 60 percent of the country’s waters are considered safe. While having 60 percent of the waters of life safe to swim in and fish from is better than 30 percent, it still means that 40 percent of the waters of America are dangerously polluted. Forty percent of our country’s lifeblood is toxic. Whether this number is acceptable can be viewed, I suppose, as a personal decision, except for those persons adversely affected by other people’s decisions; but with the Bush Administration’s industry-backed assault on environmental regulations in full swing and escalating every day that percentage will climb. We are in the process of reverting back to the water quality standards of 30 years ago, and each of us is mostly composed of water. The implications are obvious. Water is the ultimate indicator. Industry is the largest polluter, but not the only one. Many communities discharge untreated or only partially treated sewage into waterways, threatening themselves and their neighbors and all life downstream. Thorough treatment of sewage destroys most disease-causing bacteria, but does not take care of viruses and viral illnesses. Most sewage treatment does not remove phosphorus compounds from detergents which cause eutrophication of lakes of ponds. That is, it kills them. Other contributors to the mix of undrinkable, unfishable, unusable waters include runoff from highways with oil and lead from automobile exhausts; construction site sediments; acids and radioactive wastes from mining operations; pesticide and fertilizer residues and animal wastes from farms, feedlots, dairies and hog factories. Almost all water pollutants are hazardous to all life forms, including humans. Sodium is implicated in cardiovascular disease, nitrates in blood disorders. Mercury and lead are known to cause nervous disorders. Many contaminants are carcinogens. Polychlorinated biphenyl compounds (PCBs), used in lubricants and many kinds of plastics and adhesives, cause liver and nerve damage, skin eruptions, vomiting, fever, diarrhea and fetal abnormalities. PCBs and DDT, banned in the U.S. since the same year the Clean Water Act was enacted but still manufactured in several other countries, are widespread in both the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. Dysentery, salmonella and hepatitis are just three of the maladies transmitted by sewage in drinking and bathing water. Once pollutants reach underground water tables it is somewhere between very difficult to impossible to correct, and it spreads over wide areas. In the Wood River Valley we tend to take water for granted since we seem to have an abundance of it that is safe for drinking, bathing and fishing. Yet, just a few miles to the east, at this very moment radioactive and chemical toxins from decades of mismanagement and unregulated (and undocumented) burying of nuclear wastes and other hazardous materials at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory are working their way into the enormous Snake River Plain Aquifer. If history is any indication, it will take another Cuyahoga River fire type of incident to shake the citizenry out of its lethargy about the state of its waters. In the meantime, and, in fact, in all times, each and all of us affect the state of our rivers and streams and lakes and oceans, and we are responsible for them. That’s because we are responsible for the lifestyles we lead, the cars we drive, the products we buy, the companies and industries we support, the food we eat and our knowledge of where it comes from, and, of course, for the people we elect to manage our government according to the dictates of the industries that pay for their campaigns. These things affect the quality of the waters of life, and water is the ultimate indicator. [Edmark GM Superstore : Nampa, Idaho] Idaho Mountain Express is distributed free to residents ***************************************************************** 28 Nuclear waste storage depot in northwest Russia nearly full - 12/18/2002 - ENN.com Wednesday, December 18, 2002 By Irina Titova, Associated Press ST. PETERSBURG, Russia — A nuclear waste storage depot serving St. Petersburg and the rest of northwestern Russia is nearly filled to capacity and will soon be unable to handle new deliveries, posing a serious problem for the region, officials said Tuesday. The Radon facility in Sosnovyi Bor, 80 kilometers (50 miles) west of St. Petersburg, has been using its emergency reservoir because its standard reservoirs are full, said Sergei Lukovnikov, head of radiation safety at the northwest branch of the state nuclear safety committee GosAtomNadzor. If a new storage depot isn't built soon, the government may have to shut down reactors and research institutes in the region that produce nuclear waste, Lukovnikov said. "It's a serious problem for the region," he said. Radon's standard reservoirs are full to capacity with 62,000 cubic meters (2,189,266 cubic feet) of solid radioactive waste and 1,200 cubic meters (42,373 cubic feet) of liquid radioactive waste. The facility is now using its 900-cubic-meter (31,780-cubic-feet) backup reservoir, meant for emergencies, at the Leningrad Nuclear Power Station, said Mikhail Yakushev, who heads the regional assembly's ecology commission. The regional assembly appealed to President Vladimir Putin and other federal officials for funding to build a new nuclear waste depot in the northwest but has not received an answer, said ecology commission consultant Yelena Navolotskaya. Local environmentalists have expressed concern about the Radon facility, saying some radioactive substances have already seeped into ground waters beneath the depot, and measures need to be taken to ensure the substances do not spread into the nearby Gulf of Finland. Last year, Russian lawmakers passed a controversial law allowing the government to import spent nuclear fuel from abroad for reprocessing and storage, despite opinion polls showing most Russians opposed the idea. Environmental groups have urged the government to focus on strengthening existing nuclear dumps rather than importing waste from abroad. Since the law was passed, Russia has already had imported spent nuclear fuel from Soviet-built nuclear power plants in Bulgaria and Ukraine. Copyright 2002, Associated Press All Rights Reserved Network Inc. Copyright © 2002 Environmental News Network Inc. ***************************************************************** 29 Poor B.C. waste site management threatens health, environment, says report canada.com » Ottawa » Story Wednesday » December 18 » 2002 DIRK MEISSNER Canadian Press VICTORIA (CP) - British Columbia needs to improve the way it manages the more than 2,000 known contaminated waste sites in the province, Auditor General Wayne Strelioff said Tuesday. Some of the waste sites have the potential to cause cancer, kill wildlife or result in huge cleanup bills, but government management of them is weak, he said. "The absence of any clear central leadership and direction is particularly troublesome," said Strelioff's report, Managing Contaminated Sites on Provincial Lands. "It raises the possibility that the resources now devoted to dealing with these sites are not focused on the right priorities and that scarce government resources are not being used in the most efficient and effective manner," he said. Strelioff recommended the government identify a lead agency with the authority to oversee the development of a government policy for managing contaminated waste sites. The Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management said it is developing a business plan to deal with contaminated sites early next year. B.C.'s rich economic history of resource extraction has left a legacy of contaminated sites scattered across the province, said Strelioff. Many of the sites are reminders of past activity when there were no environmental regulations or loose laws, he said. "Many of these operations have left a variety of contaminating substances - notably chemicals and metals - present in the soil, surface water and ground water at numerous locations around the province," Strelioff said. The runoff from an abandoned mine near Mount Washington on Vancouver Island has formed two colourful streams: one runs red with iron compounds and the other blue with copper compounds, he said. The report lists the sources and types of contaminants at sites in B.C. The sources include gas stations, landfills, scrap yards, mines, farms and pulp and paper mills. The contaminants include carcinogenic chemicals such as arsenic, cyanide and benzene, radioactive substances and lead, zinc, chromium, nickel or copper. "Given the number of ministries and agencies involved in managing contaminated sites, I believe the weak governance framework and a lack of formal co-ordinating function are serious problems," Strelioff said. He reminded the government about a letter Premier Gordon Campbell sent to his cabinet in June 2001 advising his ministers to be vigilant about ensuring exemplary environmental stewardship within each ministry. © Copyright 2002 The Canadian Press ***************************************************************** 30 Officials: Cask tests have PR value Las Vegas SUN: Today: December 18, 2002 at 11:16:01 PST NRC claims testing of nuke waste containers not necessary By Benjamin Grove WASHINGTON -- A dramatic full-scale test of the metal containers that would be used to ship nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain would serve little scientific purpose, but it would probably have a lot of public relations value, members of a Nuclear Regulatory Commission panel said today. Scientists already know the massive containers would hold up in a severe accident, members of the NRC's Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste said at a briefing for the commissioners. Computer modeling and tests with smaller-scale versions of the metal casks have shown the casks would not crack or release radiation in a real-world fall or fire, the panel members say. But Nevada officials are skeptical and have long prodded the NRC to oversee a new round of tests with full-scale waste containers. The last such tests were in the 1970s. "I think new tests would serve some real technical purposes," said Bob Loux, director of the Nevada Nuclear Projects Agency. As the Department of Energy moves forward with its plans to ship waste from sites scattered nationwide to Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, new tests would mostly serve to set the the public's mind at ease, said George Hornberger, chairman of the NRC waste panel. "We certainly see the value in demonstrating in a very public way that we can take these casks in a full-scale test and show people: look what happens -- nothing," Hornberger said, adding, "At least that is what we think will happen." Hornberger's panel is important because it advises the NRC on Yucca issues, and the five-member NRC controls Yucca's fate. In the next few years the NRC will be responsible for granting construction and operating licenses to the Energy Department for Yucca. The Energy Department still hopes to open Yucca by 2010. Nevada officials have mounted legal challenges to delay and ultimately kill the project. They have repeatedly appealed to the NRC to examine project flaws and questions about the waste shipping containers are a major flaw, they say. The NRC seems to have relented to public pressure on full-scale testing, and tentatively plans to conduct the tests in 2004. Commissioners confirmed support for the tests today. "We must be mindful of our stakeholders in Illinois and Missouri and Oklahoma and elsewhere" outside Nevada, too, commissioner Jeffrey Merrifield said. Full-scale testing is far more expensive than testing smaller models, which is why model and computer testing is relatively routine. At a workshop last month, the panel was "blown away" during a briefing on new computer technologies developed by U.S. national laboratories that allow scientists to create even more highly accurate modeling, Hornberger said. Hornberger's panel drew the ire of Nevada officials because the Nevadans were not invited to that workshop, when government and industry experts briefed the panel on waste transportation issues. Today, Commissioner Edward McGaffigan, Jr., chided the panel for not inviting Nevada experts to testify, and he urged the panel to routinely invite Nevada experts to future meetings. Several panel members agreed to do that. "We should reach out more," panel member B. John Garrick said. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 31 *Experts: More radioactive waste wanted at dumps* Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com December 18, 2002 *POTTSTOWN -- The nation continues to generate radioactive waste, but it has been many years since new places to dispose of it have been created.* For this reason, according to a handful of experts from national activist groups who descended on Pottstown Monday, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection suddenly wants to start monitoring incoming trash trucks for radiation. But unlike what you might think, the move to monitor the trucks is not so much to keep radioactive trash out of places like the Pottstown Landfill as to begin to set the standards to let more in, they say. The radiation-monitoring plans thatare being enacted at all the about 50 landfills throughout the state, "are being used to legalize the release of radioactive waste from regulatory control into both landfills and other waste facilities never intended to accept nuclear materials," according to Diane D?Arrigo of the Washington, D.C.