***************************************************************** 05/12/04 **** RADIATION BULLETIN(RADBULL) **** VOL 12.114 ***************************************************************** RADBULL IS PRODUCED BY THE ABALONE ALLIANCE CLEARINGHOUSE ***************************************************************** Send News Stories to news@energy-net.org with title on subject line and first line of body NUCLEAR POLICY 1 Japan Times: Chinese nuclear deal buoys Islamabad 2 AFP: NKorea launches verbal attack on US as talks open 3 Las Vegas SUN: North Korea Proposes High-Level Talks 4 BBC: North Korea nuclear talks begin 5 US: Albuquerque Tribune: ENERGY BILL: N.M. senators concur on incent 6 US: Public Citizen: Senate Energy Tax Package Provides Needless Hand 7 STUFF: PM disappointed by Downer's nuclear comments 8 AU SMH: Downer, NZ Prime Minister in nuclear policy feud - 9 The Advocate: Study calls for cut in submarine fleet NUCLEAR REACTORS 10 US: NRC: NRC Seeks Public Input on Environmental Impact Statement fo 11 US: NRC: In the Matter of Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry 12 US: Cap Times: Opinion: Rob Zaleski: CUB head frets over push for nu 13 US: NRC: NRC Establishes Web Page for Information on Current Technic 14 US: Times Press: Nuclear plant ‘very very safe’ 15 US: NRC: Finding of No Significant Impact and Notice of Availability 16 US: NRC: Westinghouse Electric Company LLC., Environmental Assessmen 17 US: NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Plan NUCLEAR SAFETY 18 US: NRC: NRC Staff Cites Honeywell Illinois Plant for Violating NRC 19 Bellona: New strategic nuclear submarine laid down at Sevmash plant 20 CNEWS: Radioactive devices recovered in Saskatchewan, averting 21 U.S. Newswire: Soaring Stocks of Weapons-Usable Plutonium Demand 22 US: NRC: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Noti 23 US: NRC: STP Nuclear Operating Company; Notice of Withdrawal of NUCLEAR FUEL CYCLE 24 US: NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Meeting on Planning an 25 US: Las Vegas RJ: Dispute surfaces in plan to move nuclear material 26 Las Vegas RJ: License application to come Dec. 23 27 Las Vegas SUN: State GOP's view on Yucca foolish 28 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Nuke tests fall short 29 Las Vegas SUN: State test shows corrosion at Yucca 30 US: NRC: NRC Approves Testing of Full-Scale Rail Cask for Transporta 31 RGJ: Nuclear commission authorizes Yucca-related safety testing 32 US: City Pages: Nuke 'Em! 33 Pahrump Valley Times: Department of Energy too far ahead in Yucca pl 34 Pahrump Valley Times: Volcanic activity at Yucca a concern 35 PRN: LES Supports State Involvement in the NRC License Process 36 KVBC: Concern Mounts Over Radioactive Waste Storage at Yucca 37 US: WFSB: Move of spent nuclear rods delayed 38 US: WXIX: Fernald-Radioactive Cleanup 39 Pahrump Valley Times: NUCLEAR TRANSPORTING South, Northeast OK with NUCLEAR WEAPONS US DEPT. OF ENERGY 40 DOE: the Central Characterization Project (CCP) of transuranic (TRU) 41 Daily Camera: Allard announces clean-up funding for Rocky Flats 42 Tri-City Herald: States threaten to enter lawsuit 43 pogo.org Testimony of POGO's Danielle Brian before the House 44 The Cincinnati Enquirer: Emptying of silos opposed 45 PISJ: Comment sought on plan to demolish old INEEL lab 46 Oak Ridger: ORNL nabs supercomputer deal 47 CEP: NUKE TEST SITE TO TEST AGAINST GERM WAR AGENTS OTHER NUCLEAR 48 Google News Alert - nuclear 49 The Sunflower - May 2004 - Issue 84 ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** FULL NEWS STORIES ***************************************************************** ***************************************************************** 1 Japan Times: Chinese nuclear deal buoys Islamabad Thursday, May 13, 2004 By FARHAN BOKHARI ISLAMABAD -- China's agreement to supply a second 300-megawatt nuclear power reactor to Pakistan encourages Islamabad's ruling establishment, which is eager to develop the country's nuclear energy potential in a significant way. The deal for the new reactor, to be located at Chashma in central Punjab -- next to the first Chinese reactor of a similar size already built -- follows recent reports of U.S. pressure on China to delay the agreement. In recent months, Pakistan's nuclear program has been under the global spotlight following revelations that Abdul Qadeer Khan, the so-called father of Pakistan's nuclear bomb, sold knowhow and technology to Iran, Libya and, possibly, North Korea. The Pakistani government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf must draw satisfaction from Beijing's apparent decision to ignore some of the pressures brought on it to withhold future nuclear deals with Islamabad. The next stage in Pakistan's pursuit of nuclear reactors may be preliminary talks with China on a third reactor, expected to be built in Karachi, the southern port city -- alongside the Canadian-supplied Karachi Nuclear Power Project. Such deals reinforce Pakistan's close ties with China. During the years that Islamabad was denied military hardware by Western suppliers, Beijing remained its closest ally, providing Pakistan with equipment for its defense needs. Other ambitious projects under way at present with Beijing's cooperation include construction of Gwadar port in Baluchistan, Pakistan's southwestern province, and Sino-Pakistani joint development of the JF-17 Thunder fighter aircraft. Meanwhile, Pakistan has not failed to notice China's emergence as a major economic power. Indeed, recent travelers from Pakistan to China have been taken aback by the modernization setting in across the once-stereotypical communist state. Thus Pakistan's attempt to keep its relationship with China driven mainly by defense and strategic considerations is bound to compete with Beijing's pursuit of economic and trade relations with other countries. How will Pakistan deal with the risk of its being eventually reduced to just one of China's partners from a fundamentally close relationship up to now? On the one hand, Pakistan needs to establish many more joint ventures with China in key areas beyond defense while taking fresh stock of the parameters that define security interests. In recent years, reports of a large number of Islamic Pakistani militants venturing into China's northern Xinjiang region to recruit supporters for hardline movements, have not helped bilateral relations. It was only the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York that forced Pakistan's ruling establishment to order a tough military campaign against hardliners, including those involved directly or indirectly with activism in northern China. Activities aimed at undermining China's internal stability and peace should never be tolerated by any Pakistani regime. On the other hand, Pakistan must work aggressively toward encouraging its businessmen to venture into China in search of new investment opportunities. One downside of the relations with China has been that Pakistani businessmen have yet to launch large numbers of investments in China, despite the geographic proximity of the two countries. So far, the largest segment of Pakistani visitors to China comprises small- to medium-size traders eager to import Chinese finished products that are subsequently sold on Pakistan's markets for smuggled goods. Only Pakistani business and industrial ventures in China will move toward establishing a long-term economic partnership in a tangible way. The agreement on a new nuclear reactor, after months of negotiations, marks an important phase in Sino-Pakistani relations. The deal underscores the extent to which China is ready to defy pressure from the United States. But in a changing world, a few deals related to nuclear power or defense may not be enough to assure strong ties well into the future. Farhan Bokhari is a freelance journalist who reports