NucNews February 14, 2006 Full text of articles can be found at http://nucnews.net by date -------- NUCLEAR -------- accidents and safety Winner of Chernobyl tender to be announced in London 14/ 02/ 2006 RIA Novosti [Russian News & Information Agency] http://en.rian.ru/world/20060214/43526362.html LONDON, February 14 (RIA Novosti, Alexander Smotrov) - The winner of a tender to build a new shell that should keep the site of the world's worst nuclear disaster safe for future generations will be announced in London Tuesday. In May 2005, 28 member states of the Chernobyl Shelter Fund Donor Assembly agreed to allocate $200 million for the construction of a new, safe shell for the power plant in Ukraine, which was hit by an accident almost 20 years ago that sent shockwaves throughout the world. The new structure will replace the old "sarcophagus", which was built in 1986 to cover the reactor at the center of a blast that spewed radioactive clouds across the region and beyond. It has since covered Unit 4 at the plant, but emerging cracks have led to fears that high radioactivity may again seep out. The fund, which is managed by the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and includes the elite Group of Eight industrialized nations, the European Union and Ukraine, has already collected more than $1 billion. The construction of the new shell, an arch-shaped structure big enough to house the Statue of Liberty, will begin in 2007 and will be completed in one or two years. It is designed to serve for at least 100 years. EBRD President Jean Lemierre said he was confident that Ukraine would build the reactor, which is only about 130 kilometers (80 miles) north of the capital Kiev, within the project's timeframes and the country's government would maintain strict control over expenses. Following the 1986 Chernobyl accident, the worst in the history of nuclear power, about 135,000 people from within a 30-kilometer (18-mile) radius were evacuated, which has left the surrounding area looking like a ghost town to this day. After the explosion which happened during testing on the night of April 25-26, 1986, radioactive contamination spread not only across Ukraine (then part of the Soviet Union), but also into neighboring Russia and Belarus and even some countries of northern and western Europe. -------- canada New Brunswick opposition leader pitches plan for second nuclear reactor February 14, 2006 2:57 PM By Dave Todd http://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-2343602-12650 New Brunswick Liberal leader Shawn Graham, whose party enjoys a wide lead over the governing Conservatives in polls ahead of an election that could occur in 2006, told SNL Energy on Feb. 13 that one of his first steps would be to order a feasibility study of the construction of a second NB Power Holding nuclear plant at Point Lepreau, on the Bay of Fundy. "With our demand load forecast growing at such a high rate, we have a unique advantage in New Brunswick in that the existing 635-MW, Candu-6 Point Lepreau unit" already has federal government environmental approval for a second reactor at the station, he said. The New Brunswick government announced in July 2005 a C$1.4 billion refit of the existing Lepreau unit, including a C$500 million to C$600 million deal with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to serve as general contractor for the refurbishment of the 23-year-old Lepreau plant, which went into service in 1983. "Our wakeup call came about two years ago, when we hit our demand load capacity and we had to import 100 MW over a 24-hour period. As our economy continues to grow, we have not increased demand load capacity," Graham said. He added that even if "the feasibility process started tomorrow," it would be seven years before a second Lepreau reactor could be in service. On Feb. 8 and 9, Graham, who previously worked as a provincial government energy analyst, met with business and government officials in Boston and Washington, D.C., where he emphasized that New Brunswick is "the only province in Atlantic Canada that is certified for nuclear generation." "New Brunswick is in a unique bargaining position with Atomic Energy of Canada," he told SNL Energy. "There have been [two] reactors that have come online and on cost in China, but AECL is looking for a success here in North America." Graham noted: "The queue line is filling up quickly, and for us to access the important human resources that are going to be required in a new build, New Brunswick has to be at the front of the parade. That's why the planning process is so important for there to be a competitive advantage for New Brunswick. That's why I want to see an initial feasibility study to see if this is the route that NB Power should take. "We know that Hydro-Quebec is providing the cheapest power on the grid, in terms of hydro," Graham said. "However, New Brunswick does not have extra hydroelectric capacity at this time. So that's why we have to look at our nuclear capacity as being the second cheapest source." Bruce Fitch, energy minister in New Brunswick's current Conservative government, has called a feasibility study for a second nuclear reactor in the province unnecessary. During his recent meetings in Boston and Washington, Graham said he also focused on transmission issues. Authorities he spoke with included officials of the U.S. Department of Energy and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Graham said the DOE appears to be eager to work through the perceived obstacles to increasing transmission from New Brunswick into the United States, adding that officials of its nuclear division are eager for a future meeting to discuss what he termed "Lepreau 2." On Jan. 20, Emera Inc. subsidiary Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. obtained a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for its 345-kV Northeast Reliability Interconnect that would be built from Orrington, Maine, to the New Brunswick border and then to a 345-kV line that NB Power Holding would string to the Point Lepreau nuclear station. ---- Nuclear power proposal slammed Plan proposes $40B in new Ontario stations Consultation process described as a sham Feb. 14, 2006 TORONTO STAR PETER GORRIE AND MIKE FUNSTON STAFF REPORTERS http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139871011914&call_pageid=970599119419 A plan that recommends $40 billion worth of new nuclear power for Ontario was slammed at public hearings last night in Toronto and Mississauga. At the Toronto meeting more than 250 people appeared just as angry about what they described as a sham three-day consultation process that continues today and tomorrow across the province. In Mississauga, even before moderator John Crane finished his opening remarks to about 150 people, Greenpeace representative Dave Martin slammed the legitimacy of the process. "We are getting three days of consultation this week on 11 days' notice and we are expected to produce comments off the cuff and we're being told this is good public consultation. I don't think so," said Martin. "The (pro-nuclear) bias of the minister of energy is coming out loud and clear," said Kim Fry, who has started a group called Mothers Against Nuclear. Yesterday's public hearings come on the heels of a report by the Ontario Power Authority that recommended nuclear energy should continue to represent about half of the province's electricity supply up to 2025. Jeff Leal, parliamentary assistant to Energy Minister Donna Cansfield, however, suggested last night that the plan's hostile reception might delay a final decision. Speaker after speaker last night argued nuclear power is expensive, unreliable and dangerous to the environment and human health. But several representatives of the nuclear industry extolled the virtues of nuclear power. Nuclear physicist Nathalie Gagnon demonstrated a model of a nuclear fuel bundle about one metre long powered by eight tiny radioactive pellets. She said it could provide power to a home for 100 years without any air pollution. She urged people not to be afraid of nuclear power, adding people tend to associate it with nuclear weapons and it's the not same thing. The Ontario Power Authority was created by the provincial Liberal government to plan for the province's looming electricity crisis, which includes aging nuclear power plants, a plan to shut down coal-powered generating plans and warnings that downtown Toronto risks rolling blackouts in two years. Other speakers said the government has not only underestimated the potential of renewable energy sources like solar and wind, but has also undermined those efforts with its announcement last Friday of the low price cap on the electricity consumed by industry. ---- Canada Nuclear Update Caught between environmental commitments and a need for new sources of baseload power generation, the Ontario Power Authority wants to make sure that nuclear energy is part of the province's future energy mix. And already, some of the usual suspects have come out in opposition to the plan. Those of you who want to follow progress in Canada should bookmark the Bruce Power blog. UPDATE: Here's a statement from Patrick Moore on the province's consultation process. http://www.newswire.ca/en/releases/archive/February2006/13/c1501.html Other links: http://www.energy.gov.on.ca/index.cfm?fuseaction=english.news&news_id=100&body=yes http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1139871011914&call_pageid=970599119419 http://brucepower.blogspot.com/ ---- New Brunswick opposition leader pitches plan for second nuclear reactor SNL Financial LC, February 14, 2006 By Dave Todd http://www.snl.com/interactivex/article.aspx?CdId=A-2343602-12650 New Brunswick Liberal leader Shawn Graham, whose party enjoys a wide lead over the governing Conservatives in polls ahead of an election that could occur in 2006, told SNL Energy on Feb. 13 that one of his first steps would be to order a feasibility study of the construction of a second NB Power Holding nuclear plant at Point Lepreau, on the Bay of Fundy. "With our demand load forecast growing at such a high rate, we have a unique advantage in New Brunswick in that the existing 635-MW, Candu-6 Point Lepreau unit" already has federal government environmental approval for a second reactor at the station, he said. The New Brunswick government announced in July 2005 a C$1.4 billion refit of the existing Lepreau unit, including a C$500 million to C$600 million deal with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. to serve as general contractor for the refurbishment of the 23-year-old Lepreau plant, which went into service in 1983. "Our wakeup call came about two years ago, when we hit our demand load capacity and we had to import 100 MW over a 24-hour period. As our economy continues to grow, we have not increased demand load capacity," Graham said. He added that even if "the feasibility process started tomorrow," it would be seven years before a second Lepreau reactor could be in service. On Feb. 8 and 9, Graham, who previously worked as a provincial government energy analyst, met with business and government officials in Boston and Washington, D.C., where he emphasized that New Brunswick is "the only province in Atlantic Canada that is certified for nuclear generation." "New Brunswick is in a unique bargaining position with Atomic Energy of Canada," he told SNL Energy. "There have been [two] reactors that have come online and on cost in China, but AECL is looking for a success here in North America." Graham noted: "The queue line is filling up quickly, and for us to access the important human resources that are going to be required in a new build, New Brunswick has to be at the front of the parade. That's why the planning process is so important for there to be a competitive advantage for New Brunswick. That's why I want to see an initial feasibility study to see if this is the route that NB Power should take. "We know that Hydro-Quebec is providing the cheapest power on the grid, in terms of hydro," Graham said. "However, New Brunswick does not have extra hydroelectric capacity at this time. So that's why we have to look at our nuclear capacity as being the second cheapest source." Bruce Fitch, energy minister in New Brunswick's current Conservative government, has called a feasibility study for a second nuclear reactor in the province unnecessary. During his recent meetings in Boston and Washington, Graham said he also focused on transmission issues. Authorities he spoke with included officials of the U.S. Department of Energy and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers. Graham said the DOE appears to be eager to work through the perceived obstacles to increasing transmission from New Brunswick into the United States, adding that officials of its nuclear division are eager for a future meeting to discuss what he termed "Lepreau 2." On Jan. 20, Emera Inc. subsidiary Bangor Hydro-Electric Co. obtained a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permit for its 345-kV Northeast Reliability Interconnect that would be built from Orrington, Maine, to the New Brunswick border and then to a 345-kV line that NB Power Holding would string to the Point Lepreau nuclear station. -------- europe Public backs both nuclear and alternative energy 14 February 2006 Expatica http://www.expatica.com/source/site_article.asp?subchannel_id=19&story_id=27619&name=Public+backs+both+nuclear+and+alternative+energy AMSTERDAM — Half the population of the Netherlands supports expanding the country's nuclear power facilities. But the overwhelming majority wants more investment in alternative sources of energy, such as wind turbines. These were the main findings of an internet-based opinion poll carried out by the Maurice de Hond organisation on Monday. It comes as junior environment minister Pieter van Geel gave a strong indication at the weekend that the coalition government wants to finally bury the traditional reluctance about nuclear power. The Netherlands has one operating nuclear power station at Borssele in Zeeland Province. The government decided last year to rescind an earlier decision to close it down and the plant will now remain operational until 2033. Van Geel said on Sunday a second nuclear power station was a realistic option to meet the country's energy needs and commitments to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The opinion poll found the nuclear option has strongest support among people who side with main government parties, the Christian Democrats an the Liberals. Followers of the populist LPF are also in favour of a second nuclear plant. Not surprisingly, followers of the green-left GroenLinks were the least enthusiastic. Only 7 percent of GroenLinks supporters backed the idea. In all, 49 percent of the people polled were in favour and 37 percent were against. A massive 97 percent were in favour of more government investment in alternative energy sources, with 72 percent support for wind turbines. Some 67 percent said they were in favour a wind park in the North Sea. -------- india BJP welcomes Bush visit but cautions on nuclear deal NEW DELHI, FEB 14, 2006 (PTI) http://www.outlookindia.com/pti_news.asp?id=355226 The main Opposition BJP today