-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service. A public hearing Monday on the plan for the Pottstown Landfill in West Pottsgrove was the only one scheduled so far in Pennsylvania, so it made an attractive place for these activists to make their case -- one many in the audience seemed to find compelling. The argument being advanced by this trio -- D?Arrigo, David Ritter, a policy analyst for Washington, D.C.-based Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy and Environment Program and Dr. Judith Johnsrud, the vice chairperson of the Pennsylvania Sierra Club and a member of the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power -- is not one that seems destined to capture the imagination of a distracted mass audience. Perhaps that is because it is based on the nuances of government regulations, policy papers and guidelines. But if changes buried in arcane government regulations don?t hold the interest of the average armchair quarterback, the impact those changes could have on health risks faced by you and your family should make you sit up and take notice, they argue. "The term low-level (radioactive waste) is misleading," said Johnsrud, who teaches at Penn State and wrote her thesis on the subject of the "geography of nuclear energy." "?Low-level waste? is not low-risk," said D?Arrigo. "Low-level radioactive waste is by far the largest volume of this kind of waste and we?re coming to the point where something has to happen," Johnsrud explained. First, one must understand that it has become politically impossible to increase the number of sites in the nation that are built and licensed to take radioactive waste -- there are currently three, and all are nearing capacity. So what happens to the ?hot? trash then? Johnsrud, D?Arrigo and Ritter say they have been tracking 23 or 24 different actions nationally and internationally that lead them to believe there is an effort under way to release dangerous radioactive waste into the general waste stream. "There?s an effort to change definitions so they can slip materials which are currently highly regulated into another classification," said Johnsrud. "This action by (Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection) is related to the long list of what?s happening at other agencies," she said. The health danger posed by this waste remains unclear. However, Johnsrud said studies now being done seem to be confirming early concerns that low levels of radiation exposure over long periods of time can be even more damaging to health than short high-level exposures. "The agency seems to be asking the wrong question," said Lewis Cuthbert, president of the Alliance for a Clean Environment which hosted the trio in Pottstown. "The agencies are all asking ?what level of radiation can we allow?? when they should be asking ?what can we do to protect people from radiation exposure?" he said. /©The Mercury 2002/ ***************************************************************** 32 Transuranic Waste Shipments Headed for Hanford ens AmeriScan: December 18, 2002 quantities of transuranic (TRU) waste will be shipped from two sites in California and Ohio to the Hanford Site for temporary storage, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced this week. During a meeting last week, officials of the DOE and the state of Washington agreed on a plan that could speed up the cleanup of toxic and radioactive wastes from the federal nuclear reserve at Hanford. As part of the agreement, Washington officials agreed not to challenge plans to store about 170 barrels of TRU waste from California and Ohio at Hanford until the waste is sent to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, near Carlsbad, New Mexico, for permanent disposal. "DOE appreciates the state of Washington's decision not to challenge DOE's planned shipments of TRU waste from the two sites in Ohio and California," said DOE assistant secretary for environmental management Jessie Roberson. "As DOE has stated previously, these shipments, and the resulting temporary storage at Hanford, will comply fully with all applicable laws and regulations," Roberson added. "DOE, the state, and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) share an interest in establishing appropriate requirements for the management of mixed waste at Hanford." But Gerald Pollet, executive director of the Hanford watchdog group Heart of America Northwest, told the "Seattle Post Intelligencer" that the new agreement is a "sucker deal" because it will send highly radioactive wastes to Hanford, in exchange for the faster removal of less dangerous wastes. "The plutonium wastes that are coming are far more dangerous than the mild wastes that the Department of Energy will ship out," Pollet told the newspaper. "We've all heard about dirty bombs. These will be truckloads of dirty bombs with extremely high radiation levels traveling through Portland, the Columbia Gorge and mountain passes." The DOE has promised to complete a comprehensive environmental impact analysis of the proposed shipments, and of the temporary storage arrangements at Hanford. The agency pledged to send about twice as much TRU waste from Hanford to a permanent storage site in New Mexico as the Hanford site will receive from other states. "This agreement provides much needed assurances from the federal government on the storage of such waste in our state," said Washington Governor Gary Locke. "It was important that the Department of Energy tell us how the waste would be handled, when it would eventually be removed from Hanford, and, more importantly, how and when they would deal with similar waste already at the Hanford site." The meeting last week between the DOE and state officials discussed new requirements for the retrieval and characterization of certain wastes at Hanford that are suspected of being mixed or TRU waste. Mixed waste, which can contain both radioactive elements and other toxic materials, requires special handling that could slow its disposal. Transuranic waste consists of clothing, tools, rags and other such items contaminated with trace amounts of radioactive elements - mostly plutonium. These elements are radioactive, man-made, and have an atomic number greater than uranium - thus transuranic or beyond uranium. There are now about 31,000 barrels of buried waste already at Hanford. The stakeholders are working to determine appropriate management plans for any wastes identified as mixed waste, which should hasten cleanup of the Hanford Site. The parties agreed to work towards creating new, tighter deadlines and milestones for the Tri-Party Agreement (TPA), a comprehensive cleanup and compliance agreement that details the roles played by the DOE, EPA and Washington Department of Ecology. If the TPA timetables are not revised by March 1, 2003, the state of Washington plans to renew its objections to the shipments of TRU waste from other states. "This is the Department of Energy's last chance to get on with the retrieval, processing and permanent disposal of what has been a skeleton in the Hanford closet," said Washington Attorney General Christine Gregoire. ***************************************************************** 33 *Landfill radiation plan slammed* Evan Brandt, ebrandt@pottsmerc.com December 18, 2002 *POTTSTOWN -- Exhausted and dispirited by what they say is the state?s indifference to their pleas for protection from risks associated with the Pottstown Landfill, a steady stream of speakers stepped to the microphone at a public hearing Monday and pleaded once again for the state to take their side in the ongoing, uphill battle with the landfill.* Monday?s battle was over something called a major permit modification, which would result in a new system of radiation monitoring for trucks entering the landfill. The system is being required at landfills throughout the state by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The hearing the agency conducted at the Montgomery County Community College?s West Campus in Pottstown Monday was the only one in the state held on a specific plan. The vast majority of the about 30 people who spoke at the public hearing told Ronald C. Furlan, the manager of the DEP?s Waste Management Program, that they didn?t think much of the way the DEP protects either the public or the environment; or, for that matter, of the radiation-monitoring plan under consideration. "Seeing you here is a bit like seeing the grim reaper in town," said Charlotte Street resident Nina Robertson. "You never come to us saying you want to protect my environment," she said. "When you come there?s a very good chance you?re going to make it worse." Comments by North Hanover Street resident John Haley were equally indelicate. "I wish I could say ?welcome? but I can?t. Every time we see you guys, it?s because you?re planning on bringing us more pollution, said Haley. "What the DEP should really be working on is a plan to shut the damn landfill down right now." But despite Furlan?s warning that the hearing had to do only with the radiation monitoring plan, not with the landfill?s proposed 50-foot vertical expansion nor the noxious odors that have recently overwhelmed the region, it was a warning issued in vain. Both those issues were raised in connection with the radiation monitoring and therefore had to be allowed. For example, Pottstown Borough Councilman Stephen Toroney noted that unless the landfill is granted its 50-foot expansion, it only has capacity for about 18 more months of regular operation. Why then, he asked, would a new radiation monitoring system be needed unless the DEP already had decided to grant an expansion? Former Pottstown Mayor Barry Robertson ridiculed the part of the plan that calls for segregating a load that has been found to contain radioactivity until it can be disposed of properly. "I can see it now. You?ll get a big pile of that stuff and the stench will be as bad as it is now and we?ll scream and holler and someone will say ?cover it up,?" said Robertson. "We wait weeks at a time to get one of your (DEP) representatives up here to see if the dump smells," he said. "How long will we have to wait for someone to tell us it?s radioactive?" But Monday was not a night for answers. Furlan made it clear that he was there to listen, not to respond. Under the DEP?s procedure, responding comes later in a document mailed to the speakers. But some answers were offered by Don Demkovitz, compliance manager for Waste Management Inc.?s eastern Pennsylvania region. Demkovitz did not speak at the hearing, but did make himself available for comment afterward. He said Waste Management owns 20 of Pennsylvania?s 50-plus landfills, including the Pottstown Landfill, which is actually located in West Pottsgrove. Demkovitz said that although the DEP has only three teams of health-physicists to analyze radioactive waste, one of them is based in the DEP?s Southeast Regional Office in Conshohocken. Therefore, he did not think the wait would be too long when and if the monitors at the Pottstown Landfill discover radiation in a load. A monitoring system similar to the one proposed for the Pottstown Landfill is in place at a Waste Management landfill in Taylor, which accepts about four times the daily trash load accepted here, said Demkovitz. There, the radiation alarm goes off about twice a week. "And 95 percent of that is tissues, adult diapers and kitty litter from people and pets who have had radioactive medical treatments," he said. No radioactive trash with a half-life of greater than 65 days would be accepted at the landfill, Demkovitz said. Although Demkovitz did not speak at the hearing, two people did speak in favor of the plan, John Wardzinski, who manages the landfill, and Bruce Moholt, a sandal-wearing West Chester environmental consultant paid by Waste Management to assure residents the plan is "within regulations in terms of radiation emissions." But few specifics could overcome the overwhelming sense of pessimism the speakers at Monday?s hearing expressed for the DEP and its handling of landfill issues. Pottstown resident Richard Burke, who called "the smell coming from the landfill these days a tangible reminder that we live in a community with real poisons you can?t see or smell," said those reassurances ring hollow. "Do I think this permit will grease the way for more radioactive waste coming into the landfill? Sadly yes," said Burke. "Do I have faith the workers at the landfill will successfully identify and remove all the radioactive waste headed for the landfill? No." Instead of this permit, said Dr. Jean Flood, "Pottstown should be applying to the DEP for a permit to have a viable community." But hope among the speakers for that eventuality seemed low. "For years, the DEP and (Nuclear Regulatory Commission) have hopelessly victimized this community and now you plan to do it again," said Stowe resident Mary Steiner. /©The Mercury 2002/ ***************************************************************** 34 Xcel comes begging for more nuclear waste storage City Pages: Made to Be Broken NEWS . YEAR IN MUSIC . VOL 23 #1150 . PUBLISHED 12/18/02 Diana McKeown of Clean Water Action: "It's almost like Xcel is saying, 'F You.' " Image by CRAIG LASSIG More News/City Beat Articles: by Peter Ritter In 1994, the Minnesota legislature made what