from the Pakistani capital. The Japan Times: May 13, 2004 ***************************************************************** 2 AFP: NKorea launches verbal attack on US as talks open SEOUL (AFP) May 12, 2004 North Korea's official media accused the United States Wednesday of planning to launch a war as working-level talks opened in Beijing to end the 19-month old nuclear standoff. Rodong Sinmun, mouthpiece of North Korea's ruling Workers' Party, urged South Korea to join with the North in opposing what it said were US plans for war on the peninsula. "A touch-and-go tension in the true sense of the word is persisting in Korea due to the US imperialists' reckless moves to start a war against the DPRK (North Korea) under the pretext of the nuclear issue," the report said. "Unavoidable is the confrontation between the Koreans in the north and the south, who are advancing along the road of peace and peaceful reunification, and the US, which is working to block it." The report, carried by the official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA), came as a working group meeting opened in Beijing bringing together delegates from the Koreas, China, Japan, the United States and Russia. North Korea has long sought to drive a wedge between South Korea and the United States, who have been allies since they fought off an invasion by the communist North during the 1950-53 Korean war. "It is a false propaganda to claim that the US is a 'friendly country' and an 'ally' of South Korea," the report said. "In fact, the US has brought disgrace, humiliation and disaster to South Korea." North Korea has so far been frustrated in its efforts to win South Korean support for its demand for concessions from the United States in return for a nuclear freeze. The working level talks in Beijing were supposed to pave the way for full-scale six way talks before the end of June. Differences remain wide between Washington, and Pyongyang, however, and a breakthrough is unlikely in the deadlock that has lasted since Washington accused North Korea of running a clandestine nuclear weapons program 19 months ago. Pyongyang has offered to freeze its nuclear facilities only if Washington provides economic aid and a non-aggression pledge. Washington wants the nuclear schemes scrapped as a first step. Two rounds of six-party talks have failed to narrow the differences. WAR.WIRE ***************************************************************** 3 Las Vegas SUN: North Korea Proposes High-Level Talks Today: May 12, 2004 at 7:21:30 PDT By JAE-SUK YOO ASSOCIATED PRESS SEOUL, South Korea (AP) - North Korea on Wednesday proposed holding high-level military talks with South Korea on May 26 aimed at reducing tension centered on the international standoff over the communist state's nuclear weapons development. In a telephone message, the North suggested that officials meet on the border Friday to work out the proposed high-level talks, the South's Defense Ministry said. The North proposed holding the high-level talks May 26 at its east coast Diamond Mountain resort, it said. The South did not have an immediate response, but it has repeatedly urged the North for such high-level military talks. Seoul had hoped to hold the talks this month to discuss ways of avoiding naval skirmishes along the poorly marked western sea border as fishing boats jostle for position during crab-catching season in May and June. North Korean fishing boats have occasionally crossed into waters controlled by South Korea during crab season. North and South Korea fought deadly naval gunbattles in the western sea in 1999 and 2002. South Korea said several sailors were wounded, and that up to 30 North Koreans died in the 1999 clash. In 2002, one South Korean warship sank, killing six of its sailors. The North said it suffered casualties, but didn't confirm how many. South Korea recognizes a sea border demarcated by the United Nations after the end of the 1950-53 Korean War. North Korea has never recognized it and claims a boundary farther south. The two Koreas often claim intrusions by the other side's naval ships and fishing boats. Also Wednesday, a South Korean report said Pyongyang demanded aid in exchange for freezing its nuclear weapons program as it began low-level talks with the United States and four other nations. The Yonhap News Agency, citing unidentified diplomatic sources, reported that North Korean envoys said the success of the low-level talks would depend on whether the United States. Also taking part are China, South Korea, Russia and Japan. The "working group" talks are meant to help produce an agenda for a third round of high-level talks on the North's nuclear ambitions, which host Beijing hopes takes place before July. Even as envoys from the six nations sat down to talk, the North Korean government unleashed more vitriol from Pyongyang, with the newspaper Rodong Sinmun accusing the United States of using the nuclear issue as a pretext for war. "It is a false propaganda to claim that the U.S. is a 'friendly country'," said the commentary, carried on North Korea's official KCNA news agency. Whether the rhetoric - typical for the isolated North - would set the tone for the negotiations was unclear. Host China has said North Korean leader Kim Jong Il expressed his commitment to the talks and to a "nuclear weapon-free goal" when he visited Beijing last month. On Wednesday, "North Korea renewed its reward-for-freeze demand and warned that the success of the talks will depend on whether the United States accepts its demand or not," Yonhap said. The United States and its allies say they are willing to provide aid if North Korea freezes its nuclear facilities and commits itself to dismantling them. Washington says such a freeze must be a temporary step toward permanent dismantling. North Korea has balked at making such a commitment, and insists on aid and a freeze taking place simultaneously. There was no immediate comment from the U.S. delegation. The dispute erupted in October 2002 when the United States said North Korea's isolated Stalinist regime admitted operating a secret nuclear program in violation of a 1994 agreement. Going into the latest meeting, North Korea promised "patience and magnanimity" but warned of unspecified "very serious consequences" if Washington presses its demand to dismantle the program without discussing aid. The State Department says its envoy, Joseph DeTrani, might hold a rare one-on-one meeting with North Korea's delegate during the talks at a Chinese government guesthouse. No date has been set for the end of the meeting but U.S. officials say they expect it to last several days. In Seoul, South Korea's foreign minister said the talks will focus on two issues: making the Korean Peninsula nuclear weapons-free and taking "corresponding measures" for a North Korean freeze. "We hope that the countries involved in the talks will avoid confrontational attitudes and get down to deep and concrete talks on the key issues," said Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon. The North, however, took a tough stance on the eve of the Beijing talks. "The `reward for freeze' should be taken up as a major agenda item at the working group meeting," Pyongyang said in a statement carried by its state news agency. "If the U.S. turns aside this and takes the meeting as an opportunity to insist on" a complete dismantling, "that will entail very serious consequences," the statement said. Though it gave no details, the North says it is pushing ahead with developing a "nuclear deterrent" needed to avert what it says is the possibility of a U.S. invasion. North and South Korea are technically still at war since the 1950-53 Korean War, which ended without a peace treaty. Their two militaries, still facing off across the world's most heavily fortified border, seldom hold talks, although their governments have