opposed the Left's proposed country-wide protests against US President George Bush's visit upcoming visit but expressed fears that through the Indo-US nuclear deal being negotiated may cap the country's capability of fissile material production. "We welcome the visit of President Bush to India early next month and expect of the Government to avail of this opportunity to put India-US relations back on a balanced, and an equal and even keel", said a statement after a meeting of the BJP Parliamentary Party executive, chaired by former Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. Accusing the UPA Government of not keeping the country full informed about the July 18 nuclear deal, the statement said "it is of paramount importance that India takes no such step as would deny it the needed flexibility of maintaining a minimum credible deterrent enshrined as a policy postulate in India's nuclear doctrine". "Today, unfortunately all indications from Washington lead to the conclusion that through the nuclear deal, India will have to cap its capability of fissile material production. "What is at stake here are national security issues, autonomy of India's decision making processes, autonomy and independence of our nuclear programmes, the inviolability of the principles of a minimum credible deterrent, where decisions about numbers, size and contents are a sovereign national function not a result of any bilateral agreement; plus, the future of our scientific and technological research in the nuclear field", it said. Asked about the Left's proposed anti-Bush demonstration, Leader of Opposition in Rajya Sabha Jaswant Singh told reporters here, "I find it ironical that they should be holding protests against a visiting dignitary, who is coming to India at the invitation of a Government, supported by them". He said while the Left parties had the democratic right to protest within the parametres of law, they should be expressing their disapproval of the Government which is "guilty". Cautioning the UPA Government and its Communist allies, it said, "do not play with national interests, do not sell the country's national security to foreigners". The statement said it was evident that India was neither reinventing the cold war not was is going in for mounting number of warheads, "yet, India must always have the capacity to take care of contingent situations and of changing threat scenario. This simply stated means that India cannot accept any limitation, curb or cap on the production of fissile material. -------- iran Russia-Iran nuclear talks back on By Gareth Smyth in Tehran Published: February 14 2006 13:57 Financial Times https://registration.ft.com/registration/barrier?referer=&location=http%3A//news.ft.com/cms/s/b43b6ff2-9d61-11da-b1c6-0000779e2340.html Iran confirmed on Tuesday it had resumed uranium enrichment but agreed to the resumption of talks with Russia aimed at defusing the international stand-off over its nuclear programme. Javad Vaeedi, deputy secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, said the talks would take place on February 20. They aim to discuss proposals to enrich his country's uranium in Russia to allay international concerns it might divert the material into weapons use. ---- Iran owns China, Russia UN votes - US senator Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:53 PM ET (Reuters) http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-02-14T235254Z_01_N14410789_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-USA.xml WASHINGTON - Russia and China have too much riding on commercial relations with Iran to help the West in curbing Tehran's nuclear ambitions, a U.S. senator said on Tuesday, calling for tough measures with Moscow and Beijing. "The two countries that are sending the wrong signals today are Russia and China," said Kansas Republican Sam Brownback. "Part of the problem is Iran ... has effectively bought U.N. Security Council vetoes from China and, very likely, Russia," Brownback, a potential presidential contender in 2008, said in a speech at the Heritage Foundation in Washington. Experts at a symposium at the conservative think tank said Moscow is a major arms supplier to Iran, while Beijing has struck energy deals worth as much as $100 billion with Tehran. Both of those large powers have also embraced Iran as part of a strategic policy of blunting U.S. influence in the Middle East and Central Asia, the experts said. "I don't think China and Russia are going to make serious efforts to stop Iran or North Korea," said Stephen Blank, a China expert at the U.S. Army War College. Brownback said that to pressure countries that support Iran, Washington should initiate a campaign of sanctions modeled on a 1980s campaign targeting companies that helped the Soviet Union build a pipeline to Western Europe. "Like the former Soviet Union, both Russia and China need international technological and managerial support to keep their activities going," said Brownback. "No international company is going to treat lightly exclusion from the U.S. market in exchange for contracts with the Iranian government," he said. Earlier on Tuesday, Iran resumed feeding uranium gas into centrifuges for nuclear-fuel enrichment after a break of 2-1/2 years and announced it was deferring until next week talks on a Russian proposal to defuse the nuclear standoff. The West suspects Tehran of trying to develop atomic bombs under cover of a civilian program and persuaded the International Atomic Energy Agency's governing board last week to report Iran to the U.N. Security Council for possible action, which could include sanctions. Iran says its nuclear work is designed solely to generate electricity for its economy. ---- Iran confirms resumption of nuclear fuel work Tuesday February 14, 11:25 AM (Reuters) http://uk.news.yahoo.com/14022006/325/iran-confirms-resumption-nuclear-fuel-work.html TEHRAN - Tehran on Tuesday confirmed it had restarted work on uranium enrichment, a process the West fears could be used to build nuclear weapons, but said it would take some time to crank up to industrial-scale production. Iran says it needs to make enriched uranium in an underground nuclear facility near the central town of Natanz in order to run power stations. "The order to resume uranium enrichment has been issued and, in accordance with that, the Iranian Atomic Energy Organisation has restarted the process," deputy nuclear negotiator Javad Vaeedi told reporters. Iran's parliament passed a law in November that Iran should resume making atomic fuel if its case was referred to the U.N. Security Council over its nuclear programme. Tehran was reported to the world body earlier this month. However, Vaeedi said Iran would not be able to reach industrial-scale production of atomic fuel quickly. "We need some time to reach that level with all centrifuges because of the 2 1/2 year suspension. However, the preliminary phases have been launched," he said. Centrifuges enrich uranium by spinning it at supersonic speed. Diplomats said in September that Iran could have serious difficulties in enriching uranium on an industrial scale, pumping uranium hexafluoride gas of a quality so poor into the centrifuges that it could damage them. They also doubted Iran's technical ability to get centrifuges to work in cascades. Vaeedi said delayed talks with Moscow, seeking a compromise to the nuclear dispute, would take place in Russia on February 20. Russia has suggested it can break the diplomatic impasse by enriching uranium on Tehran's behalf. Diplomats hope this proposal would guarantee that atomic fuel was not diverted into arms. But Iran has given no indication that it would surrender its right to enrich the uranium it mines in its central deserts. "We still want to reach a formula to prove that we will not divert uranium enriched on Iranian soil," Vaeedi said. "We are prepared to hold talks with anyone who has something to say." ---- Irans Shihab3 Fails Test Launch by Staff Writers Washington DC (UPI) Feb 15, 2006 http://www.spacewar.com/reports/Irans_Shihab3_Fails_Test_Launch.html An Iranian test launch of a Shihab-3 intercontinental ballistic missile Jan. 17 ended in failure, FlightInternational.com reported Tuesday. However, Western sources told the British-based magazine and Web site that Iran was still making significant progress towards its target of developing an operational capability to strike targets in mainland Europe. The sources did not specify the nature of the failure. The Shihab-3 has a basic range of 780 miles, but reducing its re-entry vehicle and warhead weight from 1,650 pounds to 880 pounds could increase this to around 1,200 miles; sufficient to place it within range of countries like Greece. The single-stage Shihab-3 is 55-feet long and has a 15 ton launch weight. -------- japan Head of Japanese Company Suspected of Nuclear Trafficking Denies Wrongdoing By Steve Herman Tokyo 14 February 2006 http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-02-14-voa12.cfm The head of a Japanese company suspected of illegally exporting instruments that could be used in the production of nuclear weapons has defended his company's actions. Japan's Mitsutoyo Corporation is insisting it did nothing wrong by selling high-precision calibrating equipment, along with its operating software, to companies in China and Thailand. Japanese media quote police investigators as saying that at the same time the machines were sent to China and Thailand in 2001, such instruments were being shipped to Libya via the Gulf state of Dubai. Media reports say serial numbers on the equipment in Libya matched that on machines sold by a Mitsutoyo subsidiary to a Malaysian company regarded as a black market conduit for nuclear weapons components. One newspaper (Sankei Shimbun) quotes police sources as saying they fear that some of the equipment also made its way to North Korea. Company president Kazusaku Tezuka met reporters on Tuesday, a day after police raided ten company locations, including its factory. Tezuka says he does not believe his company did anything illegal. Japan's Foreign Exchange and Foreign Trade Law forbids the export of precision equipment that can be converted for military use, unless permission has been granted. Experts say the equipment Mitsutoyo exported could be used for uranium enrichment, a technology that can produce fuel for peacetime nuclear reactors, but is also essential for producing atomic bombs. Japanese media reports say the International Atomic Energy Agency, the United Nations' nuclear watchdog, discovered the Mitsutoyo equipment during inspections in late 2003 and early 2004 of Libya's now-abandoned nuclear weapons program. Mitsutoyo is a 72-year-old company headquartered in Kawasaki, just south of Tokyo. The investigation of the company comes a month after Japan's trade ministry announced it was investigating Yamaha Motor for sales to China of small helicopters that could be converted to military use. -------- korea Turkey to hold talks on Iran nuclear row Tue Feb 14, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060214/pl_afp/irannuclearpolitics ANKARA - The United States envoy to the UN nuclear watchdog will meet Turkish foreign ministry officials this week to discuss Iran's nuclear program, the US embassy said. The visit on Thursday and Friday by International Atomic Energy Agency ambassador Gregory Schulte was for "consultations with Turkish officials regarding Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons and international diplomatic measures to resolve the issue," it said in a statement. Turkey has so far refrained from criticising neighbouring Iran's hardline stance, calling instead on Tehran to collaborate with the IAEA. "We are saddened to learn that Iran has resumed uranium enrichment. We hope the issue is resolved through diplomacy. There is still an opportunity for that," Turkish Foreign Minister Abdullah Gul told reporters Tuesday. The IAEA voted on February 4 to report Iran to the UN Security Council, but left a one-month window for diplomacy, for Iran to return to a full suspension of enrichment-related work and cooperate with inspectors. So far Iran has reacted by doing the opposite and resumed limited uranium enrichment, setting the scene for a major showdown. -------- security Radiation detectors tested in Nevada By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY Posted 2/14/2006 http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-02-14-radiation-detectors_x.htm?csp=34 NEVADA TEST SITE, Nev. — The Bush administration is ramping up efforts to prevent terrorists from smuggling radiological material into the country that could be used to set off a "dirty bomb" or even a nuclear weapon, according to the Homeland Security Department. Plans call for a new radiation detection test site deep in the Nevada desert, more detectors at the nation's seaports and border crossings and a 70% budget increase for Homeland Security's Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO). The initiative comes amid chilling threats made last month by al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden — and some say it can't come too soon. "Al-Qaeda used vans in 1993 (to bomb the World Trade Center) and planes in 2001," says former 9/11 commissioner Tim Roemer. "It could be some kind of catastrophic attack next time." The public has not been alerted to intelligence suggesting terrorists have the materials or are preparing to detonate a device that could cause chaos — or far worse — in a major American city. But the possibility worries the government. "We have to move aggressively, or the consequences are going to be dire," says Rep. Jim Langevin of Rhode Island, the top Democrat on a House subcommittee on nuclear attack prevention. In his fiscal 2007 budget, President Bush is seeking $535.7 million for the DNDO, which is responsible for preventing radiological or nuclear weapons from getting into the country. That includes $178 million for new radiation detectors and $100 million for the development of equipment used by agents along the nation's borders and at events such as presidential inaugurations and Super Bowl games. To test that equipment, Homeland Security is working at the storied Nevada Test Site, where the U.S. government tested nuclear weapons for more than four decades. Near a cratered area where mushroom clouds once rose, construction is underway on an 11-acre site where scientists will test weapons needed for this generation's war on terrorism. "We've gone from the offense to the defense," says DNDO chief Vayl Oxford. Workers are building a mock border crossing so testing trucks can drive containers of radioactive materials through radiation portal monitors. Agents at the $33 million site also will test modern versions of Geiger counters. While the new site is being built, scientists have started work just downhill from a highly secured 100,000-square-foot steel and concrete bunker where the government stores its nuclear weapons material. There, Oxford's chief test scientist, Dan Blumenthal, holds a shoebox-sized radiation detector against the side of a huge metal cargo container and waits a couple of minutes for it to tell him what he already knows: that there's plutonium-239 inside, potentially the makings