many environmentalists regard as a deal with the devil. NSP--now Xcel Energy--had come to the state requesting permission to store high-level radioactive waste from its Prairie Island nuclear power plant in 48 concrete casks on an island in the Mississippi River. After much heated debate, the legislature compromised by allowing NSP the use of 17 casks. There were, however, a few caveats: The utility would invest $500,000 per cask per year in a renewable energy fund; NSP would make plans to decommission the plant; and, most significantly, the plant would shut down if the waste was not moving out of the state by 2007. In return, NSP's then-CEO Jim Howard vowed that the company would not return asking for more storage capacity. "It was the most bitter, contentious debate we've had in my 10 years here," recalls state Senator Ellen Anderson, who was then in her freshman term. "But I thought the law was clear: The policy of the state was that the plant was going to close." As chair of the senate's Regulated Industries Committee, Anderson is likely to be hip-deep in the controversy once again during the upcoming legislative session. Earlier this month, Xcel released a report to the state's Public Utilities Commission laying out a number of scenarios for closing the Prairie Island plant in 2007, when it will have reached its storage capacity. According to the utility's estimates, replacing the plant's 1,100 megawatts (about 18 percent of the state's energy use) with coal or natural gas plants would mean increased pollution, decreased reliability, and a cost to Minnesota ratepayers of up to $2 billion. The way to avert the looming crisis, the report concluded, would be for the legislature to authorize more waste storage at Prairie Island--precisely what Xcel had promised not to ask for a decade ago. According to Laura McCarten, a spokesperson for the utility, the about-face is driven by necessity. "We've done everything we can do not to come up to the state again," she says. "There are a number of alternatives, but nothing's likely to come in on time. The consequences are so large in terms of cost and emissions that we feel it would be irresponsible not to bring the issue back to the legislature." To Xcel's critics, though, it looks as if the company is simply trying to subvert state law for its own ends. "They've consistently been scofflaw," says Diana McKeown, energy program coordinator at Minneapolis-based Clean Water Action. "They're acting as if they need clarification of whether nuclear energy is going to be in the state's mix. That's confusing to those of us who were around in 1994, because there was no uncertainty in that legislation: If the waste wasn't leaving the state, the plant has to shut down. It's almost like Xcel is saying, 'F you.'" To some extent, though, Xcel is caught between a rock and a hard place--or, more specifically, between state law and federal inaction. The 1994 compromise was forged under the assumption that a planned federal repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, would begin accepting nuclear waste from commercial reactors before 2007. In 1998, Xcel successfully sued the U.S. Department of Energy for failing to live up to its commitment to take the waste by the proposed deadline, January 31, 1998. But today the project, which has already cost $8 billion, remains in political and regulatory limbo. By the most liberal estimates, Yucca Mountain will not begin receiving waste shipments before 2012--and even then, it could take up to three decades to transport all of the waste from the nation's 103 commercial reactors to Nevada. Recognizing that the Prairie Island plant would exceed its storage capacity long before Yucca Mountain was prepared to accept the waste, Xcel, leading a consortium of nuclear utilities, began searching for an alternative. They settled on a temporary private storage facility on an Indian reservation in Skull Valley, Utah, about an hour southwest of Salt Lake City. Over vehement opposition from Utah state officials and environmentalists, the Xcel-led consortium, called Private Fuel Storage, signed a 25-year lease with the Goshute Indian tribe in 1996. However, after Congress authorized the Yucca Mountain project earlier this year, the consortium's other utilities--whose storage problems are less pressing than Xcel's--signaled that they wouldn't invest in the Utah facility. Xcel was essentially left in the lurch. Given the perpetual uncertainty of the Yucca Mountain project, critics like McKeown argue that Xcel ought to have taken earlier and more aggressive steps to replace Prairie Island's generating capacity. "They've dragged their feet on this since '94," she says. "New power is going to cost more no matter what we do." In essence, McKeown contends, Xcel has let a crisis build until the legislature has no reasonable alternative but to authorize increased waste storage. And, she adds, the specter of a looming energy deficit may be somewhat disingenuous: Because one of Prairie Island's two reactors needs a new $200 million steam generator, it will be off-line for at least a year anyway. Indeed, according to a recent Department of Commerce study, Prairie Island's Unit 1 may have to be decommissioned as soon as 2009--the plant's federal operating license expires in 2013--due to poor performance. Anderson agrees that Xcel's nuclear dilemma is largely self-imposed. "This is really the result of poor planning on their part," the senator says. "They really haven't taken responsible steps toward replacing that power. They pushed this to the last second, and that minimizes the options and maximizes the cost." The utility's foot-dragging puts the legislature in a difficult spot, Anderson adds: Welsh on the 1994 law, or shift the financial burden of hastily replacing the state's nuclear power generation to ratepayers. While the utility has yet to proffer any concrete legislation, Anderson is already preparing for a debate as bitterly divisive as the one in 1994. "Obviously they think they have a more favorable political climate this time," she says. "I'd sure like to avoid a bloodbath if possible, but I don't know if we can." City Pages Advertising? Entire contents ©2002, City Pages Media, Inc. 401 North Third Street, Suite 550, Minneapolis, MN 55401 · (612) 375-1015 · All ***************************************************************** 35 NRC proposal to change Pathfinder contamination levels FR Doc 02-31870 [Federal Register: December 18, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 243)] [Notices] [Page 77529-77530] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr18de02-154] NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. 40-2259] Notice of Amendment Request and Consideration of Proposed Use of Alternate Concentration Limits for Ground Water for Pathfinder Mines Corporation's Lucky MC Site, Gas Hills, WY, and Opportunity To Provide Comments and To Request a Hearing I. Introduction Notice is hereby given that the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received, by letter dated December 21, 2000, a license amendment application from Pathfinder Mines Corporation (PMC), requesting alternate concentration limits (ALCs) for six ground water constituents at their Lucky Mc site located in the Gas Hills region of Wyoming. Staff submitted a request for additional information by letter dated October 26, 2001, and PMC responded January 11, and November 4, 2002, with page changes. The PMC Lucky Mc former uranium mill site (now a mill tailings disposal site) is licensed by the NRC under Source Materials License SUA-672 to possess byproduct material in the form of uranium processing waste, such as mill tailings, generated by past uranium processing operations. The PMC Lucky Mc site is located in the Gas Hills region of western Natrona and eastern Freemont Counties, Wyoming, approximately 80 kilometers (50 miles) southeast of the town of Riverton, Wyoming. The mill operated from 1958 to 1988 and has been dismantled and disposed of. The site contains three disposal areas (tailings impoundments) and three tailings 2 solution ponds. The license establishes a ground water protection standard at one Point of Compliance (POC) well near the disposal area. This well is used to monitor water quality because hazardous constituents have leached from the milling waste into the upper aquifer. The ACL application requests that site-specific concentration limits for six hazardous constituents in ground water be granted for the PMC site in place of the current concentration values in the license. The licensee has indicated that the concentration limits required to be met under the licensed corrective action program are not attainable due to the high cost and the influence of mining-impacted water. Also, the ground water at the PMC site and surrounding areas is impacted by open-pit uranium mines having the same constituents as those resulting from the tailings seepage. The requested concentration limits would be protective of public health and the environment, and appear to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. PMC also is proposing that the site's Point of Exposure (POE) be established at the long-term care boundary. This boundary encompasses all the land that will be transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) for perpetual care of the disposal site. The POE is the location nearest the site where the public or environment might be exposed to milling impacted ground water, even though such exposure is highly unlikely. II. Opportunity To Provide Comments The NRC is providing notice to individuals in the vicinity of the facility that the NRC is in receipt of this request, and will accept comments concerning this action within 30 days of the publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The comments may be provided to the Chief, Rules and Directives Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-001, and should cite the publication date and page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also be delivered to Room T-6 D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, from 7:30 a.m. until 4:15 p.m. on Federal Workdays. III. Opportunity To Request a Hearing The NRC hereby provides notice that this is a proceeding on an application for an amendment of a license falling within the scope of Subpart L, ``Informal Hearing Procedures for Adjudications in Materials and Operator Licensing Proceedings'' of NRC's rules and practice for domestic licensing proceedings in 10 CFR part 2. Pursuant to Sec. 2.1205(a), any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding may file a request for a hearing in accordance with Sec. 2.1205(d). A request for a hearing must be filed within 30 days of the publication of this Federal Register notice. The request for a hearing must be filed with the Office of the Secretary, either: (1) By delivery to the Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff of the Office of the Secretary of the Commission at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852; or (2) By mail or telegram addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications Staff. Because of continuing disruptions in the delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that requests for hearing also be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-1101, or by email to hearingdocket@nrc.gov. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.1205(f), each request for a hearing must also be served, by delivering it personally or by mail, to: (1) The applicant, Pathfinder Mines Corporation, P.O. Box 730, Mills, WY 82644, Attention: Tom Hardgrove; and (2) The NRC staff, by delivery to the General Counsel, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852, or by mail addressed to the Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555. Because of continuing disruptions in the delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that requests for hearing be also transmitted to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725, or by email to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. In addition to meeting other applicable requirements of 10 CFR part 2 of the NRC's regulations, a request for a hearing filed by a person other than an applicant must describe in detail: (1) The interest of the requestor; (2) How that interest may be affected by the results of the proceeding, including the reasons why the requestor should be permitted a hearing, with particular reference to the factors set out in Sec. 2.1205(h); (3) The requestor's areas of concern about the licensing activity that is the subject matter of the proceeding; and (4) The circumstances establishing that the request for a hearing is timely in accordance with Sec. 2.1205(d). [[Page 77530]] IV. Further Information The application for the license amendment is available for inspection at NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html (ADAMS Assession Numbers: ML010250146 and ML023160530). Documents may also be examined and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room, located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Any questions with respect to this action should be referred to Elaine Brummett, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T8-A33, Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-6606; Fax: (301)415-5390. Dated at Rockville, MD, this 12th day of December, 2002. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Daniel M. Gillen, Chief, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 02-31870 Filed 12-17-02; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 36 Yucca Mountain Whistleblower speaks out Kristi Hodges Wednesday, December 18, 2002 To Whom it May Concern: I just read the Yucca Whistleblower Information (Did you know) posting on the NWPO website.  I must say that we, the YMP whistleblowers, have stirred up a hornet's net.  My name is Kristi Hodges, and along with my peers, Mr. Bob Clark and Mr. Jim Mattimoe, I'm a key person in the YMP story that was broken by Mr. Keith Rogers of the Las Vegas Review Journal.  Mr. Rogers has only scratched the surface; there's a whole lot more to come. A lot of media attention is being given to the Los Alamos case, and rightfully so, but the YMP case is much bigger, much more complicated, goes much higher and deeper, and involves more parties with varying interests, agendas, and vulnerabilities.  It's an incredible case and one that must not be suppressed.  It is important to the citizens of Nevada and to our country in general that a truly independent investigation be conducted by an entity that will pursue and report the truth.  First of all, we're not activists against the Yucca Mountain Project; we're against corruption in the project and corruption in government.  Furthermore, we're not disgruntled employees; we're senior-level Quality Assurance (QA) professionals who have put our careers on the line.  Our profession requires personal integrity and our collective job was to assure that the project was advanced based on sound science and not politics.  That's a nice sound-bite, but the QA organization, which Mr. Clark directed, Mr. Mattimoe managed, and I supported as their right-hand person, verified that the science and engineering was done by the book.  Unfortunately, not everything was done by the book.  Before there was even a hint that Mr. Mattimoe would be fired (and Mr. Clark removed), he reported/submitted evidence of corruption to several entities; i.e., the OCRWM QA Director (Mr.Clark), OCRWM Concerns Program, the Nevada Test Site Concerns Program, the DOE Inspector General (IG), the YMP Project and Deputy Project Manager, the OCRWM Director, and the Morgan Lewis investigators.  He then tried to provide evidence to his employer, Dr. Navarro, but she didn't want to see it.  Senator Reid wasn't kidding when he said, "They set this guy up."  This was a a high-level frame job involving premeditated and calculated actions on the part of several entities.  This is more than a conspiracy theory; the senator's words will be proven correct. I'm no fan of anonymous whistleblowers, and when you add a financial incentive you get a whistleblower racket that never ends.  Anonymous whistleblowers can throw a hand-grenade and watch from a distance to see what (and who) blows up.  I've seen incredible abuse, which, when the facts become known, is at the heart of the Mattimoe vs. US Department of Energy and Navarro Research and Engineering case.  As stated in the US Department of Labor (DOL) report, the Morgan Lewis report, which the State seeks an unredacted copy, was no more than a recitation of anonymous allegations.  Mr. Clark and Mr. Mattimoe have not even seen the unredacted version, although it was the basis for actions taken against them.  The Review Journal has sought and been denied the report based on attorney-client and attorney work-product privilege.  How can this report be the basis for anything?  Does due process fall in this anywhere?  Is the State willing to fight a powerful law firm to get it?  And, after a huge fight, will it be anything other than ". . . a recitation of anonymous charges .  . . "?  I'd bet on the DOL's conclusion.    Anonymous allegations have been flying around for quite some time now, but the YMP whistleblowers were the only ones willing to sign their name on the bottom line.  When accusing people, agencies, and companies of wrongdoing one should stand behind their words and show the evidence of their claims.  We have binders of evidence, which have been submitted to several entities, the DOE IG being one.  The DOE IG was the recipient of six mailings (7 binders) of carefully indexed evidence submitted between October 2001 and January 2002.  After telling me that my submittals were topnotch, they compiled a summary complaint, read it to me over the telephone, and stated that it was going forward.  But then they did nothing.  Someone got to them; who I don't know. Based on recent discussions with a congressional aide, the DOE IG did not acknowledge my IG mailings and also made statements concerning an alleged contact with Mr. Mattimoe that did not occur.  Perhaps this was a mistake by an IG staffer, but I'm confident that the DOE IG has much to explain.  Who will investigate the DOE IG?  Someone needs to. Concerning your NWPO posting, I offer these comments: Until the DOE is a license applicant the NRC will not get involved in employee concerns.  I don't necessarily agree with the NRC legal counsel's interpretation, but we have been told by DOE management and by NRC representatives that the NRC does not have jurisdiction at this time.  The NRC did however get involved in one concern, which backfired on the former NRC Senior Onsite Representative (Mr. Bill Belke).  This was the subject of one of my DOE IG mailings, which was touched upon in the LV Review Journal.  If contacted, Mr. Belke will be most willing to discuss the issue.    YMP whistleblower protection is complicated by the fact that the DOE is not liable under the Energy Reorganization Act (ERA), again until such time that it is a license applicant.  Therefore, in order to be held accountable for wrongdoing, the DOE must wave its sovereign immunity, which of course will not happen.  Furthermore, although the DOE has many employees, based on an outrageous DOL ALJ ruling, the DOE is not an employer.  Mr. Clark, a federal official, and YMP whistleblower, has no protection under the ERA statute.  Contractors like Mattimoe and myself are protected under the statute, but only to go against an employer and certainly not the DOE.  In the Mattimoe case the DOE had an option of waving its immunity, but, as expected, it did not.  The DOL determined the DOE's actions to be extraordinarily egregious, but under the ERA statute the DOL could do nothing but make it clear in its report that the DOE had committed severe wrongdoing, which it did.  In its report the DOL refers to a "train of events."  These events are yet to be realized.  They involve a corrupt DOE concerns program, DOE senior management, DOE legal counsel, a powerful law firm, a notorious whistleblower attorney, the M&O contractor, lobbyists, and several more involved parties. It now falls upon Mr. Mattimoe's former employer, Navarro, to account for the wrongdoing of everyone involved.  Navarro is by no means innocent, but the company was directed by DOE to fire Mattimoe.  And, because Navarro was determined guilty by the DOL, there is no way for the DOE to legally reimburse Navarro's litigation fees, which could easily bankrupt the company.  Obviously the DOL decision has been appealed, but for what?  This is an absolute mess. I can see where you are going with the US False Claims Act.  If anyone deserves a substantial reward it should be Mattimoe, Clark and Hodges.  We've dedicated over three years of our lives to fighting and exposing corruption in the management of the YMP and beyond.  We've also spent many more years identifying the major QA deficiencies, which are at the heart of the egregious DOE actions.  However, this is not about money; this is about justice and making sure that the project is successful based on sound science rather than politics. Again, that's a nice sound-bite, but that always was our motivation.  We still support the project, but we believe that it will inevitably fail if the corruption is not addressed.  Now this is the kicker: Just like the NRC jurisdiction issue, and just like the ERA statute issue, the DOE is not subject to the US False Claims Act either.  DOE can truly commit crimes without consequence.  I have tried to alert Senator Ensign and more recently Representative Berkley to the problems in the laws, and hopefully something will be done to fix them.  Corrupt federal officials can direct contractors to break any number of laws and be immune from accountability.  Mr. Mattimoe's attorney, Ms. Sangeeta Singal of San Francisco, has taken a bold step in appealing the DOE's immunity in this complicated case.  Who knows, this case may go all the way to the Supreme Court.  If we really want to clean up our government, we need to remove the immunity obstacle.  No one should be immune to commit crimes without consequence - absolutely no one!      I have a few requests of the State.  Please don't let this drop.  It is imperative that a credible investigation be conducted.  The DOE and DOE IG cannot investigate itself.  The senators have asked the GAO, but there's no assurance that they will act.  Perhaps the House Committee on Government Reform would be interested; they have done credible investigations in the past.  Please explore avenues for assuring that this doesn't get squashed like the DOE IG investigation was.  Also, I would appreciate any assistance in regard to state laws that might help us in our effort, and also any clarifications of federal laws and statutes that you interpret differently from what I have detailed above. This is a learning experience for all involved.  Thank you. Kristi Hodges ***************************************************************** 37 DIA: North Korea has Two Nuclear Weapons Digital Chosunilbo (English Edition) : Daily News in English Updated Dec.18,2002 17:45 KST by Lee Kyo-kwan (haedang@chosun.com) The United States Defense Intelligence Agency told the chairman of Korea's Joint Chiefs of Staff, Lee Nam-shin that North Korea had carried out more than 70 high-explosive tests related to its nuclear weapons development program since 1998, according to a government official Wednesday. The DIA briefed Lee concerning this on December 5, while he was in Washington to take part in the annual Security Consultative Meeting. There have been reports the North conducted 70 similar tests from 1983 to 1993 at its Yongbyun nuclear facility, and three to four experiments near Kusong in Pyongbuk Province. However, this is the first time confirmation has been given that Pyongyang has continued testing since then. A government official said it was true the North continued high-explosive tests since the signing of the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework, but he could not confirm the exact number. The DIA also told Lee, North Korea had already extracted 10-12kg of plutonium before the Geneva agreement was signed, and has apparently made two nuclear warheads that can be attached to missiles. It added Pyongyang has been constructing gas centrifuges since 2000, with equipment supplied by Pakistan, for uranium enrichment, which are expected to be completed by 2005, the source said. ***************************************************************** 38 India says taking steps against nuclear attacks AlertNet 18 Dec 2002 13:20 NEW DELHI, Dec 18 (Reuters) - India, which came close to war with nuclear-armed Pakistan this year, said on Wednesday it was taking steps to defend itself from a nuclear and biological attack. Both India and Pakistan carried out underground nuclear explosions in May 1998 and have since been testing missiles capable of delivering such weapons. "The government has initiated necessary steps to ensure protection from nuclear and bio-attack," Defence Minister George Fernandes told a questioner in parliament. But he declined to elaborate, saying it would not be in the national interest. Indian officials have said the two sides came close to war soon after an attack on parliament in New Delhi blamed on Pakistan-based guerrillas last December, and again in June after an Indian army camp was attacked in disputed Kashmir. Pakistan condemned both attacks and denied involvement. "The government continues to closely monitor all developments related to Pakistan's nuclear and missile programmes," Fernandes said in a written answer to another question. The nuclear weapons programme in both nations is shrouded in secrecy, and very little is known about command-and-control systems on either side. Experts say the risk of miscalculation or an accident remains high because of the lack of any joint nuclear safety measures. The two countries mobilised close to a million men on their border after the attack on parliament, and although they have since started pulling back troops, tensions remain high. Fernandes said Islamabad had re-opened training camps for Msulim guerrillas fighting Indian rule in Kashmir and was trying to push them across the military control line dividing the disputed Himalayan region between India and Pakistan. Islamabad has said infiltration of guerrillas from its soil into Indian Kashmir had stopped after a pledge given by President Pervez Musharraf, except for some rogue elements. reuters ***************************************************************** 39 India says taking steps against nuclear attacks Reuters AlertNet - 18 Dec 2002 13:20 NEW DELHI, Dec 18 (Reuters) - India, which came close to war with nuclear-armed Pakistan this year, said on Wednesday it was taking steps to defend itself from a nuclear and biological attack. Both