expanded economic and political exchanges in recent years. -- ***************************************************************** 4 BBC: North Korea nuclear talks begin Last Updated: Wednesday, 12 May, 2004 [North Korean spent nuclear fuel rods in Yongbyon] What goes on in North Korea's nuclear facilities is unclear Officials from six countries have begun low-level discussions in Beijing, aimed at dismantling North Korea's nuclear weapons programme. The talks bring together both Koreas, the US, China, Russia and Japan. The crisis began in October 2002, when the US said North Korea was working on a secret uranium enrichment programme. North and South Korea also announced plans for their first general-level military talks for over 50 years, in a bid to ease tensions in the region. The defence ministers of the two Koreas have met before, as have junior military officers. But generals - the most senior working military officers - have not held talks since the end of the Korean war in 1953. Defence officials in Seoul said the talks - which North Korea will host - are to take place on 26 May. Caution Wednesday's nuclear talks come after two rounds of high-level meetings failed to yield any major progress. The working-group meetings are to meant to help prepare for a third round of six-nation talks, expected to take place in Beijing before the end of June. Washington wants North Korea to scrap its nuclear programme, but Pyongyang is seeking compensation even for a partial freeze. Negotiators are meeting behind closed doors charged with fleshing out the details - but few expect any progress. Some analysts predict that Washington is unlikely to make any compromises ahead of the presidential election in November. And North Korea has stepped up its rhetoric ahead of the talks, warning the US to stop wasting time. For its part, China sees these working-level talks as a step forward, the first sign of any progress since the North Korean leader, Kim Jong-il, visited Beijing last month. But Beijing is downplaying hopes of breakthrough, saying all sides should have reasonable expectations. ***************************************************************** 5 Albuquerque Tribune: ENERGY BILL: N.M. senators concur on incentives May 12, 2004 By James W. Brosnan Scripps Howard News Service WASHINGTON - Half the federal energy bill is showing signs of life. And for one day, at least, New Mexico Sens. Pete Domenici and Jeff Bingaman weren't quarreling over it. The tax provisions of the energy bill passed the Senate as part of a business tax bill Tuesday night after an attempt by Sen. John McCain, an Arizona Republican, to strip out the energy portion failed 85-13. Both Domenici, an Albuquerque Republican, and Bingaman, a Silver City Democrat, voted to keep the energy tax provisions in the final bill. The measure, which revises export tax credits to bring the United States in compliance with the World Trade Organization, now heads to an uncertain fate in the House of Representatives. Domenici, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has accused Bingaman, the ranking Democrat on the committee, of joining with other Democrats to block passage of the energy bill. Bingaman has said he acted to preserve the Democrats' right to offer amendments. Both were in agreement Tuesday about the need to extend $14 billion worth of tax credits for solar and wind energy production, alternative-fueled vehicles, energy-saving appliances and oil, gas and coal production incentives. "This is not a silver bullet. This does not solve our energy problems. But on balance these are very positive actions we can take," Bingaman said. Said Domenici: "For New Mexico, the tax package will mean more incentives for oil and gas production from marginal wells." Domenici said he would now turn his attention to passage of the other half of the energy bill that could not be included in the Tuesday's tax bill. Those provisions include mandatory conservation goals for federal buildings, new efficiency standards for consumer products, authorization for a natural gas pipeline from Alaska, new incentives for nuclear power and reliability standards for the nation's electric grid. © The Albuquerque Tribune. Users of this site are subject to our ***************************************************************** 6 Public Citizen: Senate Energy Tax Package Provides Needless Handouts to Oil Giants May 11, 2004 Statement of Joan Claybrook, President of Public Citizen The Senate is expected to vote on a corporate tax reform package that has $7 billion in corporate tax breaks, incorporated from the stalled energy bill, that benefit oil, gas, coal and nuclear companies.   Most significantly, the legislation will do nothing to reduce gas prices, decrease consumption, or increase domestic energy production. If it passes, the biggest beneficiaries will be the oil giants  not consumers. It is fiscally irresponsible to dole out $7 billion in tax cuts to energy corporations that are enjoying some of the largest profits in the U.S. economy. The tax package allocates $4.8 billion to oil corporations to provide various incentives for increased domestic drilling.   Using taxpayer money to subsidize corporations such as ExxonMobil, ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, BP and Shell, which together enjoyed aftertax profits of $60 billion in 2003 alone, is ludicrous. It makes no sense to lend a helping hand to corporations that profit greatly from drilling for oil and natural gas in the United States, especially when high domestic prices for these energy commodities provide ample incentive to increase production. The tax package would also expand the nuclear industrys preferential tax breaks, inappropriately shifting nearly $1 billion in costs of decommissioning nuclear power plants from the nuclear industry to taxpayers.  The bill grants corporations $1.7 billion to promote the use of coal for Americas electricity. This is a poor investment of taxpayer dollars because so-called clean coal is a failed technology  too dirty to deserve such a generous handout. There is much to be done to shape a sound national energy policy.  But giving tax breaks to wealthy corporations is not the right place to start. ### ***************************************************************** 7 STUFF: PM disappointed by Downer's nuclear comments New Zealand's leading news and information website Thursday, 13 May 2004 Prime Minister Helen Clark says she is disappointed Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has seen fit to comment on New Zealand foreign policy. Mr Downer was reported in an Auckland newspaper today as saying governments needed to reflect on their national interest when confronted with difficult political issues. He attacked the previous National government for not repealing legislation banning nuclear-propelled ships from New Zealand ports when it had the chance to. Mr Downer told the newspaper he could understand the Labour Government's stance on the anti-nuclear legislation. "It was an article of faith. It introduced this legislation – it's part of Labour's agenda. "But it wasn't for the National Party, and it had all those years in government and didn't repeal it." Miss Clark said: "I am disappointed with the comments, because the New Zealand Government takes great care not to comment on Australian government policy. "In the normal course of events our restraint is reciprocated; this is not one of those occasions. "The Labour government will very strongly assert that decisions about New Zealand foreign policy are made in New Zealand by New Zealanders, and not by anybody else," she said. ***************************************************************** 8 AU SMH: Downer, NZ Prime Minister in nuclear policy feud - www.smh.com.au Sydney Morning Herald Online. May 13, 2004 - 10:01AM + Prime Minister Helen Clark says she is