for a nuclear bomb. But nothing comes up on the device's small screen. And that's proof of what federal agents at the nation's seaports and border crossings know: Many of the mobile radiation detectors they use work only about 50% of the time. Blumenthal's team is testing 30 mobile detectors against the metal sides of a half-dozen cargo containers. Some are loaded with weapons-grade material; others contain cat litter, ceramic tiles and other goods that set off detectors because they contain naturally occurring radioactive materials. "This is the first time the government's been able to do high-fidelity testing" using actual bombmaking materials, such as plutonium and highly enriched uranium, Oxford says. As tests are finished over the next several years, Oxford's team will use the results to retrofit existing equipment that doesn't work very well, to buy new equipment for federal agents and to write what Oxford calls a "Consumer Reports-style" guide so that state and local officials will know what to buy — and what not to buy — with federal grant money. Oxford calls their work "a big leap forward." Among their efforts: • Determining where radiation detectors should be set up worldwide. • Making plans to better secure the nation's cities, perhaps through random highway stops — such as drunken driving or seatbelt checks — where officers would check cars with hand-held detectors or check trucks at weigh stations, something now done in just 11 states. • Creating surge capacity so that if intelligence indicated a particular threat, the government could quickly put detection equipment in subway stations, at airports or wherever it was needed. -------- u.s. nuc facilities -------- florida FPL provides details of merging nuclear units Marcia Heroux Pounds | South Florida Sun-Sentinel Posted February 14, 2006 http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/orl-fpl1406feb14,0,2164839.story?track=rss The nuclear divisions of FPL Group and Constellation Energy could be combined in the companies' planned merger, the two utility companies said in an SEC filing on Monday. Juno Beach-based FPL Group announced its plan to acquire Baltimore-based Constellation Energy in December. The all-stock deal is worth more than $11 billion. FPL Group, the parent of utility Florida Power & Light, said in its filing that the location of the nuclear division for the merged companies would be "determined during the integration process." FPL's nuclear division is based in Juno Beach while Constellation's is in Baltimore. Nuclear Regulatory Commission spokesman Ken Clark said there are normally no major issues when two companies decide to merge nuclear operations. The NRC also must approve the FPL merger. He pointed to Southern Cos., which has nuclear power plants in Georgia and Alabama, and Progress Energy with plants in North Carolina and Florida. Companies that combine nuclear operations have to demonstrate financial wherewithal and the ability to conduct safe operations, he said. Florida Power & Light's nuclear power plants and support personnel employ about 2,750 workers in Florida, New Hampshire and Iowa. The nuclear power assets of the combined companies would make it No. 3 in the nation in nuclear power generation, according to FPL. FPL also said fossil and renewable generation would be headquartered in Juno Beach. The retail and wholesale power distribution would remain in Baltimore, the filing says. The utilities would remain headquartered in Miami and Baltimore. FP&L provides service in parts of Central Florida. The combined companies are expected to employ about 21,750 people. There will be "normal attrition," FPL said that will take care of most job redundancies. The merger is expected to result in $200 million to $250 million in annual savings after about three years, FPL says. Those savings will be reached both through growth of the businesses and jobs lost through normal attrition, according to FPL. -------- new jersey Evacuation plan depends on many who lack key training In the third part of a five-day series, the Asbury Park Press examines whether the evacuation plan would work. Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 02/14/06 BY TODD B. BATES, NICHOLAS CLUNN AND KIRK MOORE STAFF WRITERS http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/SPECIAL06/602140303 Russell Goyette uses a wheelchair to get around. He's worried that no one would help him if an evacuation were ordered because of an accident at the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant. The Waretown resident, who lives about four miles south of the Lacey plant, believes that volunteer "first-responders" would evacuate themselves and their families "before ever getting handicapped people." "I cannot drive," the retired advertising executive said. "How would I ever get out? "I feel I'm in constant danger," said Goyette, 63, whose wife works about 40 miles north in Monmouth Beach and might not be able to make it home if there were an emergency at the plant. "The plant may have an accident and (is) a target for terrorists, and the current operator has a dismal operating record." Goyette is far from alone in believing that the state's Oyster Creek evacuation plan, part of the New Jersey Radiological Emergency Response Plan, will not — or may not — work. State legislators, the Ocean County freeholders, several municipalities surrounding the plant, activists and citizens alike have voiced skepticism. An investigation by the Asbury Park Press found that the plan would rely on volunteers, public bus drivers and municipal employees with no radiological training to help law enforcement officials. Several public works employees interviewed said they have not been trained on what to do during a nuclear emergency, or how to protect themselves from possible radiation exposure. An emergency at the plant could play out over days, hours or even minutes, depending on the accident's severity. Plant officials say the likelihood of a deadly radiation release is remote, about a 1 in 1.7 million chance a year. But the state has an evacuation plan that a top proponent said will work only if everyone follows the rules. The NRC will not consider the emergency plan during its review of Oyster Creek's request for a 20-year extension to its operating license beyond 2009, NRC spokesman Neil A. Sheehan said. Emergency planning is "one of those issues we believe should be dealt with on an ongoing basis," he said. The state's plan obviously can never be tested in a realistic way. But weaknesses in such mass-evacuation plans became evident last year during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Before Rita hit the Gulf Coast, for example, Texas and Louisiana officials ordered more than 3 million residents to evacuate. Thousands were trapped for more than 10 hours in traffic jams afterward, according to the National Climatic Data Center. Clearing a 10-mile radius For the Jersey Shore, this is one way an evacuation could play out: A reactor accident at Oyster Creek forces plant officials to declare a general emergency, the highest-level warning. It signals that radiation releases are likely to drift beyond the plant's perimeter. Emergency sirens within a 10-mile radius of Oyster Creek would sound, and public officials would use radio stations to instruct residents in the areas that must be evacuated. Those told to leave would hit the roads and those told to remain indoors would be expected to do so. Those without vehicles would get rides from neighbors or friends. Those outside the evacuation zones would be told to stay put, but there would be no real way to enforce such a rule other than using roadblocks. In the evacuation zones, NJ Transit buses would be sent in to pick up people without cars. First aid squads, fire and police departments and Ocean County officials would help evacuate the infirm and handicapped people, the state plan says. If the evacuation were called during school hours, parents are not supposed to rush to schools to pick up their children. The pupils would be bused to central locations outside the 10-mile emergency planning zone. Law enforcement officials would control the flow of traffic and limit access into the 10-mile zones. Critics predict that congested roads, human behavior and Ocean County's growing population would lead to gridlock. But many officials say they think the evacuation plan, designed for up to 244,000 people on a peak summer day, would work. FEMA endorses plan In October, the Federal Emergency Management Agency reaffirmed its finding of "reasonable assurance" for Oyster Creek's plan that the health and safety of people around the plant will be protected during a nuclear accident, according to a FEMA letter. The preparedness directorate in the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is now responsible for reviewing radiological emergency response plans for nuclear power plants, including evacuation plans, said Mike Beeman, a spokesman for FEMA's Region II office in New York City. FEMA is also within the department. Bradley M. Campbell, the state Department of Environmental Protection commissioner until he left office Jan. 17, said DEP officials will closely scrutinize the evacuation plan. "I think there are a number of issues that will need to be addressed there," Campbell said. "I think Hurricane Katrina (which hit the Gulf Coast last summer) has highlighted the practical difficulties with large-scale evacuations, and we will be reviewing the evacuation plan with those issues in mind." In an October letter to an NRC official, Jill Lipoti, who directs the DEP's Division of Environmental Safety and Health, wrote: "Complacency in emergency planning is a very bad thing. "The thought that all emergency plans are just fine the way they are, and that no improvements are needed, simply does not pass the straight face test given governmental response to a recent natural disaster," Lipoti wrote. "Every plan can be improved." In its review of the state radiological emergency response plan, the Press found that: Municipal public works employees in at least three towns within 10 miles of the plant — Lacey, Stafford and Long Beach Township — haven't been trained in how to protect themselves from radiation exposure. Under the evacuation plan, municipal workers would be called upon to set up traffic control barriers and clear roads. County and state officials responsible for training such workers say it's up to each municipality to determine which employees will receive training. Several parents interviewed say they will disregard guidance from officials and go to schools to pick up their children. Parents showing up at schools would cause traffic problems, according to the state plan. The plan does not provide for traffic control outside the 10-mile emergency planning zone, according to Sgt. Thomas Scardino, assistant head of the State Police Radiological Emergency Response Planning Unit. Plan critics say many people outside the 10-mile zone who are not supposed to evacuate will leave anyway, jamming the roadways for the people who do need to evacuate. Scardino said traffic control outside the 10-mile zone could be added during an emergency. Diane Nase, a Brick bus driver who is a union vice president, said she's never received radiological training in 24 years, despite the fact that Brick would be called on to send 108 buses to evacuate schoolchildren in districts within the evacuation zones. Officials maintain that all bus drivers have been trained. Mike Ocskasy, a 36-year-old Passaic firefighter who lives in Lacey, said he thinks an evacuation due to an emergency at Oyster Creek would be "so chaotic." Jennifer Styler, 36, who works in sales and lives in Lacey, said, "I honestly don't think the town (of about 26,000) is prepared for it the way the town has expanded in the past couple of years." During an evacuation of Long Beach Island, people in Surf City and Ship Bottom would be told to stay put while people fleeing from towns north of those two boroughs would be told to drive right through, according to parts of the evacuation plan and instructions printed in telephone directories for Ocean County. "I doubt if you are going to have people who are willing to wait," Surf City resident Frank Cilluffo, 73, said. "I think a lot of people will panic." Will the plan work? Harvey Cedars Mayor Jonathan S. Oldham, who is the borough's emergency management coordinator, said he thinks evacuation as a result of a nuclear plant accident would be difficult in the summertime. The island has one way off — a four-lane bridge. "There isn't a ton of infrastructure to get people out," he said. But Dave Bossi, a Barnegat Light councilman and borough deputy emergency management coordinator, said he has "great faith" in the evacuation plan. "I have more faith in that than trying to convince people to leave" because of a hurricane, Bossi said. In 2004, Barnegat Light officials considered using fishing boats to evacuate people to the mainland. Ocean County Undersheriff Wayne R. Rupert said he believes the state's evacuation plan will work "if people will do what they're supposed to do when they're supposed to do it." "If you're on the upwind side of the plant and you're going to evacuate and get in the way of people (on) the downwind side of the plant, that's not a good idea," Rupert said. "You're only going to screw up the evacuation and not gain anything. "If everybody tried to evacuate the entire 10-mile ring (around the plant) all at the same moment, there would be a problem," he said. For any evacuation to be successful, "you've got to have compliance on the part of the people who are being evacuated" as well as among those not being evacuated so they don't get in the way, Rupert said. 20 evacuation areas Years ago, the NRC drew 10-mile radius circles around Oyster Creek and other nuclear plants to mark out emergency planning areas. The areas are numbered on maps in the blue pages of Ocean County telephone directories, where residents are referred for information about evacuations. With 20 mapped evacuation areas, the plan is for emergency managers to direct people to take cover or evacuate. Who gets told to move would depend on the nature of a plant accident and weather conditions, including wind speed and direction. Radioactive particles would drift with the wind. Suzanne Leta, an advocate with the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group, an environmental and consumer activist group, said the NRC is not concerned about whether an evacuation plan might work 10 or 20 years from now. She believes that evacuation is "nearly impossible now." But NRC spokesman Sheehan said if FEMA says the emergency plan can't work in, say, 10 years, Oyster Creek would have to shut down. In 2004, then-Gov. James E. McGreevey sought an independent study of the emergency plan to "ensure plant safety" until 2009, when its current license expires, according to a letter he sent to AmerGen Energy Co., which runs Oyster Creek. Lipoti, of the DEP, said, "I guess when it comes to emergency planning, we think we've done a credible job." "But the idea of having independent reviewers is always a good idea," she said. "You know that we take our plan to the public each year with public hearings and ask for input . . . and we're never satisfied," Lipoti said. Officials feel that "there can constantly be improvements." Staff writer Joe Cacchioli contributed to this story. Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com; Nicholas Clunn: 609-978-4597 or nclunn@app.com; Kirk Moore: (732) 557-5728 or kmoore@app.com ---- Spent fuel pool is vulnerable, critics say Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 02/14/06 BY TODD B. BATES ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/SPECIAL06/602140308 It's 40 feet deep, filled with water and holds about 375 tons of highly radioactive spent nuclear fuel in the shape of long, thin rods. The Oyster Creek nuclear plant's spent fuel storage pool sits nearly 100 feet above ground, next to the reactor in a reinforced concrete building covered by a metal roof. But the spent fuel pool may be an Achilles' heel for Oyster Creek, according to the state of New Jersey and plant critics. In an often-talked-about worst-case scenario at a nuclear plant in the United States, a terrorist-driven jetliner could slam into the reactor building, exposing the radiation from the pool to the outside world. It's a nightmare no one wants to face. "If you were to rank 'em, spent fuel pool would be the highest issue" of concern, said Dennis Zannoni, a state Department of Environmental Protection supervising nuclear engineer, when asked about a possible terrorist attack on Oyster Creek. There are "no provisions for air defense (at U.S. nuclear plants), and nuclear plants are vulnerable to attack from the air," said Gordon D. Thompson, a research professor at Clark University in Worcester, Mass., and executive director of the nonprofit Institute for Resource and Security Studies in Cambridge, Mass. The institute studies various security and other issues in the world. Oyster Creek's spent fuel pool sits outside the plant's containment system, which is designed to stop radiation leaks from the reactor during an accident. Thompson said plants like Oyster Creek remain vulnerable because "their spent fuel pools are high up in the building and therefore especially vulnerable to drainage of water." The reactor vessel also sits high in the building, which "makes it more vulnerable," he said. Security upgrades Although critics of Oyster Creek said security at the plant is inadequate, DEP officials said security has improved since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist airliner hijackings and attacks. Still, the DEP is concerned about the threat of such attacks at Oyster Creek. Gov. Corzine should create an office of homeland security and preparedness and appoint a Cabinet-level director to enhance protection of critical infrastructure in New Jersey, including nuclear and chemical plants, according to a Corzine transition policy group report. NRC officials say they've taken steps to improve security at nuclear plants across the country. They have launched additional security efforts and examined the potential consequences of aircraft attacks. An assessment of the vulnerability of the spent fuel storage pool at Oyster Creek has been completed, according to the NRC. Assessments at all plants were undertaken with an eye toward improving the ability to keep fuel cool, according to an NRC report to Congress. The reviews looked at the threat of terrorist attacks via the land, vehicles, water and aircraft and ways to further protect spent fuel pools. But "due to the sensitive nature of the information, the NRC is not releasing specific details about the assessments or what was found," according to NRC spokesman Neil A. Sheehan. The agency was still reviewing Oyster Creek's assessment, according to Sheehan. The next phase entails the NRC looking at ways to improve all nuclear plant operators' abilities to protect the reactor core and containment, according to Sheehan. Oyster Creek, which opened in 1969, is seeking a 20-year license extension beyond 2009. In recent years, several security lapses or issues at the plant have raised concern among government officials and plant critics. They include these incidents: During one of four "force-on-force" security tests in May 2001, Oyster Creek plant security failed to deter a "mock adversary force," according to an NRC report. As a result, the NRC lowered Oyster Creek's rating for security to low-to-moderate from satisfactory. In April 2003, two guards with The Wackenhut Corp., a private company that provides security at Oyster Creek, were fired for apparently sleeping while guarding a plant checkpoint designed to prevent a vehicle bomb from entering. The barrier gate at the checkpoint was stuck open, but no unauthorized vehicles had entered, according to an NRC report. Officials with AmerGen Energy Co., which runs Oyster Creek, say they've spent about $20 million on security upgrades at the plant since the Sept. 11 attacks. Additions completed in October 2004 include eight bullet-resistant guard towers, vehicle barriers, fences and razor coil. The plant also has more than doubled its security force since the terrorist attacks, according to AmerGen's Web site. NRC doing risk analysis Last year, the DEP received a confidential briefing on a risk analysis the NRC is undertaking on potential terrorist attacks from the air, on the ground and targeting Oyster Creek's water intakes, former DEP Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell said before leaving office on Jan. 17. "I'm satisfied that the NRC is looking thoughtfully at those particular issues," Campbell said. Kent Tosch, manager of the DEP's Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, said a "phase one document" for all nuclear power plants in New Jersey has been completed. But it is confidential information, "and it's not to be distributed to the public," he said. "We have such a document, which we just received," he said, declining to discuss what it's about. NRC spokesman Sheehan said information on the vulnerability of spent fuel pools would not be discussed publicly because of security concerns. But it will be provided to New Jersey officials, members of Congress and agencies such as the federal Department of Homeland Security, he said. Oyster Creek's vulnerability to aircraft attacks, especially the vulnerability of the spent fuel pool, must be analyzed before the NRC decides to issue a 20-year license extension, according to a November letter to the NRC from Campbell. The DEP wants a hearing before a federal Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, which conducts hearings for the NRC, on the vulnerability issue and other contentions. But the NRC staff and AmerGen have called the DEP contentions inadmissible. In a Feb. 1 letter to NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz, acting DEP Commissioner Lisa P. Jackson wrote: "The plant's vulnerability to an aircraft attack, especially an attack targeting the plant's spent fuel pool, has been the subject of extensive local debate which will not end if the NRC chooses to deny a public hearing." DEP officials also await the results of a planned NRC force-on-force exercise designed to test security at Oyster Creek this year. Such drills involve "commando-style attacks" against a plant's security forces, looking for potential deficiencies, the NRC Web site says. "They have new structures, and we'll wait for the force-on-force to determine how well . . . people function along with the structures," said Jill Lipoti, director of the DEP's Division of Environmental Safety and Health. In November, the NRC proposed revising the Design Basis Threat for "radiological sabotage" at nuclear power plants by requiring them to protect against stronger and more diverse threats, including suicidal attackers, insiders, multiple teams of attackers, a wide range of land vehicles and waterborne threats. The agency intends to address issues that deal with defending plants against aircraft attacks when the proposed rule is finalized. Concerns after Sept. 11 After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the NRC assessed the potential for — and consequences of — terrorists targeting a nuclear power plant with an aircraft attack, the commission proposal says. The NRC required operating nuclear plants to find ways to minimize the potential impacts of attacks, including an airborne assault, the proposal says. The NRC also relies on increased airport and airplane security since the Sept. 11 attacks. Security at Oyster Creek is "in drastic need of improvement, just like at most other nuclear plants in the country," said Brendan Hoffman, campaign organizer with Public Citizen, a national, nonprofit consumer advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader. The Nuclear Security Coalition, an alliance of dozens of public interest groups from around the country, filed a petition with the NRC in 2004, seeking improvements at plants with General Electric Mark I and II containment systems, according to Hoffman and the petition. Oyster Creek has a Mark I containment system. The NRC staff largely rejected the requests in the petition, including one seeking a national conference on the "structural vulnerabilities" of Mark I and II plants. The reason: A release of the details to the public would compromise national security and plant safeguards. In a report to Congress last year, a National Academies' panel said that "successful terrorist attacks on spent fuel pools, though difficult, are possible." The academies include the National Academy of Sciences, a private, nonprofit research organization. If an attack leads to a certain type of fire, "it could result in the release of large amounts of radioactive material," the report says. Rep. Frank J. Pallone Jr., D-N.J., called on the NRC to implement the report's recommendations to strengthen safety and security at nuclear facilities. But the NRC believes that the National Academies' panel has "identified some scenarios that are unreasonable," according to an NRC report to Congress last year. The NRC also disagrees with some of the panel's recommendations, and "its conclusion lacks a sound technical basis." One Oyster Creek manager said a plane crash would not drain the water from the pool. The spent fuel is below nearly 30 feet of water and surrounded by 4 feet of concrete. A crash is "not going to do much to that fuel. You're not going to do anything to the water," Oyster Creek project manager Wayne Romberg said. "It's not the issue they (are) trying to make of it. . . . Little planes aren't a hazard at all. They're just not heavy enough. Not enough mass or enough fuel." An airliner like those used in the Sept. 11 attacks could cause a lot of damage to a building, but the spent fuel pool would remain intact, Romberg said. Such an attack would create a "mess," but public health and safety would not be endangered, except maybe from smoke from the burning airplane and its fuel, he said. Older spent fuel sits outside the reactor building in concrete and steel containers. Zannoni, of the DEP, said these dry casks, which hold 183 tons of waste, can take "a heavy blow, but that analysis isn't done as well for the big planes." This story includes material from previous Press stories. Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com ---- Radiation barrier may fail in accident Posted by the Ocean County Observer on 02/14/06 BY TODD B. BATES AND NICHOLAS CLUNN GANNETT NEW JERSEY http://www.ocobserver.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/NEWS/602140314 If there were a major reactor accident at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant, chances are its most critical radiation barrier would fail. That means radiation could spread into the environment, schools and thousands of homes. This is not speculation from an anti-nuclear group or a disgruntled employee. The chilling possibility comes from a detailed evaluation of Oyster Creek by its owner and operator. Oyster Creek's steel and concrete radiation containment system has a 74 percent chance of failing if the reactor core melts or fuel is seriously damaged from an accident, according to a risk analysis by AmerGen Energy Co., which runs the plant. The details are in the plant's 2,400-page relicensing application. Despite this known risk, Oyster Creek's owner wants to run the plant for 20 more years beyond the end of its current 40-year license in 2009. Such a high probability of containment failure is common among the 103 nuclear reactors in the United States, according to documents and studies from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The possible failure rate ranged from 1 percent to 99 percent, according to a nuclear engineer who has seen an NRC database that is no longer publicly available. Although getting to the point of core damage at Oyster Creek has astronomically low odds — about 1 chance in 95,000 per year — once that threshold is crossed, the final barrier will be little match for the heat, steam and radiation produced during a catastrophic accident. "The good news is that a lot of effort is undertaken to reduce the likelihood of an accident," said David Lochbaum, director of the Nuclear Safety Project for the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit alliance of citizens and scientists. "The bad news is that if that date arrives," the containment system, whose sole function is to protect the public, is "not likely to work," he said. If you were to slice the plant from top to bottom, Oyster Creek's containment system would look like an enormous upside-down light bulb balanced on a doughnut. The principle is similar to that of a thermos bottle: If the inside lining of the container breaks, the liquid would remain trapped within the bottle's steel outer shell. Oyster Creek's containment system, which surrounds the reactor and its 105 tons of nuclear fuel, is designed to condense steam and cool the reactor in an emergency. But if the reactor core is damaged, the 74 percent chance of failure means that at least some radiation would escape within hours or days of the accident, according to Oyster Creek's application for relicensing, a plant spokesman and NRC officials. "I'm horrified because the mantra of Oyster Creek and the nuclear industry is that they're safe," said Jeffrey Brown, a 63-year-old Brick resident and a member of Grandmothers, Mothers and More for Energy Safety, an Oyster Creek opposition group. "At what point do people say that Oyster Creek is not worth the risk?" Engineers not affiliated with the NRC or the plant should be allowed inside Oyster Creek to evaluate the drywell, said Thomas Cervasio, chairman of EnviroWatch, a Berkeley-based environmental watchdog. The drywell is a steel pressure vessel surrounded by reinforced concrete. Both surround the reactor. "We would feel an awful lot better if we could get an independent study," he said. How much radiation, and how deadly the plume is, would be determined by the severity of any accident and the timing of a release, according to the plant's risk assessment. The likelihood of a deadly release — which would usually occur in the first six hours of reactor damage — is about 1 in 1.7 million per year, according to plant and NRC officials. A massive radiation release would be the most deadly in the early hours because