India and Pakistan carried out underground nuclear explosions in May 1998 and have since been testing missiles capable of delivering such weapons. "The government has initiated necessary steps to ensure protection from nuclear and bio-attack," Defence Minister George Fernandes told a questioner in parliament. But he declined to elaborate, saying it would not be in the national interest. Indian officials have said the two sides came close to war soon after an attack on parliament in New Delhi blamed on Pakistan-based guerrillas last December, and again in June after an Indian army camp was attacked in disputed Kashmir. Pakistan condemned both attacks and denied involvement. "The government continues to closely monitor all developments related to Pakistan's nuclear and missile programmes," Fernandes said in a written answer to another question. The nuclear weapons programme in both nations is shrouded in secrecy, and very little is known about command-and-control systems on either side. Experts say the risk of miscalculation or an accident remains high because of the lack of any joint nuclear safety measures. The two countries mobilised close to a million men on their border after the attack on parliament, and although they have since started pulling back troops, tensions remain high. Fernandes said Islamabad had re-opened training camps for Msulim guerrillas fighting Indian rule in Kashmir and was trying to push them across the military control line dividing the disputed Himalayan region between India and Pakistan. Islamabad has said infiltration of guerrillas from its soil into Indian Kashmir had stopped after a pledge given by President Pervez Musharraf, except for some rogue elements. ***************************************************************** 40 Hagel Clearly Remembers Our Nuclear Nightmares Press &Dakotan - [The Editorial Flag] 121802 opEd 1 yankton.net How quickly we forget our nightmares. --> Web posted Wednesday, December 18, 2002 This thought comes to mind as one listens to some of the rhetoric coming from the Bush administration concerning the use of nuclear weapons in the war on terrorism. Most recently, the administration proclaimed it will consider using the nuclear option ŒŒwith confidence and determination" if this nation or its allies are attacked by a weapon of mass destruction, which would include chemical or biological weapons. It was reported that a doctrine statement submitted to Congress last week did not rule out the use of nuclear weapons in a first-strike capacity. After that proclamation, there was little objection or criticism heard from Capitol Hill. A few voices cried out -- possible 2004 Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry was a leading critic, for example -- but many others were notably mute. That's why it was heartening to hear at least one lonely voice of warning emanate from the plains. Sen. Chuck Hagel, Nebraska's maverick Republican senator, urged the administration to exercise caution with its nuclear saber-rattling. Speaking in Omaha last week, Hagel said such reckless threats may undo 50 years of work in curbing the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, in effect, keeping the peace in this atomic age. "... it is very dangerous to be talking too much about these kinds of responses that the United States would take or actions in anticipation of another nation's actions,'' he said. He added that such recklessness "essentially nullifies the last 50 years. It sets in motion a series of uncontrollable actions that could be taken by China, by Russia, by Israel, Pakistan, India, North Korea -- nations that do possess nuclear weapons.'' Hagel, at least, has not forgotten the nightmares. Nuclear weapons are designed not to be used. They are a deterrent, the vital component in the concept of mutually-assured nuclear destruction, the precarious philosophy that nonetheless effectively governed the Cold War from the early 1950s until its end in the early 1990s. Nuclear weapons were the understood monster in the closet, the guillotine blade hanging over the necks of all humanity. It nervously kept the peace for generations. Now, we have a president who appears unafraid to occasionally swing the threat like a club, issuing warnings that were actually unthinkable not so long ago. Back then, the use of nukes was always a de facto possibility, and both sides were responsible enough to recognize that and respect the nightmare. This administration seems to have lost a bit of that respect. Hagel tried to remind Washington last week of those harsh Cold War lessons. Someone must, after all. We must not grow so callous or swaggering in this post-Cold War era that we forget the horrors that can be unleashed with the nuclear option. Reckless talk about nuclear retaliation or even implied first strikes threaten to undo years of work and open a startling Pandora's box of new nightmares. It also makes us look like nuclear bullies, and it redraws the line between diplomacy and dangerous brinkmanship. We must show more sense than that. All Contents ©Copyright Yankton Daily Press &Dakotan . Please ***************************************************************** 41 The banalization of nuclear weaponry Back Home By Reuven Pedhatzur Last week the U.S. administration took another step on the dangerous road toward turning nuclear weapons into a legitimate military instrument used for offensives even if the U.S. is not facing an existential danger. This is a genuine revolution in attitudes toward nuclear weapons and has far-reaching implications regarding their use. The new American concept also has an influence on Israel's own nuclear weapons policies. While during the Cold War, atomic bombs were meant as a deterence against a rival's use of such weapons, in the last year the Bush administration has been conducting a process of legitimization of nuclear weapons as valid instruments for use against countries that are not armed with nuclear bombs and, according to the six-page memo issued by the president, against terror organizations as well. America has thus abandoned one of the traditional cornerstones of its nuclear policy. Nuclear weapons are no longer a weapon of last resort, when America is in grave danger, but rather a legitimate and desirable weapon for the management of war. "The United States will continue to make clear that it reserves the right to respond with overwhelming force - including through resort to all of our options - to the use of WMD against the United States, our forces abroad, and friends and allies," the president's memo emphasized when it was published last week under the title "National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction." In a briefing to reporters, meant to clarify the president's intentions, a senior official said the "options" Bush was referring to included nuclear weapons. The innovation in the doctrine adopted by the president appears on its third page. Since it is very possible that U.S. deterrence could fail, says the administration, the U.S. will have no choice but to take preemptive action to destory storehouses of weapons of mass destruction held by countries or organizations that might use those weapons against U.S. citizens. In other words, for the first time, the U.S. is threatening to undertake preemptive nuclear strikes against potential threats that are not nuclear. That is precisely the case in Iraq, which does not yet have nuclear bombs but only chemical and biological weapons. There can be no doubt that among other things, the U.S. administration is preparing the ground for its assault. The administration went a step further, when it made clear that it plans to change its traditional policies regarding the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, policies that until now have been based on diplomatic measures and economic pressure. Bush emphasizes that he means to undertake an activist policy also based on the use of military force, and if necessary, nuclear weapons, to prevent the proliferation of weaponry that endangers the free world. In a secret appendix to the memo, the administration proposes targets in addition to Iraq for this new activist enforcement policy: Syria, Iran, North Korea and Libya, adding Libya and Syria to the "axis of evil," making them declared targets of American military operations if they do not comply with demands to cease equipping themselves with weapons of mass destruction. The new doctrine is the third step taken by the White House this year on the way to the banalization of nuclear weaponry. Previously there was a document leaked at the start of the year, under the title Nuclear Posture Review, and then the president's National Security Strategy paper was issued in September. In both cases, the administration began formulating a new nuclear policy that was finalized in the document issued last week. One of the interesting aspects of the policy is the intent to accelerate development of "small" nuclear weapons, to enable the activist enforcement policy to hit well-defined targets in countries and terrorist groups that do not comply with American demands. Of course there's no operational or moral justification for this and the use of "small bombs" is as grave as the use of strategic nuclear weapons. However, the Bush administration is trying to give logical and rational cover to its policies. Thus, tactical nuclear weapons, which both superpowers had the sense to remove from the European continent decades ago, are back as just another routine instrument of war. The new legitimacy granted by the U.S. to the use of nuclear weapons against "rogue states," most of which are in the Middle East, has ramifications for Israeli policy. If nuclear weapons are legitimate weapons that can be used for "preemptive" strikes, then seemingly the nuclear threshold has also been lowered for Israel's commitments. That could be the start of a dangerous slide down the slope toward a national security policy that we got as glimpse of this month in declarations by top-level political and military policymakers about the need to respond with "strategic weapons" in case of any Iraqi attack. In that context it's worth reminding the policymakers that they should not forget that what superpowers are allowed to do, little countries that depend on the superpowers are prohibited from doing. © Copyright 2002 Ha`aretz. All rights reserved ***************************************************************** 42 Nuclear security agency's reorganization plan calls for job cuts at Nevada Test Site Wednesday, December 18, 2002 Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The government's nuclear security agency announced a major reorganization Tuesday that downgrades its Nevada operations and cuts or transfers more than 150 state jobs. The plan outlined by the head of the National Nuclear Security Administration would reduce the 237-person federal workforce of the Nevada Operations Office by more than 60 percent over the next two years and shift some of its responsibilities to New Mexico. NNSA operations in Washington, D.C., and California also will be cut back while New Mexico will gain and other outposts in the sprawling nuclear weapons complex will see smaller changes. NNSA Acting Administrator Linton Brooks said the reorganization will achieve efficiencies sought in Congress and by the Bush administration in the agency formed 33 months ago to manage the nuclear weapons stockpile. A new organizational chart becomes effective on Friday while managers begin carrying out job transfers and cuts to be phased in by Sept. 30, 2004, according to a Linton memo distributed throughout the nuclear weapons complex and on Capitol Hill. Brooks said NNSA consolidation was inevitable. "We are doing this because it had to be done," he said in an e-mail sent to Nevada workers. Brooks said reductions will be achieved through attrition and buyouts, but he held out the possibility of layoffs if not enough workers leave voluntarily. The reorganization shifts NNSA balance to New Mexico. A 500-person NNSA "service center" will be created in Albuquerque, staffed by 89 workers who would be transferred from Nevada, as well as transfers from Oakland, Calif., and the Albuquerque field office. Albuquerque was picked "because it already has a strong employee base and a large population of NNSA employees (about 500) there. It makes more economic sense," said Anson Franklin, NNSA director of congressional, intergovernmental and public affairs. Franklin said cost-savings have yet to be quantified because of worker transfer costs and uncertainty over the number of buyouts that might be required. He said the agency likely will be asking Congress to reprogram its budget to carry out the reorganization over the next two years. The Nevada Operations Office would be downgraded to a site office staffed by 80 employees to manage weapons stockpile and national security activities conducted at the test site by contractors and nuclear weapons laboratory technicians and scientists. Besides potential transfers, more than 50 people lose their jobs to achieve the agency's personnel goal for the Nevada office, according to calculations by one NNSA official. "I know that most of you are disappointed and many of you are angry," Brooks said in the e-mail to Nevada employees. Brooks said the proposal was not political, but added, "I would be dishonest to pretend I wasn't conscious of politics." He did not elaborate. A dozen emergency management workers and 34 people who work on test site environmental management would be unaffected by the reorganization. About 2,700 contract workers at the Test Site also would be unaffected although some officials said it was possible that Bechtel Nevada, the test site management firm, could wind up increasing its workforce to offset federal reductions. Brooks said reorganization will shrink the NNSA federal workforce about 20 percent, from 1,696 employes to 1,359. Washington headquarters will see a reduction from 421 to 292 workers, the agency said. The Oakland office will close entirely. At the agency's North Las Vegas office complex, the announcement came on a day some workers were celebrating their Christmas party. A spokesman said Manager Kathy Carlson called a meeting and talked to the federal workers about controlling their futures and deciding over the next 21 months about what will be the best course to follow for them and their families. "It was very disconcerting to many of the employees," spokesman Darwin Morgan said. He noted that many of the workers took the rest of the day off to collect themselves. Franklin maintained the changes will not affect the national security framework as Nevada workers have charged in previous interviews. "This will have no impact on future missions," he said. "We expect the test site to be a vibrant center for NNSA for a long time. All we are doing here is applying more effective federal oversight." Nevada lawmakers said they will press for more about the plan, which they observed goes beyond administrative personnel and affects dozens of technical jobs at the Nevada operations office and the test site. The cuts in Nevada are disproportionate to others in the nuclear weapons complex, Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., complained in a letter to Brooks on Tuesday. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he will explore the possibility of blocking the move. "I don't think they can do this administratively," he said. "They will have to deal with me and people on the appropriations committee. There's no way you can look at this as good but that doesn't mean it's going to happen." Reid said neither he nor Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., was notified by the Bush administration of the impending reorganization. He said he waited for a call from the administration after Nevada employees began reporting the impending moves last week. "That's their burden, not mine," Reid said of NNSA leaders. "I've never known business to be done this way." Reid also absolved Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., an influential voice on the nuclear complex who some Nevadans believed may have had a hand in tilting the service center to New Mexico. "He wouldn't take my people from me," Reid said. "We work together on the (energy and water) committee." In a statement, Domenici applauded the reorganization as good for Albuquerque and the NNSA site office at Los Alamos. "The end result will be a greater NNSA presence in the state," he said. Ensign was traveling in California. Spokeswoman Traci Scott said he planned to use a new assignment on the Senate Armed Services Committee to investigate the plan. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., said she will gather lawmakers from other states affected by the reorganization when Congress reconvenes next month. "I would think that when Congress comes back into session and has an opportunity to focus on this effort, there will be enough members with questions that (NNSA) will have to come before a committee to answer questions," she said. Review-Journal writer Keith Rogers contributed to this story. Copyright © Las Vegas Review-Journal, 1997 - 2002 Stephens Media ***************************************************************** 43 Gerald Boyd, Oak Ridge executive, to be manager of Energy Dept. operations By Associated Press December 18, 2002 OAK RIDGE - The Department of Energy named Gerald G. Boyd manager of its 12,000-employee Oak Ridge operations. Boyd, 52, will assume the post in January, overseeing the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the former K-25 uranium-enrichment site and various environmental cleanup operations. The Y-12 nuclear weapons plant in Oak Ridge is separately managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration. Boyd's "frontline experience in managing the federal and contractor work force in Oak Ridge is a great asset to this department," Raymond Orbach, director of DOE's Office of Science, said Tuesday. "His experience in both the science and environmental cleanup sectors makes Gerald the perfect fit for preserving our strong relations with the (lab) and ensuring progress in accelerating environmental remediation of cleanup sites." Boyd is DOE's assistant manager of environmental management in Oak Ridge, supervising an $850 million budget and more than 2,000 federal and contractor workers. The DOE-Oak Ridge manager position has been vacant since May, when Leah Dever was reassigned to Washington headquarters. Boyd is a Nashville native with a bachelor's degree from the University of Mississippi and a master's from Florida State. The Knoxville News-Sentinel Co. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 44 AC exploring taxing DOE contractors The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- 11:38 a.m. on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 by Donna Smith Oak Ridger staff CLINTON -- Anderson County has decided to explore a different method of getting tax revenue in connection with the Department of Energy-owned land in Oak Ridge -- taxing the private companies that work on that property. County Attorney David Clark told Anderson County commissioners, who met Monday night in the Anderson County Courthouse, that taxing these private contractors who use the federal property in profit-making ventures would require action by the state Legislature. Such efforts were taken up in the state Legislature in the mid-1980s, he said, but they failed in committee. Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and California have approved laws to tax the contractors, he said. The Commission referred the issue to its Revenue Committee for discussion. Commissioner David Bolling of Clinton was recently elected chairman of the committee. The Anderson County, Oak Ridge and Roane County governments are pursuing getting more money from the federal government. Because it is a government entity, DOE does not pay property taxes on the nearly 35,000 acres it holds in Oak Ridge. Its contractors do not pay taxes on services they render in relation to their DOE contracts. DOE makes payments in lieu of property tax to each of the three governments. However, local government officials contend that the amount is not enough. Anderson County Executive Rex Lynch will be asking DOE for an annual payment of $482,400 in lieu of taxes. The Clinton City Council on Monday night approved a resolution endorsing those governments' efforts. Donna Smith can be contacted at (865) 220-5502 or dsmith2@oakridger.com. All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 45 DOE nuclear security agency slashes Nevada jobs Las Vegas SUN: December 17, 2002 By LESLIE HOFFMAN ASSOCIATED PRESS ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. (AP) - The National Nuclear Security Administration on Tuesday unveiled a plan to streamline its field office network that would eliminate over 150 southern Nevada jobs. The Energy Department agency plans to cut its work force by about 20 percent, eliminating positions at its Washington, D.C., headquarters and field offices in Nevada and California. The new structure will be implemented by October 2003. The changes are part of a major administrative overhaul aimed at streamlining the agency by eliminating a management layer between the headquarters and site offices at DOE nuclear weapons laboratories and production plants. Site offices in Kansas City, California, South Carolina and Nevada would lose staff but eventually have more authority by reporting directly to Washington. Some of those workers will be transferred to a new national service center in Albuquerque designed to lend technical, financial, legal and staffing help to site offices. The Los Alamos National Laboratory office in northern New Mexico will add 20 employees; the Sandia National Laboratories staff will grow by 12. The biggest loss of jobs appears to be in Nevada, where the North Las Vegas office will be cut from 237 employees to 80 by September 2004, said Darwin Morgan, a spokesman for the agency in Nevada. Morgan said 89 Nevada employees would be transferred to Albuquerque by Friday, another 148 will leave by attrition over the next two years, and 12 emergency management employees would be reassigned. "We don't anticipate any change operationally," Morgan said. "We'll still have people here traveling to the (Nevada) Test Site and working at the Test Site," which the office has overseen for 51 years. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., blasted the 60 percent cut in jobs at the Nevada offices as unacceptable. "During this time of terrorist threats against our country, we should be expanding on the vital programs at the Nevada Test Site, not eliminating them," Reid said. The National Nuclear Security Administration was created by Congress two years ago as a semiautonomous arm of the Energy Department in response to security incidents at DOE nuclear weapons laboratories and production and testing facilities. All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 46 PNNL's next director must build on vision Published Dec. 16, 2002 Tri-Citians have a lot at stake in the search for the next director of Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, which is a vital part of this area's future. Lura Powell, the current director, is bidding farewell to the lab at the end of the month but not to the Tri-Cities. The community is lucky to keep her. She jumped into a variety of civic services, including membership on the boards of Kadlec Medical Center, United Way, the Tri-City Industrial Development Council and Three Rivers Community Roundtable. A more lasting legacy may be the regional perspective Powell brought to her role at PNNL. As a member of the Washington Roundtable, she connected the Tri-Cities to the statewide business elite. And by forging new relationships with universities in Oregon, Washington and Idaho, she strengthened the lab's connections with the Northwest's academic elite. Now Battelle, which operates the Richland lab for the Department of Energy, has turned its attention to finding a replacement. It's critical the next director has the skills to build on PNNL's presence in the Tri-Cities. Five candidates are being considered, and a decision is expected to be announced next month. The search committee hasn't released any names, but we expect that anyone on the list is certain to be a top scientist and administrator. The new director must be all that and more, someone who can not only expand on the good work of Powell and other successors, but also help define a future for the Tri-Cities. The lab is too big of a player in the cultural, intellectual and economic life of our community for anything less. The buildings alone at the PNNL campus are worth about $340 million. More than 3,800 workers are employed by the lab. Contracts for research this year were worth more than $500 million. More significantly, no other institution is in a better position to help create a future that lasts after Hanford is gone. While the Energy Department's other contractors are tied almost exclusively to cleanup at the nuclear site, less than 20 percent of the lab's revenues are directly tied to Hanford. It's why leadership at the laboratory is an issue for all of us. Capitalizing on the traditions built by Powell, Bill Madia, William Wiley and other former directors, expanding those aspects of the lab's work that create jobs in the Tri-Cities and becoming involved in the community, all will take a visionary. That means someone who can attract the finest minds to PNNL from around the nation. It also means someone with the clout to promote the lab's interests at Battelle's headquarters in Columbus, Ohio, and at DOE's headquarters in Washington, D.C. The selection committee's job isn't easy, but making the right choice is essential as the Tri-Cities works to invent a future without Hanford. What's your opinon? Copyright 2002 Tri-City Herald. All rights reserved. This ***************************************************************** 47 DOE agency overhaul will benefit state Albuquerque Tribune Online TAGS BETWEEN PARAGRAPHS AS SHOWN --> By Leslie Hoffman The Associated Press More than 100 jobs could move to New Mexico under a plan unveiled Tuesday by the National Nuclear Security Administration to streamline its field office network. The Energy Department agency plans to cut its work force by about 20 percent, cutting positions at its Washington, D.C., headquarters and field offices in Nevada and California. Some of those jobs will be moved to New Mexico, where the agency will increase staffing at its site offices and establish a national service center. The changes are part of a major administrative overhaul aimed at streamlining the agency by eliminating a management layer between the headquarters and site offices at DOE nuclear weapons laboratories and production plants. The agency was created by Congress in 2000 as a semiautonomous arm of the Energy Department in response to security incidents at DOE nuclear weapons laboratories and production and testing facilities. Rep. Heather Wilson, an Albuquerque Republican and a member of the House Armed Services Committee, said the plan adds details to the agency's mandate. "The labs have always suffered under having many masters," Wilson said. "This takes a layer out of management of the NNSA and creates a service center here in Albuquerque." The reorganization will disband operations centers in Nevada and California, and Albuquerque's operations office will become a service center. The Albuquerque center, which will lend technical, financial, legal and staffing help to site offices across the country, could gain about 90 new positions. The Los Alamos National Laboratory site office in northern New Mexico will increase by 20; the Sandia National Laboratories staff will grow by 12. The new structure will be implemented by October 2003. The site offices will have more authority, reporting directly to Washington instead of to an operations center. Site offices in California, South Carolina, Nevada and Missouri will lose staff. The biggest loss appears to be in Nevada, where the North Las Vegas office will be cut from 237 employees to 80 by September 2004, said Darwin Morgan, a spokesman for the NNSA in Nevada. Morgan said that as of Friday, 89 employees at the office will report to Albuquerque, and the remaining 148 will be reduced over the next 21 months through attrition and the reassignment of 12 emergency management employees. "We don't anticipate any change operationally," Morgan said. "We'll still have people here traveling to the (Nevada) test site and working at the test site," which the office has overseen for 51 years. Sen. Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat, blasted the 60 percent cut in jobs at the North Las Vegas office as unacceptable. "During this time of terrorist threats against our country, we should be expanding on the vital programs at the Nevada Test Site, not eliminating them," said Reid. Nevada's congressional delegation has been pushing since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks for a national counterterrorism training and research center at the Nevada site. Wilson said New Mexico fared well because of its existing DOE structure. "It made sense because the bulk of the people are already here," she said. "The Albuquerque Operations Center has always been the largest, and two of the premier sites are here, Sandia and Los Alamos." © The Albuquerque Tribune. Users of this site are subject to our ***************************************************************** 48 Boyd is new ORO manager The Oak Ridger Online -- Area News -- 12:10 p.m. on Wednesday, December 18, 2002 Gerald Boyd by Heather McCoy Oak Ridger staff Gerald G. Boyd has been named the new manager of the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations office. Jim Turi, who has been serving as the second interim manager, will return to other duties in DOE's Office of Science when Boyd assumes his new duties in January 2003. The post has been vacant since April. Mike Holland was interim manager from April to September. According to a DOE press release, Boyd will report to the Office of Science and will be responsible for a federal and contractor workforce that totals approximately 12,000 individuals. Management of the National Nuclear Security Administration's Y-12 National Security Complex will continue to reside with NNSA, though ORO will continue to provide services through a "service agreement," according to DOE spokesman Walter Perry. When asked whether ORO would continue to oversee the Paducah, Ky., and Portsmouth, Ohio, sites, he said he could not provide that information. Raymond Orbach, director of the Office of Science, announced in November that the department would maintain a single site manager for its Oak Ridge operations to ensure that DOE meets its diverse mission requirements for its Oak Ridge projects. "Gerald Boyd's frontline experience in managing the federal and contractor workforce in Oak Ridge is a great asset to this department," the release quotes Orbach as saying. "His experience in both the science and environmental cleanup sectors makes Gerald the perfect fit for preserving our strong relations with the department's Oak Ridge National Lab, ensuring progress in accelerating the environmental remediation of cleanup sites in Oak Ridge, and relating to the community's concerns and needs." The appointment of Boyd answered Mayor David Bradshaw's hope that a local selection would be made. "I think DOE made a very good decision," Bradshaw said. "For us as a local community, Boyd will be able to, and probably already does, understand our needs, and will be able to respond to those accordingly." He said the city will be "well served" by having a local individual who "will be up to speed" in a few days compared to many months for someone not local. Boyd is the assistant manager of Environmental Management in Oak Ridge where, according to the release, he oversees the management of over 100 federal employees, and the supervision of more than 2,000 contractor employees and an $850 million annual budget. Before that Boyd was the deputy assistant secretary and associate deputy assistant secretary for Science and Technology, managing a $300 million national and international research and development program involving environmental cleanup technologies. Boyd has been with DOE since 1990. Prior to that Boyd worked at the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Association of Environmental Professionals, among other organizations. The Nashville native graduated from the University of Mississippi and received a master of science degree from Florida State University. He and his wife, Betty Jo, have two daughters. According to the release, the Oak Ridge Operations office is responsible for major department, science, technology and environmental management programs. The Oak Ridge Reservation is the site of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, East Tennessee Technology Park, Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education and the Y-12 National Security Complex. Heather McCoy can be contacted at (865) 220-5533 or All Contents ©Copyright The Oak Ridger ***************************************************************** 49 Fed work force at NTS to be cut Las Vegas SUN: Today: December 18, 2002 at 11:07:34 PST 157 workers at Test Site must transfer or lose their jobs By Benjamin Grove and Mary Manning WASHINGTON -- The federal work force in Nevada that manages the Nevada Test Site is being slashed by 66 percent, officials said. The National Nuclear Security Administration on Tuesday made a "reorganization" announcement that workers had dreaded all year, which aims to cut the agency's nationwide work force by nearly 20 percent by October 2004. The bottom line: 157 of the Test Site's 237 federal workers will be forced to transfer out-of-state or lose their jobs. The 1,375-square-mile Test Site located 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas was the nation's proving ground for nuclear bombs from the 1950s until 1992. It is now home to a number of programs involving nuclear weapons and testing. Officials said because the NNSA is cutting only the jobs of federal workers and not contractor jobs, programs and research at the site will continue and even expand. The NNSA is consolidating administrators, middle managers and business, legal and information technology branches, which will end up at a service center in New Mexico. The technical employees who would manage nuclear weapons testing if the United States ever decided to renew nuclear experiments will remain on the job. "Merry Christmas," one dispirited worker, who asked to remain anonymous, said glumly after a morning briefing. Troy Wade, a former Test Site manager and a member of the reorganization review team, said he was disheartened. "I'm a little bit upset about it," he said. "We were hoping that the system would think Nevada was unique." In fact, Nevada made a bid to become the administrative center, he said. "The big bosses didn't agree with that," Wade said. The transition is expected to take two years. "Lots of things can happen in two years," he said. The work force was bloated with bureaucracy, acting NNSA administrator Linton Brooks said. The cuts will leave 80 federal workers to manage work at the Test Site. Bechtel Nevada, the contract manager for the Test Site, was not affected by the reduction. "In keeping with President Bush's vision, we are streamlining operations and oversight while clarifying roles and responsibilities," Brooks said. "The new, more responsive organization will improve federal management of our nuclear weapons complex." The NNSA, a two-year-old agency that oversees national security programs within the Energy Department, manages the Test Site. Workers who do not land one of the 80 remaining Nevada jobs will have to apply for transfers to the NNSA's seven other site offices nationwide, or lose their government jobs. It's yet not clear if there are enough jobs in the NNSA's seven sites scattered nationwide for the workers being squeezed out of their Nevada positions, NNSA Nevada spokesman Darwin Morgan said. The Tuesday announcement was tough news to take before the holidays, Morgan said. "It's pretty somber around here," Morgan said. "The employees are concerned. It's the proverbial lead brick in the face." After the announcement Tuesday morning, NNSA Manager Kathy Carlson allowed some workers to go home for the day. Morgan said two staffers in his communications office are both in their 20s and recently bought houses. "They were trying to stake out the American dream, and now their future is really uncertain," Morgan said. From 1951 until 1962 the test site was managed by the former Atomic Energy Commission Office in Albuquerque. In 1962 the Nevada Test Site became an operations office. "We fought that battle all the time," former Test Site seismologist Jim O'Donnell said, referring to the Albuquerque office overseeing Nevada activities. Former test site manager Nick Aquilina said he supported the reorganization effort. When Aquilina ran test site operations from 1987 until his 1994 retirement, a combined federal and contractor work force numbered 10,000. The economic impact on Southern Nevada from the loss of Test Site jobs is minimal, said Keith Schwer, director of the Center for Business and Economic Research at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. A couple of hundred jobs out of a Las Vegas Valley work force of 700,000 does not seem like much, Schwer said. "Obviously, for those unemployed, it has a major impact," he said. The contractor work will continue uninterrupted, officials said. The only change is that work will be overseen by a more efficient, smaller staff of federal workers, NNSA spokesmen said. Anson Franklin, the NNSA's spokesman in Washington, stressed that the NNSA was cutting only its federal workers, not contractor jobs. The test site's mission likely will expand, Franklin said. "The test site is going to continue to be a pretty busy place," Franklin said. New proposals will continue as planned, officials said. For instance, the test site is one of five sites under consideration for a new plant to produce plutonium "pits," the heart of a nuclear weapon. The Energy Department in September also said it planned to move plutonium and uranium now stored at the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory to a safer spot inside the underground Device Assembly Facility at the Test Site. And President Bush has hinted that he may decide that nuclear bomb tests should be renewed. Nevada politicians, skeptical of the NNSA's rhetoric, criticized the cuts. Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-Nev., questioned how 80 people could do the work of 237. She suspects the agency will be forced to contract out for managers who handle highly sensitive information. "I'm all in favor of a lean and mean federal government, but I'm not in favor of compromising national security in an effort to have a bottom line that looks better," Berkley said. Berkley questioned the timing of the announcement, which comes when Congress is out of session and unable to question or delay the changes. In a sharply worded written statement, Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., slammed President Bush for directing the agency to make cuts without consulting Congress. "The Bush administration actively works to dump deadly radioactive waste in Nevada while taking nuclear security jobs out of the state," Reid said. "What a wonderful gift, just days before Christmas, from the Bush Administration to the people of Nevada." Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., made a personal plea to Brooks earlier this month not to cut Nevada workers, and on Monday voiced his concerns about the cuts to Brooks personally, spokeswoman Traci Scott said. And Rep. Jim Gibbons, R-Nev., sent a letter to Brooks Tuesday asking for more justification for the Nevada job cuts. "It is my goal to ensure that the safety and security of the important work that the Department of Energy does in Nevada is not adversely impacted by these actions," Gibbons said. NNSA officials in February first announced that they were launching a reorganization study to eliminate waste in the NNSA's weapons programs by 20 percent, which translates to a cut of about 18 percent of the total NNSA work force. Part of the NNSA's goal was to streamline its three "operations" offices -- in Nevada, Oakland, Calif., and Albuquerque -- that oversee contractor work. Brooks on Tuesday said he would close the NNSA's Oakland operations office by October 2004, and scale back the Nevada office. The Albuquerque office is being reorganized as a "service center" that will provide the procurement, human resources and other support work formerly done in all three offices, an NNSA press release said. Brooks also said his cuts included NNSA's Washington-area headquarters where 130 jobs -- roughly 30 percent of staff -- would be phased out through "managed attrition." All contents copyright 2002 Las Vegas SUN, Inc. ***************************************************************** 50 State provides security for radioactive material* December 18, 2002 *A state contractor already cleaning up an area of radioactive contamination will provide temporary security for nuclear material stored in the same building by a flooring manufacturer that is going out of business, state officials said Wednesday.* PermaGrain Products Inc. used radioactive cobalt-60 to mold plastics with wood to harden and extend the life of commercial flooring, the state Department of Environmental Protection said. The company, which employed 120 people at its peak, ceased operations at a building in the state-owned Quehanna wildlife area Nov. 22. It filed for bankruptcy Tuesday, indicating plans to close, a spokesman said. PermaGrain is required under its license from the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission to provide security for the radioactive material. State officials became concerned, however, after the company filed for bankruptcy, and ordered that security be provided in the short term by Scientech Inc. Scientech has been paid $1 million over three years to clean up contamination in another part of the same building in the 1960s, state environmental officials said. The contamination was left by radioactive strontium-90 from research work that the former Martin-Marietta Corp. did for the federal government, officials said. Sharon Dobo, PermaGrain's health and safety manager, said the company planned to provide trained security officers until at least Sunday at the site, which is about 20 miles northeast of Clearfield. State and federal officials were meeting Wednesday to plan for future security at the site. "We will make sure security is maintained at the site indefinitely, while the bankruptcy is resolved," said David E. Hess, Environmental Department secretary. The company, which manufactured wood and stone flooring, was formerly based in Newtown Square, outside of Philadelphia, Dobo said. /©NEPA News 2002/ ***************************************************************** 51 Going with the wind | csmonitor.com ELEGANTLY HUGE: At 400 feet, these sleek wind turbines at an FPL Energy facility in Kansas have a tall profile, which even some proponents of wind energy worry will blight the view. FPL ENERGY/AP For decades, wind power has been an underrated, and underperforming, energy source. Improved technology may change all that. By Amanda Paulson | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor PRINCETON, MASS.  When this one-blink Massachusetts town decided against nuclear power 20 years ago, residents turned to an energy source as ancient as time. Today, the eight windmills they built still stand on the blustery slopes of Mount Wachusett, white sentries whose metal blades clank and turn in the breeze. 03/14/01 Wind turbines sprout from Europe to US They haven't done a lot more. On a good day, the windmills might power 30 of Princeton's 1,300 homes. It's the kind of tale that has made alternative energies and their earnest advocates the butt of many an oilman's joke. But wind power just may be worth another look. Today it's the fastest-growing energy source in the world. And, despite their failed experiment, Princeton residents are among those banking on it. The town has decided, at a cost of $3.75 million, to replace its struggling eight towers with just two - taller, sleeker, and incorporating all the technological advances of the past two decades. They are expected to generate nearly half the town's energy needs by next fall. And this time around, Princeton has lots of company. Last year, enough wind energy came online in the United States to power roughly a half million homes. Next year, that number is expected to climb by another 100,000. The very fact that Princeton is willing to give wind power another shot says much about how far the ability to harness nature has come - and why advocates say wind is poised to make the leap from green-movement boutique to mainstream energy source. "Wind technology has come a long way in 20 years," says John Fitch, general manager of the Princeton Municipal Light Department. Turbine efficiency and the ability to choose good sites have both improved dramatically. "Now you can produce energy that's much more economical as well as better for the environment." Not that anyone should expect hood-mounted windmills powering SUVs anytime soon. The reality is that wind power, now a source of less than a half percent of America's energy, won't by the most optimistic estimates provide more than 6 percent 20 years from now. But the industry's recent growth, driven mostly by improvements in technology and cost, is more than the speculation of dreamers. For the past five years, it's grown by about 30 percent a year worldwide. In Denmark, it now accounts for some 15 percent of all energy use. And in this country, wind farms are working their way eastward, from Pacific Ocean bluffs and ranches in the shadow of the Rockies to the mountain ridges of the Appalachians and the coastal waters of the Atlantic. To date, the most success has been seen in the Western plains, the vast swath of windswept land that stretches from west Texas northward to Minnesota and the Dakotas. In 2001, the state of Texas alone beat the previous national record for wind power installed in one year. Much of this power comes from individual farms and ranches, whose owners are paid a fee by energy companies. "It's amazing how much better [the windmills] look when there's change jingling in your pocket," says Robert Thresher, director of the National Wind Technology Center at the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Golden, Colo. Farmer Darwin McConkey can vouch for that. Three years ago, he was the first person in tiny Alta, Iowa, to sign an energy-company contract. Now he has three 750-kilowatt turbines on his 80-acre soybean and corn farm. Even if the new access roads are a nuisance to navigate with his tractor, he welcomes the extra income - about $2,000 a year from each turbine. "I make more off the turbines than I do off farming on this land," he says with a laugh, just before heading to the barn to put the horses in for the night. He's still a bit in awe of the technology. "Fifty-seven tons they weigh," he says in amazement. "Biggest cranes you ever seen in your life [to install them]." A greater challenge than getting the towers up, however, is bringing their cost down. Wind energy remains slightly more expensive than traditional energy sources, such as coal or gas, although the gap continues to narrow. Labs like Mr. Thresher's Wind Technology Center are working to eliminate the need for modest federal subsidies that wind companies currently enjoy. He predicts wind will compete on equal footing by the decade's end. As wind gains momentum, its critics are getting louder. And some of the loudest, surprisingly, are environmentalists. Their most frequent complaints are that turbines kill birds and are a blight on the landscape. In one infamous 1980s project in the hills east of San Francisco, windmill blades killed hundreds of birds of prey, including golden eagles. Wind advocates say today's slower-moving blades are less of a threat to birds, and that planners have come a long way in site selection. But not everyone is convinced. In the closer quarters of the East Coast, in particular, residents and tourist boards chafe at the prospect of industrial-size towers dotting pristine mountain ridges and seascapes. Nonetheless, as costs of other energy sources rise, the East is rapidly emerging as a new frontier of wind power, with new proposals springing up from Virginia to Vermont. Turbines already dot parts of mining country in West Virginia, ridges in upstate New York, and the hills near Searsburg, Vt. In many cases, these new projects are slated to go on public land, highlighting the dispute between environmentalists touting clean, safe energy and those calling for the protection of open space. It's all about the view, says Thresher of neighbors' reluctance to give their stamp of approval to 400-foot towers. "There are lots of groups that support [renewable energy], but don't want to look at turbines." For that reason, small-scale, municipal-size projects, like the windmills in Princeton or the one in Hull, Mass., have often met with the widest support. Independent New Englanders can feel good about generating their own power without inviting in a big utility-size project. Even Princeton's two turbines, however, have their critics. John Bomba, who owns the neighboring Harrington Farm, is fine with the current, '80s-era turbines, but he worries the two new towers, tall enough to be seen from his property, will hurt his wedding and party business. "You can just plunk one of these things down in your yard - that's 400 feet tall - and get approval for it," he says. But other residents say that even if the windmills mar the view, that's a small price to pay. "We have a ski area out there that I'd rather not see," notes Dominic Golding, an environmental-studies professor in Princeton. "I think a windmill is more attractive.... Whatever the disadvantages, it may be a small tradeoff for the energy we get." ----------------------------------------------------------------- Cape Cod plan divides neighbors Jessica Almy never thought she'd find herself on the opposing side of a renewable-energy project. A wildlife advocate for the Humane Society's Cape Wildlife Center in West Barnstable, Mass., Ms. Almy cares deeply about developing clean-energy sources to reduce the threat of global warming. In principle, she even supports offshore wind farms. Just not in Nantucket Sound. "I think environmentalism fundamentally comes from a desire to protect the communities that you know," she says, struggling to explain her position. To be fair, the windmills in question are not small. Cape Wind Associates, a collaboration between a Massachusetts energy company and wind-power company, has proposed building 170 turbines spread out over 28 square miles several miles south of Hyannis. Each would be 426 feet tall, and many would be visible from shore (just how visible is a point of contention). The upside: Their output each year would provide more than 70 percent of the Cape and nearby Islands' electricity. But since Cape Wind proposed the project last July, it has sparked a controversy as wild as the 40 m.p.h. gusts that make Nantucket Sound such an attractive place for windmills. The battle has pitted environmentalists against environmentalists and polarized Cape residents. Opponents compare it to building huge towers atop the ridges of Yosemite or the Grand Canyon, while supporters say all the commotion is just an extreme form of NIMBYism - Not In My Back Yard. "Like anything in life, there are tradeoffs," says Charles Kleekamp, who lives in the Upper Cape town of Sandwich. Mr. Kleekamp has spent years fighting a nearby power plant - one of Massachussetts' so-called "filthy five" - and he's thrilled at the prospect of using wind energy instead. "There are those who think wind turbines are ugly," he adds. "And then there are those of us who think they're graceful, profound studies in motion and energy." The rallying cry for the antiwind folks is that a seascape of windmills could threaten tourism and fishing. Some environmentalists have also raised concerns that turbines could kill shorebirds that migrate through Nantucket Sound each year. Almy, a lifelong wildlife lover, worries that underwater construction noises might confuse the seals that live in the area, or harm their hearing. But she also recognizes the dangers fossil fuels pose and the need to develop alternatives - like wind. "I think all environmentalists want expeditious development of renewable energy," she muses. "And all of us want protection of ocean resources. We're just divided on the specific projects." For further information: " U.S. Department of Energy Wind Energy Program " Avian IssuesNational Wind Technology Center " Windpower Monthly " Wind Power Cons: Exploiting Rural Residents " Cape Wind " Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound " Proposed Nantucket Sound Wind FarmsCape Cod Online Please Note: The Monitor does not endorse the sites behind these links. We offer them for your additional research. Following these links will open a new browser window. www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2002 The Christian Science ***************************************************************** 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: *****************************************************************