disappointed Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has seen fit to comment on New Zealand foreign policy. Downer was reported in the New Zealand Herald newspaper today as saying governments needed to reflect on their national interest when confronted with difficult political issues. He attacked the previous National government for not repealing legislation banning nuclear-propelled ships from New Zealand ports when it had the chance to. Downer told the newspaper he could understand the Labour Government's stance on the anti-nuclear legislation. "It was an article of faith. It introduced this legislation - it's part of Labour's agenda. "But it wasn't for the National Party, and it had all those years in government and didn't repeal it." Clark told NZPA: "I am disappointed with the comments, because the New Zealand Government takes great care not to comment on Australian government policy. Advertisement Advertisement "In the normal course of events our restraint is reciprocated; this is not one of those occasions. "The Labour government will very strongly assert that decisions about New Zealand foreign policy are made in New Zealand by New Zealanders, and not by anybody else," she said. Clark said the comments did show how frustrated other governments got when New Zealand politicians said one thing to them but did another, as National had done. Downer has said he had no doubt National had wanted to get rid of the nuclear-free policy, but failed to act during its nine years in power. Clark last week released official notes of a meeting National Party leader Don Brash had with visiting United States senators, in which he was reported to have said a National government would end the nuclear ban "by lunchtime". Downer had confirmed National was also saying one thing privately about the nuclear issue in Australia while backing off doing anything in public, Clark said. "This now confirms what is coming to light with the National Party in Opposition," she said. "They will mutter one thing to ministers and officials from other countries, but say another thing at home. "It's that core duplicity that is being exposed." Brash told NZPA that New Zealanders would decide what to do about anti-nuclear legislation, "not the political leaders of another country, even when that country is a very friendly country". National last week issued a discussion paper raising the prospect the ban on nuclear-propelled ships could be scrapped while the ban on nuclear weapons was retained. Only United States submarines and aircraft carriers are nuclear-powered, and neither were likely to visit New Zealand, ban or no ban. Former prime minister Jim Bolger's National government considered a report by the Somers Commission which found no public safety or environmental reasons for continuing a ban on nuclear-propelled ships. It failed to overhaul the legislation. "They just thought it would be politically too difficult," Downer told the newspaper. "It wouldn't have been popular, I would have been the first to accept that. But what would New Zealand look like today? "Would New Zealand be just a mushroom cloud today if the National Party had repealed that legislation? - I think not. "After all, we don't have the legislation and we're not a mushroom cloud." Copyright © 2004. The Sydney Morning ***************************************************************** 9 The Advocate: Study calls for cut in submarine fleet Associated Press May 12, 2004 WASHINGTON -- The Navy Wednesday said reports that a study is recommending the submarine fleet be cut by a third are very preliminary, and no decisions have been made. But members of Congress are already vowing to fight any efforts to trim the fleet, and a Connecticut senator Wednesday filed his official objection to the plan with the Navy's operations' chief. Navy Lt. Amy Gilliland said there are several ongoing studies by the Defense Department and the Navy to assess the fleet strength and determine the Navy's current and future needs. But none are completed, she said. "The Navy continually assesses force structure to ensure we are tailored to best meet joint mission requirements for both today and in the future," Gilliland said. A published report Wednesday confirmed testimony earlier this year that a Navy study would propose slashing the submarine fleet from about 55 vessels to 37 by retiring older submarines and ordering fewer of the new Virginia class models. "I am at a loss to understand how the Defense Department could reach such startling conclusions, as the United States only grows more dependent on these stealthy platforms in the conduct of intelligence, reconnaissance, surveillance and attack missions," said Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, D-Conn., in a letter to Adm. Vernon E. Clark, chief of naval operations. The new submarines are being built by Electric Boat in Connecticut and Newport News Shipbuilding in Virginia. EB employs about 1,100 people in Groton, Conn., and Rhode Island. Ronald O'Rourke, defense specialist for the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, testified about the report in March in front of the House Armed Services Committee. He said there are concerns that the study, done by a Navy programming and budgeting office, would stall plans to build two submarines a year, which is supposed to begin in 2009. O'Rourke said Wednesday that he believes the report is finished and it determined that fewer submarines were needed if the vessels were used only for war fighting, while surveillance, intelligence and reconnaissance duties were shifted to satellites, unmanned aircraft and other vehicles. Lawmakers, however, said decisions should be made based on the Navy's needs, not on budget constraints. "The stealth and range of submarines makes them one of the most critical weapons of the U.S. Armed Forces in their fight against terrorism," said Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I. "It would be a foolish and shortsighted to use a reduction in submarines as a means of cutting costs." And Rep. Rob Simmons, R-Conn., said Congress "will not stand idly by while unnamed bean-counters in the Pentagon propose cost-saving measures." The House defense panel was expected to vote late Wednesday on the military authorization bill for 2005, and there was no indication submarine orders or funds would be cut at all. And Dodd noted in his letter that the Navy report would contradict a 1999 study by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff that concluded the Navy needed 68 attack submarines by 2015, and 76 by 2025 to respond to emerging threats throughout the world. A larger Defense Department study on undersea warfare is ongoing and expected to be complete next year. The Navy in January signed a five-year, $8.4 billion contract with EB and Newport News for five Virginia class nuclear submarines, cementing a congressional plan to provide a more stable, cost-effective shipbuilding program. Some of the work will be done in Quonset Point, R.I. Lawmakers and company officials said the long-term commitment will achieve significant cost savings, and could lead to contracts for two ships a year later this decade. Copyright © 2004, The Associated Press © 2004, Southern Connecticut Newspapers, Inc. All rights ***************************************************************** 10 NRC: NRC Seeks Public Input on Environmental Impact Statement for Proposed Millstone Nuclear Plant License Renewal News Release - Region I - 2004-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region I No. I-04-030 May 11, 2004 CONTACT: Diane Screnci (610) 337-5330 Neil A. Sheehan (610) 337-5331 E-mail: opa1@nrc.gov Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff will conduct two public meetings on Tuesday, May 18, on the environmental review related to the application submitted by Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., to