up to 244,000 residents and visitors may not have enough time to evacuate from the area around the plant. The plant's 74 percent chance of containment system failure would apply only "in the highly unlikely event that there is a (reactor) core damage event," said Peter C. Resler, manager of nuclear communications for Exelon, which owns plant operator AmerGen. Core damage includes melting of the highly radioactive fuel in the reactor. Fuel could melt, for example, if a large pipe breaks, and water used to keep the core at a safe temperature is lost. Oyster Creek's weak containment system is not unique among the 102 other nuclear reactors in the United States. The integrity of nuclear plant containment systems varies widely, with their chances of failing ranging from 1 percent to 99 percent, according to Lochbaum, of the Union of Concerned Scientists. He cited information from an NRC database that is no longer available. An expert with the nuclear industry's policy group said that the chances of containment failure have vastly decreased since plants first studied severe accident risks 15 years ago. The chance of a containment system failing is now generally 10 percent to much less than 1 percent, said Tony Pietrangelo, senior director of risk regulation for the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based nuclear industry group. But he could not point to any studies to support his conclusion. Oyster Creek has a General Electric Mark I containment system, and all plants with such a system installed additional venting systems, according to Pietrangelo. Industry guidelines were developed to preserve containment integrity, among other improvements. NRC spokesman Neil A. Sheehan said the NRC knows of no new reports on the risks of containment failure at plants. Following the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the 1997 NRC reports detailing the chance of containment failure were removed from the NRC's Web site. The NRC removed the documents from the Web because "there was not a desire to point up risks associated with various aspects of nuclear power plant operation," Sheehan said. The reports, though, are still for sale. Copies of the three-volume report — without the database that details the containment ratings of individual plants — are available for purchase from the U.S. Department of Commerce for $55.85. Since a commercial nuclear plant has never released a fatal plume of radiation in this country, the probability of such an accident is based on mathematical models. The likelihood of an accidental radiation leak — be it small or large — is about 1 in 128,000 per year at Oyster Creek, according to AmerGen estimates. For comparison, the odds of dying from poisoning are 1 in 86,313 a year, according to National Safety Council estimates. The chance of dying from medical and surgical care complications is 1 in 101,281 a year. The ultimate effects of an early radiation leak would obviously be borne primarily by people living near the plant. It would take between 7 and 9 1/2 hours to evacuate a 10-mile ring around Oyster Creek known as an emergency planning zone, according to New Jersey's Radiological Emergency Response Plan. Oyster Creek's containment "would work in minimizing releases of radioactivity early on, which allows time for emergency measures to be put into place," Sheehan said. Oyster Creek was built in the 1960s with a relatively small General Electric Mark I containment system. Different systems were built in later years, such as the GE Mark II containments for the Susquehanna 1 and 2 reactors in Pennsylvania. A plant study showed that its containments would have a 1 percent chance of failure, according to data provided by Lochbaum. "GE wanted to make (the Mark I) smaller and more efficient," said Roger F. Reedy, a California-based nuclear engineering consultant who did the detailed design work for Oyster Creek's reactor and containment vessels based on GE specifications. The Mark I, and the subsequent GE Mark II and III designs installed at some other nuclear plants, met the American Society of Mechanical Engineers code "that tells you how to build these to be safe," Reedy said. He once chaired the ASME committee that writes the rules for nuclear reactor and containment vessels, he said. "That code is around the world now because it has a reputation for being safe," he said. Twenty other boiling water reactors in the United States have GE Mark I containments, according to Hans Ashar, a senior structural engineer for the NRC in Rockville, Md. This is how a Mark I containment system would work: During an accident, excess steam and gases would be trapped in the steel shell called the drywell. Connected to the bottom of the drywell is the torus, which is shaped like a doughnut and partially filled with about 1 million gallons of water. "If you have a discharge of steam (from the reactor vessel during an accident), the hot steam is shoved down into the water in the bottom of the torus," Reedy said. "That cools the steam down immediately, which reduces the pressures." It is the nuclear equivalent of a child using a straw to cool his hot breath by blowing bubbles into a glass of cold water. The torus water condenses the steam and also would be pumped into the reactor to help prevent the fuel from melting. Sprayers at the top of the drywell would be used to cool the reactor vessel. In theory, a meltdown would be averted, radiation contained in the drywell and torus, and the public saved from a disaster. The drywell is rated to withstand 44 pounds of pressure per square inch but can withstand twice that rate, according to Ashar, AmerGen and NRC documents. Oyster Creek's isolation condenser tubes — which were repaired years ago and help quickly turn steam into water — make the Mark I "a particularly good design, even though it's an older design," said Dennis Zannoni, supervising nuclear engineer in the state Department of Environmental Protection's Nuclear Engineering Section. "If there's an accident, the steam will be dumped to the isolation condensers, which will condense the steam into water and recirculate it back," Zannoni said. "They're just tubes in a big container, and they're very, very important, and they work well." Kent Tosch, manager of the DEP Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, said if there were a "high probability of failure" at Oyster Creek overall, "the plant wouldn't operate." Much of the information that has emerged since the Three Mile Island nuclear plant accident in 1979 suggests that a lot of the radioactive materials in an accident will stay in and around the reactor, significantly reducing "early fatalities," Tosch said. ---- Fired scientist says boss overruled reactor operators Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 02/14/06 BY NICHOLAS CLUNN STAFF WRITER http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006602140305 LACEY — Did a mid-level manager at the Oyster Creek nuclear plant overrule reactor operators and shut down two key water pumps? That is one of the allegations made by Paul E. Schwartz, a former Oyster Creek scientist who said he was fired for telling the truth about the events that led up to a major fish kill in September 2002. But AmerGen Energy Co., a subsidiary of Exelon Nuclear, which runs Oyster Creek, said Schwartz was fired for lying. The public may never know who is correct; Schwartz's whistle-blower lawsuit against the plant was settled out of court in October, and neither side will talk about it now. From the court record, this much is known: While off duty at his child's soccer game in 2002, Schwartz said he received a call from Stephen Bailey, his boss at Oyster Creek. Bailey asked Schwartz whether he could shut off two cooling pumps so that workers could prepare for a maintenance project, according to Schwartz's lawsuit. Schwartz said he told Bailey to check if doing so would violate a state environmental permit meant to protect sea life in the plant's cooling canal. In its response to the lawsuit, AmerGen said Schwartz changed his story. He first said he told Bailey the pumps could be shut down, and later, when the state launched a criminal probe, Schwartz said he told Bailey to review the permit first. The end result is not in dispute. The pumps were shut down, and 5,876 fish were cooked to death as the water temperature rose to 101 degrees in 95 minutes. The pumps draw cool water from the South Branch of the Forked River and combine it with heated water being discharged from the plant. This injection of cool water lessens the thermal impact on marine life in the man-made discharge canal. Schwartz's account fits with Exelon's record of putting profits before public safety, said Suzanne Leta, an advocate with the New Jersey Public Interest Research Group. "It's a good example of the Exelon way, which is not really the right way," she said. According to the lawsuit, control-room operators — engineers responsible for running the reactor safely — also warned Bailey against taking the pumps offline. "Before the pumps were shut down, representatives of the (plant) knew that the shutdown would violate the permit because employees in the control room told management," a lawyer for Schwartz claimed. Lawyers for the plant denied the claim that control-room operators and Schwartz had told Bailey to check the environmental permit. Schwartz was fired in March 2003. According to a brief filed by plant lawyers, Schwartz "unequivocally told Mr. Bailey that the plant could shut down the dilution pumps and that he would come in early the next morning to notify the NJDEP and obtain any requisite approvals." But Schwartz recanted that version during a meeting with company lawyers, according to the brief. The meeting was meant to prepare him for an interview with a state investigator looking into criminal sanctions related to the fish kill. In his suit, Schwartz said company managers fired him in retaliation for planning to tell the truth to state investigators about what happened. Schwartz now works for the state Bureau of Nuclear Engineering, where he was hired in August 2003 as a nuclear engineer. He is paid an annual salary of $70,300. Schwartz did not respond to interview requests, and his lawyer declined to discuss the case. AmerGen also declined to talk about it and would not say if Bailey still works at the plant. According to an AmerGen report on the fish kill for the NRC, the pumps were shut down after managers wanted to perform maintenance on the transformer that powered them. The work was meant to increase the level of safety during an upcoming outage. No criminal charges were filed, but the incident cost AmerGen $1 million in a 2004 settlement that included the company and two state agencies. When announcing the deal, then-DEP Commissioner Bradley M. Campbell called it the state's largest clean-water enforcement settlement involving a reactor. Nicholas Clunn: (609) 978-4597 or nclunn@app.com ---- Escaping could take 9 1/2 hours Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 02/14/06 BY TODD B. BATES ENVIRONMENTAL WRITER http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/SPECIAL06/602140301 It could take up to 9 1/2 hours to evacuate the entire 10-mile ring around the Oyster Creek nuclear plant, depending on the season, time of day and the weather, according to the state's evacuation plan. Some people may be asked to "shelter in place" — go indoors or stay in a car, according to the State Police's "Community Emergency Planning Information" for Oyster Creek. The 10-mile zone is divided into 20 emergency response planning areas. If an evacuation were necessary, planning areas would be evacuated as units, the state plan says. The State Police expect up to 244,000 people to be in the zone on a peak summer day, based on estimates derived from 2000 U.S. Census data. An outdoor siren system is the primary way of initially alerting the public within 10 miles of Oyster Creek. If a siren fails to go off, teams in vehicles with public address systems or portable equipment will be dispatched, the plan says. After being alerted, the public would listen to local radio stations for further instructions. Private automobiles will be the main way out. About 94 percent of residents in the 10-mile zone and 95 percent of the seasonal population have access to vehicles, the plan says. People with vehicles will be encouraged to give rides to those without access to cars, the plan says. Along predesignated routes, NJ Transit will pick up people unable to get rides. As many as 300 buses capable of evacuating about 20,000 people can be made available if necessary, according to the plan. Municipal and volunteer first aid squads, fire and police departments and Ocean County vehicles will help evacuate the infirm and handicapped individuals, the plan says. Traffic and access control within the 10-mile zone is "established in advance," said Jon Christiansen, a planner in the State Police Radiological Emergency Response Planning Unit. Evacuees would go to a reception center to be checked for radiation exposure, said Sgt. Thomas Scardino, assistant head of the unit. Those not exposed to radiation would go to relatives' residences or elsewhere. "We anticipate" that roughly 20 percent or less would require sheltering in any evacuation, whether caused by a hurricane or nuclear accident, Scardino said. People with no place to go would head to a "congregate care shelter" outside the 10-mile ring, he said. Staff writers Nicholas Clunn and Kirk Moore contributed to this story. Todd B. Bates: (732) 643-4237 or tbates@app.com ---- KI pills protect thyroid from radiation Posted by the Asbury Park Press on 02/14/06 STAFF REPORT http://www.app.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060214/SPECIAL06/602140302 Potassium iodide, or KI, is found in table salt, but it also comes in pill form to reduce the risk of thyroid cancer following a radiation release. If taken when directed during a nuclear emergency, the KI pill can protect the thyroid by filling the gland with safe iodine, blocking the absorption of radioactive iodine. People living or working within 10 miles of the Oyster Creek nuclear power plant in Lacey can pick up KI pills from the Ocean County Health Department. Health officials also can hand out new pills to those who have had doses longer than the five-year shelf life. KI pills are most recommended for children, since developing thyroids are particularly vulnerable to radiation. Meanwhile, people allergic to shellfish and iodine should consult their physician before ingesting a dose. The pills are distributed through the health department by appointment. To make an appointment and for more information, call (800) 342-9738, Ext. 7227. County officials are preparing for a mass distribution of KI pills at several sites, possibly by the end of the year, said Daniel Regenye, a county public health planner. The last mass distribution was in 2002. — Nicholas Clunn -------- utah Feds License Nuke Dump on Utah Reservation 02/14/06 (AP) http://channels.netscape.com/news/story.jsp?floc=ne-us-12-l3&flok=FF-APO-1110&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20060214%2F1522309646.htm&sc=1110 SALT LAKE CITY - Federal regulators have issued a license for a nuclear waste dump on an American Indian reservation in Utah's western desert, but legal obstacles could keep the project tied up for months. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission granted the license Monday for Private Fuel Storage to stockpile 44,000 tons of spent uranium fuel rods at the Skull Valley Goshute Indian Reservation, about 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City. Utah has filed a federal appeal of the license, approved in September but not officially issued until Monday. But no court date has been set, and there was no sign of when the project would move forward. ``This is a Pyrrhic victory for PFS - just a piece of paper,'' Denise Chancellor, an assistant state attorney general, said Tuesday. Officials at PFS, a group of utilities that owns nuclear power plants, said they were confident. ``The license is the culmination of 8 1/2 years of a very vigorous licensing process during which the state of Utah has been a full participant,'' PFS spokeswoman Sue Martin said Tuesday. ``We had to win every single argument to show this facility could be safely operated, and we won all those arguments.'' PFS also still needs permission from agencies including the Bureau of Land Management and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Chancellor said. She said PFS could have difficulty showing regulators that it has enough money to because several financiers have dropped out. PFS has said it can recruit other members. -------- us nuc waste Nuclear waste 'fear factor' Recent report says risks are small February 14, 2006 Newsday http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpnuk144626313feb14,0,2264946.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines Those of us who see energy independence as a key national priority should be cheered by a recent report about nuclear waste. A panel of scientists has approved of federal plans to ship tens of thousands of tons of waste from nuclear power plants for disposal in a Nevada mountain. The scientists' thorough review of the Energy Department's plans finds that transportation and disposal of the spent fuel poses "no fundamental technical barriers" and carries low and easily manageable risks. That's heartening news, especially since it comes from an independent panel put together not by the DOE but by the National Research Council, part of the prestigious National Academy of sciences. If the United States is ever going to make progress toward energy independence by severing or diminishing its link to imported oil, we must consider expanding nuclear power production, a viable alternative that to many remains unpalatable and frightening. The biggest obstacle to enlarging the nation's nuclear capacity is still the challenge of where and how to dispose safely of nuclear waste. The Energy Department has designated Yucca Mountain in the Nevada desert, 90 miles from Las Vegas, as the site where spent fuel from 70 power plants in 31 states would be stored, entombed in concrete and metal canisters capable of withstanding any conceivable seismic shock or military strike. But the plan has been under attack from environmentalists and anti-nuclear power activists who say the shipments could trigger uncontrollable nuclear accidents or be subject to terrorism. The council's report shows such concerns are unwarranted and the risks minimal. The panel acknowledged, however, that the biggest obstacle to the plans is the "fear factor," a psychological and political barrier that the nation's energy consumers must overcome if we are to strive for energy independence. Subscribe to Newsday ---- Big Question Marks on Nuclear Waste Facility By MATTHEW L. WALD New York Times February 14, 2006 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/14/business/14nukes.html?pagewanted=print WASHINGTON, Feb. 13 - The Energy Department no longer has an esttimate of when it can open the nuclear waste repository that it wants to build at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, and it may never have an accurate prediction of the cost, the energy secretary said on Monday. The secretary, Samuel W. Bodman, said at a nuclear power industry conference that his department was redoing research and design for Yucca, which was supposed to start accepting civilian power-plant waste in 1998. But it is a first-of-a-kind project, making cost estimates difficult, he said, and the best that the department may be able to do is publish an estimate with a very wide range of error. Last week the deputy energy secretary, Clay Sell, hinted for the first time that the money that the Energy Department had been collecting from the nuclear utilities since the 1980's might not be enough to pay for the project; the last published cost estimate was $60 billion, in 2001. The last date given for its planned opening, provided a year ago, was 2012. The department is facing lawsuits from utilities that want to recover extra costs created by the delay. Mr. Bodman spoke Monday to hundreds of nuclear industry executives at a conference organized by Platts, an energy information division of McGraw-Hill. Other speakers said that various companies were considering building as many as 16 new reactors soon; none have been ordered in this country since the 1970's. A lawyer in the audience asked how the industry could build new plants without assurances of a plan for the waste, as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires. Mr. Bodman did not answer, but instead began describing the problems of the Yucca project. For one, he said, government scientists and their commercial contractors were trying to cope with research work that was done poorly by the United States Geological Survey. Another problem is a court decision that forced the Environmental Protection Agency to publish standards governing leakage of radioactive waste for one million years, he said; initially the Energy Department had planned on a timeline of 10,000 years. In addition, he said, the project managers recently decided that they had to space the wastes more widely to prevent temperature inside the mountain from reaching the boiling point, because the effects of steam are more difficult to predict. "There are problems with the U.S. Geological Survey work that was done, there are problems with the E.P.A. standards that are there, there are problems with the efforts of the Department of Energy. There's plenty of blame to go around," Mr. Bodman said. His comments came more than six years after the Energy Department issued a "viability assessment" asserting that the mountain could hold waste from power plants and nuclear weapons plants, and two years after the department had planned to submit an application to get a license for the project. Mr. Bodman had come to talk mostly about the Bush administration's new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a plan that includes reprocessing nuclear wastes to reduce their volume and toxicity. Despite a spirited description of the program, he got no questions on that subject. Some in the industry said, though, that the partnership introduced a new complication for Yucca. If used reactor fuel were put through a factory to recover reusable parts, as the proposal calls for, the new wastes could not be buried at Yucca until the project was reanalyzed, they said. Another complication is that the department recently told utilities that they should ship fuel to Yucca in containers that could go directly into the mountain for burial. But some of the waste is now packaged in other kinds of containers, in locations where the reactors have been torn down, which means there is no easy way to repackage the materials. Other nuclear professionals present, including the chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nils J. Diaz, predicted that the nation would shift to a system of above-ground interim storage and perhaps the solution called for in the nuclear partnership: breaking up old nuclear fuel to recover reusable materials. But this could help spread material useful in nuclear weapons. -------- MILITARY -------- mideast Lebanese rally draws 500,000 to mark Hariri’s death By Roula Khalaf, Middle East Editor Published: February 14 2006 13:02 Financial Times http://news.ft.com/cms/s/1e351352-9d5a-11da-b1c6-0000779e2340.html Hundreds of thousands of Lebanese on Tuesday marked the first anniversary of the killing of Rafiq Hariri, the former prime minister, with virulent attacks against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and calls for the resignation of the pro-Syrian Lebanese president. As crowds, estimated at more than half a million out of a population of less than 4m, flooded Beirut’s central Martyrs’ square, Walid Jumblatt, a main anti-Syrian politician, denounced Mr Assad as the “tyrant of Damascus” and a “terrorist.” He insisted that Lebanon would never be rid of Syrian influence as long as Emile Lahoud, the president, remained in office. The higher than expected turnout of flag-waving demonstrators - a year after the assassination of a popular leader who had refused to bend to Damascus’ will was designed to revive the momentum of last year’s Cedar Revolution. That series of street protests had captured the world’s attention as a dramatic show of Arab democracy and provoked intense international pressure on Syria to remove its troops from Lebanon in April, ending a 29-year military presence. Since the pullout, however, hopes that Lebanon would regain its political stability have been undermined, amid continued attacks and rising sectarian tensions in a country that suffered a long civil war in the 1970s and 1980s. The anti-Syrian coalition that won last summer’s parliamentary elections - a collection of Sunni Muslim, Druze and Christian groups - has felt under increasing pressure in recent months. Mainly Shia Muslim pro-Syrian parties in Lebanon have reasserted themselves and Mr Lahoud, the president, has refused to bow out. In a blow to the anti-Syrian coalition, Hizbollah, the Shia militant group with ties to Damascus, announced an alliance this month with Christian leader Michel Aoun, who had once been part of the anti-Syrian coalition. Most distressing for Lebanon, however, the killings of anti-Syrian figures have continued, provoking accusations in Beirut that Damascus was bent on eliminating its opponents and sparking sectarian unrest. Lebanese politicians say Syria’s strategy is to bring down the Lebanese government and replace it with a friendlier administration that would call for an end to the United Nation’s investigation into the killing of the Mr Hariri’s killing. The UN inquiry has already uncovered links to high-level Syrian officials but says it needs more co-operation from Damascus before issuing its conclusions. Security fears have kept Saad Hariri, the slain leader’s son and political heir, away from Lebanon for several months. He returned only this week to join the rally and encourage a massive turnout. He and other politicians on Tuesday addressed the crowds from behind bullet-proof glass, surrounded by a heavy security presence. Damascus denies involvement in the explosion that killed Mr Hariri and Bassil Fuleihan, his former economy minister, and insists it has nothing to do with the subsequent killings. But Lebanese government officials and western diplomats suspect the Syrian regime has been providing weapons to Palestinian and other radical groups in Lebanon. The most worrying incident came a week ago, when protests against the publication of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed turned violent, leading to the burning of the building housing the Danish embassy in a Christian area of Beirut. Security forces later arrested nearly 200 people, many of them Syrians. “There are people trying day and night to create rifts between Lebanon’s Christians and Muslims,” charged Saad Hariri, in a Monday television appearance. ---- Syria seeks to divert attention with Hezbollah front: Israel Tue Feb 14, 2006 (AFP) http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20060214/wl_mideast_afp/syrialebanonegypt CAIRO - Israeli Defence Minister Shaul Mofaz accused Syria of seeking to deflect world attention from the Lebanese crisis by encouraging Hezbollah attacks on the Jewish state. "We know that Syria and Iran are supporting Hezbollah, and their goal is that the attention of the international community will be on the Israeli-Lebanese border and not on Syria," Mofaz said. Mofaz was speaking to reporters in Cairo after meeting Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, with whom he discussed the latest attack by the Lebanese Shiite militia. On February 3, Hezbollah shelled Israeli positions in the disputed Shebaa Farms border area, prompting an Israeli air raid on southern Lebanon. "The goal of Hezbollah, supported by Syria and Iran, is to open a second front against Israel," Mofaz charged. Syria is currently under intense Western pressure over its alleged implication in the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafiq Hariri a year ago. Mofaz said he had agreed with Mubarak to start a "strategic dialogue and cooperation" between the security services of their countries on the fight against terrorism. The talks would start "in the coming months," he said, without elaborating. -------- us Veterans experience delays in GI Bill payments By Alison Young Knight Ridder Newspapers Tue, Feb. 14, 2006 http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/13871642.htm WASHINGTON - A surge in veterans using the GI Bill to pay for college is increasing delays for students in getting their money from the Department of Veterans Affairs. For students attending colleges in the central United States, it's been taking nearly eight weeks on average for a first-time applicant to start receiving VA college funds. That's more than twice as long as it's supposed to take, according to the VA's standards. "For some of these VA guys, that's all they live on when they're in school," said Rowdy Pyle, financial aid counselor at Ozarks Technical Community College in Springfield, Mo., where about 30 students have raised concerns about delays. "They're getting a little worried when they hear they may not get their check until sometime in March." This week the VA began taking what it called "extraordinary measures" to reduce the backlog at its St. Louis claims-processing center, including diverting all incoming calls to an office in Oklahoma for two weeks to free up 20 employees to process claims. St. Louis is the slowest of the VA's four education claims-processing centers. "The number of claims coming in has been at all-time record highs," a VA liaison officer for the St. Louis region said in a memo to college officials that Knight Ridder obtained. "We appreciate your patience. We understand you take a lot of the heat from students when claims processing is slower than expected." VA education programs, which pay eligible veterans up to $1,034 a month while they're attending school, are a key inducement the military uses to entice recruits. More than 500,000 veterans and eligible dependents use VA education benefits. Nationwide, more than 118,000 VA education claims were waiting to be processed as of Feb. 4. Students in 16 central states have been