renew the operating licenses for its Millstone 2 and 3 nuclear power plants in Waterford, Conn. Members of the public are invited to attend and comment on environmental issues the NRC should consider in its review of the proposed license renewal. There will be two sessions held that day in the auditorium at Waterford Town Hall, 15 Rope Ferry Road in Waterford. The first session will begin at 1:30 p.m. and continue until 4:30 p.m. The second session, which will be a repeat of the first session, will get under way at 7 p.m. and continue until 10 p.m. The NRC will host an open house beginning one hour before the start of each meeting to provide members of the public with an opportunity to talk informally with agency staff. However, formal comments must be expressed during the transcribed meetings. Both sessions will begin with an overview and an NRC staff presentation on the environmental review process for license renewal. After the NRC presentation, members of the public will be given the opportunity to present their comments on environmental issues they believe the NRC should consider during its review. Under NRC regulations, the original operating license for a nuclear power plant has a term of 40 years. The license may be renewed for up to an additional 20 years if NRC requirements are met. The current operating license for Millstone 2 is due to expire on July 31, 2015, while the current operating license for Millstone 3 is scheduled to terminate on November 25, 2025. (The Millstone Unit 1 reactor has been permanently shut down since July 1998.) Dominion submitted its license renewal application on January 22 of this year. As part of its application, the company submitted an environmental report. The application can be reviewed via the NRCs web site at: www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applications/mil lstone.html. In addition, the document is available for review at the following libraries: + The Waterford Public Library, 49 Rope Ferry Road, Waterford; and + The Thames River Campus Library at Three Rivers Community College, 574 New London Turnpike, Norwich, Conn. An existing NRC document, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG-1437), assesses the scope and impact of environmental effects that would be associated with license renewal at any nuclear power plant site. The document for which the NRC will gather information at the May 18th meetings will be a supplement to that generic environmental statement that is specific to Millstone. It will contain a recommendation regarding the environmental acceptability of the license renewal action. At the conclusion of the information-gathering process, the NRC staff will prepare a summary of the conclusions reached and significant issues identified. A copy will be sent to each person who participated in the scoping process. The summary will also be available on the NRCs web site through the Public Electronic Reading Room at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html and at the previously mentioned libraries. Help in accessing documents through the Reading Room is available by contacting the NRCs Public Document Room at 1-800-397-4209 or by e-mail at pdr@nrc.gov. The NRC staff will subsequently prepare a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) supplement for public comment and will hold a public meeting to solicit comments. After consideration of comments on the draft report, the NRC will prepare a final EIS supplement. Interested individuals may register to attend or present oral comments at the May 18th meetings by contacting Richard L. Emch, Jr., at 1-800-368-5642, ext. 1590, or Jennifer Davis at 1-800-368-5642, ext. 3835, or by e-mail at MillstoneEIS@nrc.govby May 14. Those who wish to offer comments may also register at the meetings within 15 minutes of the start of each session. Individual oral comments may be limited by the time available, depending on the number of persons who register. In addition, members of the public may send written comments on the environmental scoping process for the supplement to the GEIS to: Chief, Rules and Directive Branch, Division of Administrative Services, Office of Administration, Mailstop T-6 D59, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. 20555-0001. Comments may also be delivered to the NRC, Room T-6 D59, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Md., from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. during Federal workdays. To be considered, written comments should be postmarked or dropped off by June 4. Electronic comments can also be sent via e-mail to MillstoneEIS@nrc.gov, again no later than June 4. Last revised Wednesday, May 12, 2004 ***************************************************************** 11 NRC: In the Matter of Tennessee Valley Authority; Browns Ferry FR Doc 04-10737 [Federal Register: May 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 92)] [Notices] [Page 26414-26416] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my04-79] Nuclear Plant, 6A Lookout Place, 1101 Market Street, Chattanooga, Tennessee 37402-2801; Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) I Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has been issued a general license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) authorizing storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 10 CFR part 50, and 10 CFR part 72. This Order is being issued to TVA who has identified near term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR part 72. The Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require TVA to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with 10 CFR part 73, appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.55. II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order [[Page 26415]] to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community and other governmental agencies, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1 \1\ of this Order, on TVA who has indicated near term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR part 72. These interim requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains SAFEGUARDS information and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Commission recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at TVA's facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. In order to provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. TVA's general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in the circumstances described above, the public health, safety and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. III Accordingly, pursuant to sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR Sec. 2.202 and 10 CFR parts 50, 72 and 73, It is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your general license is modified as follows: A. TVA shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in their security plan. TVA shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation before spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI. B. 1. TVA shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If they are unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. If TVA considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, TVA must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, TVA must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1. C. 1. TVA shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1. 