hit with the greatest delays because of an influx of incoming claims and backlogs at the St. Louis Regional Processing Center. "St. Louis has had an unusually large number of claims coming in this year," said Bill Fillman, the central area director for the Veterans Benefits Administration. Incoming claims are up 18 percent in St. Louis, Fillman said. On average, incoming education claims are up 6 percent nationwide, the VA said. Large numbers of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan to hometowns in the Midwest, coupled with larger education-benefits checks available to all veterans, are among the factors that Fillman suspects are increasing the workload in St. Louis. First-time applicants for education funds waited 55.7 days on average if their paperwork was processed in St. Louis, and it took a little more than 27 days for the office to process claims from continuing students during the first four months of fiscal year 2006, which began Oct. 1. The VA's performance goals call for new claims to be processed in 25 days on average and renewal claims to be processed in 13 days. The VA's St. Louis Regional Processing Center handles education claims from schools in Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Tennessee, Wisconsin and Wyoming. The Atlanta Regional Processing Center, which handles claims from states in the Southeast, was the next slowest during that four-month period, taking 46 days on average for new claims and 25.5 days for renewals. Nationwide, the average processing time was 39 days for new claims and 22 days for renewal claims, according to the VA. Fillman said the VA hoped to process another 10,000 to 20,000 education claims in St. Louis during the next two weeks because of the shifted phone calls. "We really think this is going to have a very, very positive impact on the St. Louis workload, and that will enable us to get them where they should be," he said. Another reason for the backlogs is a new VA education benefit that targets activated members of the reserves and National Guard. Called the Reserve Educational Assistance Program, or Chapter 1607, this program rewards those activated since Sept. 11, 2001, with education payments of up to $827 a month. As of Jan. 17, the most recent data available, the VA had processed only 407 of the 11,085 applications it had received for Chapter 1607 benefits. Of those processed, only 187 veterans had received payments. Of the others, 125 were told they were eligible but that their applications were missing information, and 88 were told they weren't eligible for the benefit. The VA didn't say what happened to the remaining seven. The VA began processing claims for the new benefit in December, more than a year after Congress created it. Adding another layer of complexity is that Guardsmen and reservists who've received education payments under older and less lucrative VA programs are eligible to receive the higher pay rates of the new Chapter 1607 program retroactive to 2001. VA officials said they thought that almost all claims that had been filed so far for retroactive lump-sum payments had been processed. But Gabriel Medina, a Marine Corps reservist who's studying at the University of California-Riverside, is among those who still are waiting for the VA to send what he estimates is thousands of dollars in retroactive education payments. Medina has been receiving about $297 a month through the older Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve program, also called Chapter 1606. He should be receiving more than double that under the new Chapter 1607 program, which is supposed to reward his activation for the war in Iraq. Medina spent nearly two years on active duty beginning in January 2002, including a tour in Iraq as a machine gunner. "When I heard they were processing them I got all excited. But it's been a month and I haven't received anything," said Medina, who's 23. "I don't know of anyone who has." For more information about Veterans Affairs education benefits, contact your school's veterans' benefits coordinator or call the VA at 1-800-827-1000. Information and applications are available on the Web at www.gibill.va.gov. To be heard about VA education-benefits issues, contact the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs at 202-225-3527 or the Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs at 202-224-9126. ---- Army lowered bar for recruits in '05 1 in 6 given waivers despite backgrounds UIC MBA By Tom Bowman Tribune Newspapers: Baltimore Sun February 14, 2006 http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fuj/chtr1.htm WASHINGTON -- Struggling to boost its ranks in wartime, the Army has sharply increased the number of recruits who would normally be barred because of criminal misconduct or problems with alcohol and illegal drugs. Last year, almost 1 in 6 Army recruits had a background problem that would have disqualified them from military service. In order to accept them, the Army granted exceptions known as recruiting waivers. Recruits with medical problems made up the largest single category of those given waivers. However, the largest increase was among recruits with a history of criminal conduct or drug and alcohol problems, according to Army data. In all, the Army granted waivers to 11,018 recruits in the 12-month period ending Sept. 30, 2005, or 15 percent of those accepted into the service that year. Those figures are up sharply from 2004, when 9,300 waivers were granted, or 12 percent of those joining the Army. The Army provided the recruiting figures to The Baltimore Sun on Monday. The Army was about 7,000 recruits short of its recruiting target last year, when 73,000 men and women joined up, down from 77,000 in 2004. There was a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms "serious criminal misconduct." That category includes aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats, according to Douglas Smith, a spokesman for the Army Recruiting Command. The number of recruits in that category increased to 630, from 408 in 2004, reversing at least a four-year trend in which the number of recruits with serious criminal misconduct in their background had declined, according to Army statistics. The largest increase in waivers was for recruits with misdemeanor convictions. There were 4,587 waivers granted last year in that category, up from 3,667 in 2004. There were 737 waivers for alcohol and illegal drugs, up from 650 the previous year, which also reversed at least a four-year trend of declines in that category. A waiver is required to let the recruit wait 45 days before taking another test. -------- ENERGY Energy funding quickly fizzles Scientists, at first delighted by Bush's spending boosts for solar, nuclear and biomass, see money will soon run short By Ian Hoffman, STAFF WRITER 02/14/2006 Inside Bay Area http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci_3507860 President Bush's vow to curb U.S. addiction to foreign oil delighted many energy scientists when it was followed days later by a budget requesting large spending boosts in solar, biomass and particularly nuclear energy research. But buyer's remorse is setting in now that researchers are taking a closer look. The president's 2007 budget makes dramatic cuts in energy efficiency and conservation, where the greatest energy gains of the last 20 years have been made. Last week, White House budgeters ran projections showing the new money could be short-lived, with steady declines in alternative energy research after 2007. "The president said something really important in terms of talking about this addiction and how we need these renewables," said physicist and energy expert Daniel Kammen, head of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley. "It's easy tosay in a speech. If you don't back up those words with budgets, it's campaign rhetoric." "It's really too bad," Kammen said. "What we're seeing is sort of the backpedaling that undermines these commitments." Science overall is a huge beneficiary of the president's 2007 budget, with large increases in basic, exploratory research at the National Science Foundation and the Department of Energy and for studying new space vehicles at NASA. In energy science, Bush continued emphasizing nuclear energy, hydrogen and clean coal but added $250 million for his new Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, to harvest more energy out of spent nuclear fuel and design a new "fast-breeder" reactor to burn the reprocessed plutonium, as well as a near doubling of spending on solar energy and biofuels fermented from plants. All told, the president is asking $1.4 billion in energy research spending, an 8 percent increase over 2006 that reverses a downward trend in energy science spending, according to an analysis by Kei Koizumi, head of the research and development budget and policy program at the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nation's largest scientific society. If approved by Congress at the levels requested by the White House, federal energy science will return to its levels in the late 1990s. Those levels remain well below what Congress approved last year in the Energy Policy Act, and several lawmakers say they will try boosting energy spending further. In doing so, they will struggle with the temptation to tack on projects dear to local constituents. These earmarks have climbed steadily, from $253 million in congressionally ordered energy spending in 2001 to $501 million in 2004 and $716 million in 2006. In energy research alone, nearly one in five dollars comes from congressional earmarks, said AAAS' Koizumi, and if the trend continues in 2007, federal energy research spending could jump almost 30 percent. But environmentalists say the biggest gains in U.S. energy security have come from greater efficiency and conservation, programs that took hefty cuts in the president's budget. The president cut 9 percent from the EPA's Energy Star program that promotes higher-efficiency appliances and cut almost a third from the federal weatherization program for insulating the homes of lower-income families. "Research and development is really important but all by itself it's not going to solve our energy problems, even in the long term," said David M. Goldstein, energy program director for the Natural Resources Defense Fund. "If your nephew was addicted to a drug, you wouldn't say, 'I'll do research so he'll get better in 15 years.' You'd get him into treatment now," Goldstein said. Administration officials are betting on technological advances to realize the president's promised 75 percent reduction in the consumption of Middle East oil. But scientists warn that weaning Americans off foreign oil will take a long, multi-year commitment. Last week, the White House released budget projections showing declines in energy research spending after 2007, totaling nearly 13 percent by 2011. "It's hard to sort of have a new commitment for research on alternative fuels when the resources devoted to these projects shrink year after year," said Richard Kogan, a senior analyst at the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. AAAS' Koizumi said 2007 "looks good" for energy sciences. "But the administration has not put the money in the future years to sustain these increases," he said. White House officials said Monday that the projected declines in new energy research money from 2008 to 2011 are solely an "exercise" to illustrate the kind of across-the-board cuts in discretionary domestic spending needed to meet the president's promise of halving the budget deficit. "Account and agency levels in model runs don't reflect future policy decisions since those are only made on a year-by-year basis," said Alex Conant, a spokesman for the White House Office of Management and Budget. Yet several discretionary spending programs are not showing cuts for deficit reduction, leading some scientists to question the administration's new energy initiatives. Contact Ian Hoffman at ihoffman@angnewspapers.com. -------- ACTIVISTS The Curious Withdrawal of Cindy Sheehan By DON SANTINA February 14, 2006 Counterpunch http://www.counterpunch.org/santina02142006.html Last week, that noble antiwarrior, Cindy Sheehan, declined to challenge Senator Diane Feinstein in the upcoming Democratic primary. Ms Sheehan reiterated that Party officials had not pressured her against running. It reminded me of how the Party had so thoroughly squashed the stridently anti-war candidacy of Howard Dean in 2004, that every time the good doctor surfaces now to speak, he’s looking over his shoulder. Feinstein should be challenged. Feinstein is one of the “Royal Democrats," those Democrats like Clinton, Lieberman, Biden and a host of others who live in privilege and serve the privileged. Historically, the Democratic Party has been composed of two camps, the “People Democrats" and the “Royal Democrats." The present day Royal Democrats are not that much far removed from the old Jim Crow Democrats who became Republicans when the Democratic Party embraced civil rights legislation. They like Business; they like War; they like military/industrial dollars in their states. They’re lukewarm on social legislation. The war on Iraq--like Vietnam--is unconstitutional, illegal and immoral. Thousands upon thousands of civilians have been maimed and killed on the basis of lies told by the Bush administration. Torture of prisoners is widespread; extra judicial kidnapping and secret prisons are the order of the day, and the Bill of Rights has been suspended. Geneva Convention? Fahgeddaboutit! Constitution? Fahgeddaboutit! Phosphorous, napalm, cluster bombs and depleted uranium projectiles? Fahgeddaboutit! From the beginning, the Royal Democrats have been foursquare supporters of the preemptive war on Iraq, a country that was not threatening us. Even now, facing growing popular opposition to the war and an increasingly sociopathic White House, they continue to brownnose the president, dragging their feet about withdrawing our troops from their ghastly mission. In the 1990’s, the Royal Democrats “ended welfare as we know it" in the U.S. Then, along with the Republicans, they gave the world NAFTA and the WTO to further increase corporate profits that weren’t already running amok through the efforts of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. The cries from the resulting worldwide destruction of sustainable communities and the cancerous growth of sweatshops, child labor, prison labor, and slave labor never reach the delicate and protected ears of the Royal Democrats. They wear their power of office like the ermine of ancient kings and queens. They have the best free medical care in the world; they live grandly in estates, villas and gated communities. They travel and vacation on the taxpayers’ tab. Senators (AKA the Millionaires’ Club) and House members enjoy automatic salary raises while Americans who work for a living see their wages and benefits slashed annually. How about these “millions?" Millions of Americans don’t have health care. Millions of children go to bed hungry and attend substandard schools. Millions of American parents work their butts off for less than a living wage. Millions more will never have an opportunity for a meaningful