2. TVA shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. TVA's responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by TVA of good cause. IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, TVA must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region II; and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301- 415-1101, or by e-mail to and also to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725, or by e-mail to . If a person other than TVA requests a hearing, that [[Page 26416]] person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by TVA or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), TVA may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7 day of May, 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jack Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 04-10737 Filed 5-11-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 12 Cap Times: Opinion: Rob Zaleski: CUB head frets over push for nuke power (captimes.com) The Capital Times Wednesday, May 12, 2004 11:52 PM By Rob Zaleski Charlie Higley had a hunch this was coming. He figured that as electric rates continued to soar and the debate over dirty air intensified, we'd see a major nationwide push for nuclear energy. And that's exactly what's happened. In the seven months since Higley took over as executive director of the Citizens' Utility Board, all sorts of people - including UW-Madison Chancellor John Wiley, who's a physicist - have joined the Bush administration in calling for a new era of nuclear plant construction. But while he agrees there's an urgent need in Wisconsin for new power plants and electric transmission lines, Higley - who once worked for Public Citizen, the national consumer advocacy group founded by Ralph Nader - says he'll do everything he can to remind people why state lawmakers voted to ban new nuclear plants back in 1984. Higley doesn't dispute that the nation's fleet of approximately 100 nuclear plants has a commendable record and "continues to operate better each year, generally." But in the final analysis, it really comes down to one thing - safety, Higley says. And while the odds of a nuclear accident remain slim, the potential devastation is such that it would be absolutely foolish to start down that road again, he contends. Particularly after the close call we had with Three Mile Island in 1979. Nuclear advocates don't like to acknowledge this, Higley says, "but if that accident had gotten just a little worse, it could have resulted in a catastrophe not unlike Chernobyl - with radiation escaping into the environment and contaminating a huge area. It could have killed thousands of people and caused billions of dollars in property damage." And keep in mind, the nuclear industry got another scare just two years ago when the Davis-Besse plant near Toledo, Ohio, was shut down after it was discovered that boric acid had nearly eaten through the plant's six-foot-thick steel reactor cap. But then, Davis-Besse was built back in the 1970s - as were Wisconsin's two nuclear plants (Point Beach, near Two Rivers, and the Kewaunee plant), Higley points out. And the older those plants get, the greater the likelihood of a breakdown. "It's just like an old car," he says. "You can keep maintaining it, but it gets more expensive over time and something critical can go wrong." And, to be sure, an accident isn't the only concern, Higley says. Fact is, there's still no safe way to store nuclear wastes for the thousands of years that would be needed, he says. And that includes the proposed underground site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada - which, he says, "is riddled with earthquake faults" and is just 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, the fastest-growing city in the country. And finally, there's the very real possibility that terrorists might try to fly an airplane into a nuclear plant, Higley says. Or, more plausible yet, try to blow up a truck or train that's transporting nuclear wastes to Yucca Mountain. Still, as troubled as he is by the nuclear revival movement, Higley says he's also seen some positive signs in his seven months on the job. For one, the state's finally showing an interest in wind power - which, he notes, already provides about 20 percent of the electricity in Denmark. And he's encouraged that - after years of resistance - the U.S. car industry is starting to build fuel-efficient gas-electric hybrids. (Ford, for instance, recently announced that its Escape SUV hybrid, which gets 35 to 40 miles a gallon in the city, goes on sale this summer.) At the same time, Higley admits being both shocked and dismayed to learn that the owners of the Kewaunee plant want to sell the facility to Dominion Resources of Virginia - a move he argues would force ratepayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more for electricity. And he says he's downright mystified by the lack of interest state lawmakers have shown in promoting energy efficiency in homes and businesses - as evidenced by the fact that the governor and the Legislature actually cut the budget for the Focus on Energy program last year. "Here I am saying we need more power plants and power lines, which I know is going to raise our rates. That's the simple reality," Higley says. "On the other hand, I'm troubled that the message that we need more energy efficiency somehow is getting lost. "I mean, that's got to be paramount - and yet it never gets the attention it deserves," he sighs. "It's strange." Published: 9:51 AM 5/12/04 [''] Copyright 2003 The Capital Times ***************************************************************** 13 NRC: NRC Establishes Web Page for Information on Current Technical Issues at Vermont Yankee News Release - 2004-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 04-057 May 12, 2004 the agencys Web site to consolidate information on technical issues at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, including Entergy Nuclears application to increase the plants power output by 20 percent. The page includes correspondence both to and from the NRC concerning the uprate, spent fuel pool inventory and other issues. Links on the page provide information on issues such as public meetings and opportunities for public participation in the uprate review process. The page also includes a link to the NRCs review standard for extended power uprates. Information on other technical issues at Vermont Yankee will be added to the page as necessary. The pages address on the NRC web site is: http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/plant-specific-items/vermont-yankee-i ssues.html. Last revised Wednesday, May 12, 2004 ***************************************************************** 14 Times Press: Nuclear plant ‘very very safe’ By CHARLES STANLEY — For The Times-Press BROOKFIELD TOWNSHIP — Exelon’s La Salle Nuclear Station was operated “very very” safely during 2003 and without any cause for concern by local residents, officials from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission have reported. Officials of the NRC met recently with representatives from Exelon for an annual review of their inspection findings. The La Salle plant has provided “average” compliance with NRC regulations, said Bruce Burgess, the NRC Region 3 branch chief, “Average in our nomenclature means we’ve looked to make sure they’re exceeded regulatory requirements.” The plant is a two-unit nuclear generating facility capable of generating 1,140 net megawatts per unit. Together the units can produce enough power to support the electricity needs of over two million average American homes. Based on more than 1,700 hours of inspections, the NRC concluded the plant does not require additional special inspections. “We’ve taken a look at these guys and they seem to be able to identify their own problems and fix them,” said Dan Kimble, the NRC’s senior resident inspector for the plant since April 2003. “As long as they’re able to do that, we’re not going to get in their way. But we will monitor and keep an eye on what they’re doing and verify that they’re doing it correctly.” An item identified as a concern by Burgess was “a rash of human performance errors ... that lead us to believe people aren’t paying as