job in their lifetimes. There are approximately 6, 000 homeless people in San Francisco and 1,500 are children. Feinstein and her mega millionaire husband Richard Blum, just bought a 9,500 square foot house in Pacific Heights for $16.5 million. Why? Because, said the Senator, “we never had a view and this was an opportunity to get one." The United States has the largest prison population in the world. Hey America, aren’t you embarrassed by that statistic? Most of the people in prison are poor non-violent and nonwhite drug offenders--not politically connected like the alcoholics stumbling around Congress who “don’t do drugs." How many prisoners on Death Row were released on account of new DNA evidence? For how many was the evidence too late? Statistics tell us that there is no crime wave, but the Royal Democrats and their Republican pals continue to build prisons in their new “Lockdown America." Environmental protection has been shredded and there’s talk of scrapping the Endangered Species laws and selling the national parks, along with the flushing of the Kyoto Protocol. The Royal Democrats remain mute if not collaborative, seemingly afraid to irritate their corporate sponsors. Feinstein’s plan to raise Shasta Dam a few feet to deliver more water to southern California for mass suburban development and giant agribusiness will wipe out forever the holy sites of the Winnemem Wintu native people. Her response to those who object to her plan? “The people (of Southern California) have a God-given right to water their lawns and gardens." Marie Antoinette couldn’t have put it better. Exxon made five million dollars an hour in the fourth quarter of 2005. The silence in Congress is deafening. Meanwhile, rank and file Democrats protest, email, blog and groan “What’s wrong with the Democratic Party?” They don’t want to accept the fact that what’s wrong with the “Democratic Party,” i.e., the Royal Democrats, is that They’re On The Other Side! It’s time for Democrats to stop whining and vote their conscience, resurface as Republicans or retire to corporate boards. A real opposition must be mounted against the White House madness. Don Santina is a cultural historian who writes on film, politics, music, sports and the West. His articles have appeared in Counterpunch, the Black Commemorator, and the San Francisco Chronicle. He can be reached at lindey89@aol.com ---- How You -- Yes You -- Can End the War Tuesday, 14 February 2006 Scoop (NZ) Opinion: David Swanson http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0602/S00142.htm http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m20620&l=i&size=1&hd=0 http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/7798 Simple acts and a little courage have worked wonders in the world. Nonviolent people's movements won democratic reforms in Russia, booted the British out of India, resisted the Nazi occupation in Denmark, drove a dictator out of El Salvador and another out of the Philippines, ended Jim Crow, crushed Soviet power in Poland, toppled military regimes in Argentina and Chile, ended Apartheid, and brought democracy to the Ukraine. George W. is no match for a force this powerful. As powerless as we may feel in the United States right now, we have at our disposal the tools needed to end the war in Iraq and to impeach the criminals who began it. The impeachment may have to precede the peace, but, in one order or the other, we can achieve these two goals. There is a multitude of ways in which each of us can alter our daily habits to help make this happen. While there may be a value to picking one or two angles of attack and focusing our collective energies there (and while I will recommend some priorities), it is also worthwhile to pursue the many avenues of resistance to the war machine in which every little bit of pressure will help. Different tactics appeal to different individuals and groups, and it is a multifarious movement that will restore the rule of law to the United States and the world. Most of the tactics I'll mention are easy and legal. Some are hard. Some involve civil disobedience. The war in Iraq is a war fought – among other reasons -- for profits of oil and gas companies. Do what you can to avoid buying those products. If you must buy gas, buy it from CITGO or another company not profiting from the war. Organize and pressure your local and state governments to promote renewable energies and conservation. If you can figure out how to avoid patronizing telecom companies that participated in illegal spying, let everyone know. Boycott war profiteers and funders of Bush and his allies, Republican and Democrat. And work with allies overseas to make these boycotts international or to apply labor pressure in countries with strong unions. That means boycotting every branch of General Electric, including NBC. It also means boycotting every other major U.S. media corporation, with the possible exception of Knight Ridder, because they have not just profited from the war but have collaborated in producing it. And by boycott, I mean not only that you should cancel subscriptions to newspapers that helped sell the war, but also that you should not give a dime to place an advertisement – no matter how brilliant an advertisement – on television or in the New York Times. Give your money to responsible media outlets that report the truth for free every day. Support Independent World Television, Free Speech TV, Link TV, Pacifica, Air America, the Nation, In These Times, Truth Out, and the thousands of progressive print, radio, and internet outlets struggling to report the news. How many times have we seen an outlet with no budget like RawStory.com break a story that eventually shows up in watered-down form in corporate newspapers, next to a full-page ad paid for by people like us. That has to end. Advertising is fine, but place it on outlets that are not part of the problem. And place it on freeways. Hold up posters at televised events. Shout. Disrupt. Wear your message on your body, on your car, on your house, in your yard, in your Email signature, on your phone answering machine. Place toy soldiers with "Bring me home" messages everywhere. And talk to your neighbors, colleagues, and family. Nothing is more effective or efficient than talking to individuals. My Email signature, which I stole from someone else's and many have in turn taken from me, reads: "NOTICE: Due to Presidential Executive Orders, the National Security Agency may have read this email without warning, warrant, or notice. They may do this without any judicial or legislative oversight. You have no recourse nor protection save to call for the impeachment of the current President." Do you have any dollar bills in your wallet? Write "Impeach Bush and Cheney" on each one. Do that with any new ones that pass through your hands. Do all of these little acts. But also become the media in a more serious way. Create a blog, which costs nothing , and report on what you do and what you learn. Or make a website. Videotape your events and upload the videos for free to Indy media or another website. Send your news to us at www.afterdowningstreet.org and to other sites that will promote it. Phone talk shows. Write letters to the editor. Write op-eds. Try to earn free media coverage. Create a radio show or a radio station. Create or participate in a show on cable access. Create a newsletter. And make use of local media, labor union newsletters, church bulletins, store bulletin boards, and store windows: ask businesses to post Impeach Bush and End the War signs in their windows. And do what those on the far right in this country do far too much of and the rest of us far too little of: pressure the corporate media and hold Bush propagandists accountable. Become a media monitor and rapid responder. And don't restrict this to letter writing, phone calling, Emailing, and blogging. Organize protests outside and inside media outlets that spread lies and refuse to report truths. Include as a target of these actions polling companies that refuse to conduct or report polls on important issues, such as impeachment. And don't restrict these efforts to this country. Thank the international media outlets that do a good job. Go after those that do not. Write to media outlets in those countries still left in the so-called coalition of the willing and let them know that Americans would appreciate them withdrawing their symbolic forces. Write to the media in Iraq and let them know that the majority of Americans agree with the majority of Iraqis in supporting an end to the occupation. Read blogs and independent and international reports from Iraq, and spread that news in this country. Write to Iranian media outlets and let them know that we do not see them as a threat and that they should not see us that way. Let them know that we share their concern over the bellicose rhetoric and the lies coming from Washington. Buy books, which is where the best reporting is now, even by people employed by, but censored by, newspapers. Hold book club and film parties. Hold discussion forums. Invite speakers from varying points of view. Videotape those events and put them on a website. When you turn 18, do not register for Selective Service, and publicize your reasons. If you are in the military, when you are ordered to Iraq, refuse to go, and publicize your reasons. Do not pay the portion of your taxes that goes to the war, and publicize your action. Assist returning veterans and help them to speak out. Assist suffering Gold Star Families, and help them to speak out. Speak to students about military recruitment and the lies that are such a common part of it. Disrupt the work of military recruiters. Reach out to Muslim groups. Organize community and other religious and activist groups to hold events to support Muslims and protect their rights. This is far more important than might at first be apparent. This directly confronts the Bush Administration's strategy for making us afraid. Reach out to the United Nations. Call and write. Let them know that John Bolton does not speak for Americans. Above all else, pressure Congress to impeach Bush and Cheney and to cut off funding for the war. Ask your Representative to cosponsor HR 4232 to cut off funding. Ask them to cosponsor H Res 635 to create an investigation that will make recommendations on impeachment. And ask them to introduce articles of impeachment against Cheney and Bush. Ask your Senators to do anything – produce some sign of life, draft a bill, record a pulse, anything. Do this lobbying by means of phone, Email, and in-person visits. Be a pest. They work for you. Phone every day. But steadily increase the pressure. Stage sit-ins in offices, and hold pickets in front of their homes and through their neighborhoods. Watch for a huge campaign in this regard to be announced by several groups this week. Also focus on those governments where the bribes are smaller: our state and local legislatures. Push for bills to bring the National Guard home and to test veterans for depleted uranium. And push state legislatures to send impeachment charges to the House of Representatives. Work with cities and counties, as well as political parties, to pass resolutions supporting impeachment. Support whistleblowers and remember that we have friends and potential friends throughout the Bush Administration. Encourage resistance from within and truthtelling. And if you work for the administration and can resign, do so. And if you know something, speak out. Similarly, if you are a reporter and your editor kills a story that is important to our democracy, blog it or leak it to a blogger. A lot of organizations that should be opposing this war and demanding impeachment are not yet doing so. We must pressure them to join the movement. We need to pressure activist organizations, including unions to oppose the war. We also need to encourage peace organizations to work for economic justice, and vice versa. In some parts of the country most of these campaigns are well advanced. The most useful thing people can do in those areas is to support efforts elsewhere. Reach out to nearby redder areas of your state. Share your lessons. Back anti-war and pro-impeachment Congressional candidates in other districts who need the help. Support activist groups with volunteer work – most of the work is brainless and boring but crucial – and with money; forego buying something you do not need and, instead, make a contribution to a peace or impeachment organization. Support or – better – participate in upcoming important events. Winter Of Our Discontent February 15 to March 19 Washington, D.C. Voices for Creative Nonviolence is organizing this campaign to help strengthen grassroots opposition and nonviolent resistance to the continued war against the people of Iraq. A core group will journey to Washington, D.C. to organize a 33 day fast, vigils, lobbying and nonviolent civil disobedience during this period. Others will join the core group in D.C. for shorter periods of time. Still others will organize local actions in their home communities. VCNV invites you to join them in D.C. for part or all of the Winter of Our Discontent. If you are not able to travel to D.C., you are encouraged to organize actions in your local community. Women Say No to War March 8, International Women's Day At White House and around the world Students Say No to War in Iraq March 13-17 on campuses everywhere, marking three years of war. Veterans' and Survivors' March from Mobile to New Orleans March 14-19, 2006 Veterans for Peace, Iraq Veterans Against the War, Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Military Families Speak Out, Gold Star Families for Peace, and hurricane survivors' organizations are organizing a five-day march along Gulf Coast Highway 90 to demand the immediate return of our troops from Iraq, and to call for U.S. tax dollars to be spent on human priorities and rebuilding of the devastated Gulf Coast, instead of the illegal occupation of Iraq. UFPJ Anti-War Events Everywhere March 15 to 22, marking three years of war. National Campaign of Nonviolent Actions Planned at Congressional Offices Now through March 20, marking three years of war. March to the Pentagon March 20 Iraq Pledge of Resistance Peace March in New York April 29 World Peace Forum in Vancouver June 23-28 And, perhaps above all, plan to spend Easter and the Summer – what days you can – at Camp Casey in Crawford, Texas. This movement requires a lot of work and some serious risk, but it can also be – and must be to succeed – a great deal of fun, of comfort and solidarity and good times. It's a good thing we have songs! This movement also requires that we keep in mind at all times a clear understanding of our goals: ending the killing and restoring the rule of law, domestic and international. This is not a partisan fight. This is not vengeance. No one is evil. No one is stupid. There are those who have broken the law and need to be held accountable for it. Control of our government needs to be put in the hands of the people and those who honestly represent our interests. Checks and balances need to be restored between the branches of our federal government. But violence in our actions or in our thoughts will not help our cause.