much attention to their jobs as they could be.” That situation was acknowledged by George Barnes, the site vice-president for Exelon. “Human performance at La Salle is not where it needs to be. We have work to do,” he said. The meeting was held in public at the Brookfield Township town hall. About two dozen people were in attendance, with virtually all of them being from the power plant or government agencies. Besides the NRC officials there were two representatives from the Illinois Emergency Management Agency’s Division of Nuclear Safety. The state participates with the federal government on inspections, said Richard Suffa, an IEMA inspection supervisor. Suffa said state officials only were there to listen: “But we don’t have any issue with what was said.” The only member of the public in attendance was La Salle County Board Member Jack Leininger. He asked how long the plant was built to operate, and was told it was in the 22nd year of the 40 years it was licensed to operate. But Barnes also noted evaluation was underway on whether to seek a 20-year extension. Also in response to a question by Leininger, a plant official acknowledged a firearms firing range was being constructed west of the plant, facing to the northwest. Leininger also commended the plant for its community participation with such agencies as the United Way and Illinois River Area Chamber of Commerce. “It doesn’t go unnoticed,” he said. Fast facts: • To report an emergency at the La Salle Station, local residents can place a collect call to (301) 816-5100. • To report a safety concern, they can call (800) 695-7403 or e-mail allegation@nrc.gov. • For general information about the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, go online at www.nrc.gov. • Dan Kimble, NRC senior resident inspector, can be reached by phone at 357-8611, or e-mail at dek@nrc.gov. This web site and server is updated and maintained by The Times Press, Streator IL Copyright (c) 2004 The Times Press Publishing Co., L.C.C., All Rights Reserved ***************************************************************** 15 NRC: Finding of No Significant Impact and Notice of Availability of FR Doc 04-10733 [Federal Register: May 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 92)] [Notices] [Page 26416-26417] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my04-80] the Environmental Assessment Addressing a License Amendment Request To Approve Rio Algom Mining LLC's Erosion Protection Design at Its Lisbon Uranium Mill Tailings Impoundment Located in San Juan County, UT AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Notice of Availability of an Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jill Caverly, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T8-A33, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-6699 and e-mail jsc1@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of an amendment to Rio Algom Mining LLC's (Rio Algom) Source Materials License SUA-1119. The proposed action updates the erosion control design for reclamation of uranium mill tailings at Rio Algom's Lisbon uranium mill facility near La Sal, Utah. Appendix A, Title 10, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), Part 40, requires that former uranium mill sites provide protection for 1000 years against forces that will cause erosion or at a minimum of 200 years. Additionally, regulations require that the design should not require active maintenance. The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's submittal dated September 3, 2002. License Condition 52 of Source Materials License, SUA-1119, requires Rio Algom to provide plans addressing the overall site stability. This submittal is a response to that requirement. Pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, the NRC has prepared an environmental assessment (EA) to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with this request. Based on this evaluation, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate for the proposed licensing action. II. EA Summary The EA was prepared to evaluate the environmental impacts associated with Rio Algom's Erosion Control Facility Design for surface erosion at its Lisbon uranium mill facility. This action will result in an amendment to its Source Materials License, SUA-1119, License Condition 52. The proposed amendment to Source Materials License, SUA-1119, will amend License Condition 52F and verify that Rio Algom's design meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. Criterion 6 of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A, requires that uranium mill tailings be disposed of in an area that provides reasonable assurance of control of radiological hazards and be effective for 1000 years to the extent reasonably achievable and, in any case, for at least 200 years. In order to meet this requirement, Rio Algom's design must meet the requirements of its license condition. This includes: (1) Addressing potential for erosive velocities in the soil portion of the spillway channel and rock erosion control design of the swale; (2) revising the erosion protection at the toe of the upper tailings dam; (3) considering scour; (4) reviewing rock apron design; (5) address sedimentation; (6) analyzing natural tributary inflows to the diversion channel; (7) reviewing riprap thickness; (8) analyzing strear stress effects; (9) analyzing rock durability and tests bedrock competency; and (10) devising an inspection for the filter and riprap placement. The EA evaluated the potential impacts of construction and placement of runoff control features including placement of rock riprap. In addition, the EA addressed environmental impacts for rock placement on the top and side slopes of the tailings impoundment, diversion channels, and transition aprons. Construction impacts due to placement and transport of the rock were also considered. The proposed action is necessary because the regulations and Rio Algom's license require that an engineered barrier be placed over tailings and byproduct material and that the design meets the requirements of 10 CFR Part 40, Appendix A. III. Finding of No Significant Impact Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC has prepared the EA, summarized above. The staff has determined that no significant environmental impacts are expected when the erosion cover is constructed. There will be no significant or additional impacts to the surface features because the erosions protection will be placed on areas where tailings have been covered with an engineered soil barrier and will therefore have no significant effect to wildlife. In addition, the licensee will stabilize areas adjacent to the tailings impoundment where run-off from higher drainage areas enters onto the impoundment but no significant environmental impacts will result from this action. The proposed NRC approval of the action when combined with known effects on resource areas at the site, including further site remediation, is not anticipated to result in any cumulative impacts at the sites. Therefore, the NRC staff has concluded that there will be no significant environmental impacts on the quality of [[Page 26417]] the human environment and, accordingly, the staff has determined that preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement is not warranted. IV. Further Information The EA for this proposed action, as well as the licensee's request, as supplemented, are available electronically for public inspection in the NRC's Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. The ADAMS Accession Numbers for the licensee's request, as supplemented, are: ML023020664, ML023020657 and ML040720561. The ADAMS Accession number for the EA is ML041190312. Most of the documents referenced in the EA are also available through ADAMS. Documents can also be viewed electronically on the public computers located at NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), O1 F21, One White Flint, 11555 Rockville Pike, MD 20852. The PDR reproduction contractors will copy documents for a fee. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail at pd@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of May, 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Jill S. Caverly, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 04-10733 Filed 5-11-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 16 NRC: Westinghouse Electric Company LLC., Environmental Assessment and FR Doc 04-10734 [Federal Register: May 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 92)] [Notices] [Page 26417-26418] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my04-81] Issuance of Finding of No Significant Impact Related to Proposed Exemption From the Annual Physical Inventory Frequency Requirement of the Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Finding of no significant impact and environmental assessment. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Don Stout, Fuel Cycle Facilities Branch, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Mail Stop T8-A33, Washington DC 20555-0001, telephone (301) 415-5269 and e-mail . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Introduction The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the issuance of an amendment to NRC Materials License SNM-1107 to allow a one-time exemption that extends the SNM physical inventory completion date by four days at the Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC, (WEC) facility in Columbia, South Carolina, and has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) in support of this action. Based upon the EA, the NRC has concluded that a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) is appropriate, and, therefore, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will not be prepared. II. Environmental Assessment Background The WEC, Nuclear Fuel, Columbia Fuel Fabrication Facility fabricates nuclear fuel assemblies containing low-enriched uranium oxide for use in commercial nuclear power reactors. The NRC staff has received an exemption request (Ref. 1), dated November 21, 2003, to exempt WEC from 10 CFR 74.31(c)(5), requirements that SNM physical inventories be performed at least every 12 months. In Section 5.3.1 of the licensee's NRC approved Fundamental Nuclear Material Control Plan (FNMC), WEC specifies an annual SNM physical inventory will be performed at an interval of at least every 12 months, plus or minus 30 days. Because the last SNM physical inventory was performed on April 18, 2003, the next physical inventory is required to be completed no later than May 18, 2004. WEC requested a license amendment to allow a one-time exemption that extends the SNM physical inventory completion date to May 22, 2004. The purpose of this document is to assess the environmental consequences of the proposed exemption. Review Scope The purpose of this EA is to assess the environmental impacts of the exemption request. It does not approve the request. This EA is limited to the extension of the SNM physical inventory date to May 22, 2004, at the Columbia facility. The existing conditions and operations for the Columbia facility were evaluated by the NRC for environmental impacts in a July 12, 1995, EA related to the renewal of the WEC license (Ref. 2). This assessment will determine whether to issue a FONSI or to prepare an EIS. Should the NRC issue a FONSI, no EIS will be prepared. Proposed Action The proposed action is to grant an exemption from the requirements in 10 CFR 74.31(c)(5) and allow WEC to extend the completion date of the annual SNM physical inventory to May 22, 2004. Purpose and Need for Proposed Action WEC is currently manufacturing nuclear fuel at the Columbia, South Carolina facility. It is requesting an extension from May 18, 2004, to May 22, 2004, to complete its annual SNM physical inventory. This one- time extension expires on May 26, 2004. WEC is requesting this extension because it has a high production workload for the month of April due to the seasonal refueling activities. WEC has indicated that the high production workload may cause significant challenges to achieving a successful and complete physical inventory. Alternatives The alternatives available to the NRC are: 1. Approve the exemption request as submitted; 2. No action (i.e., deny the exemption request). Affected Environment The affected environment for Alternatives 1 and 2 is the WEC site. A full description of the site and its characteristics is given in the 1995 EA related to the renewal of the WEC license (Ref.1). This plant is located in the central part of South Carolina in Richland County, approximately 8 miles southeast of Columbia. The plant is set back approximately 1800 feet from the nearest roadway on a plot of approximately 1,156 acres near the Congaree River. The site is bounded to the north by Highway 48 (Bluff Road), and by the Congaree River to the south. The area adjacent to the site consists primarily of forest. Effluent Releases and Monitoring A full description of the effluent monitoring program at the site is provided in the 1995 EA related to the renewal of the WEC license (Ref. 2). The WEC-Columbia facility conducts effluent and environmental monitoring programs to evaluate potential public health impacts and comply with the NRC effluent and environmental monitoring requirements. The effluent program monitors the airborne, liquid, [[Page 26418]] and solid waste streams produced during operation of the facility. The environmental program monitors the air, surface water, sediment, soil, groundwater, and vegetation in and around the Columbia plant. Airborne, liquid, and solid effluent streams that contain radioactive material generated at the Columbia facility are monitored to ensure compliance with NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 20. The results of effluent monitoring are reported on a semi-annual basis to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 70.59. Airborne and liquid effluents are also monitored for nonradiological constituents in accordance with State discharge permits. For the purpose of this EA, the State of South Carolina is expected to set limits on effluents under its regulatory control that are protective of health and safety and the local environment. Environmental Impacts of Proposed Action The proposed action will not result in the release of any chemical or radiological constituents to the environment. In addition, the proposed action will not cause any adverse impacts to local land use, biotic resources, or cultural resources. Environmental Impacts of No Action Alternative Under the no action alternative, WEC would have to complete the annual SNM physical inventory by May 18, 2004. In order to complete the physical inventory by May 18, 2004, WEC would encounter significant challenges in achieving a successful and complete physical inventory due to a high production workload and the sharing of common resources. Based on its review, the NRC staff has concluded that the environmental impacts associated with the proposed action are insignificant. Thus, the staff considers that Alternative 1 is the appropriate alternative for selection. Agencies and Persons Contacted On April 27, 2004, the NRC staff contacted the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Conservation (DHEC) concerning this request. Based on information provided by the NRC, concerning the exemption allowing the extension of the SNM physical inventory completion date, DHEC did not object to granting this exemption and the EA. The NRC staff has determined that consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act is not required because the proposed action is administrative in nature and will not affect listed species or critical habitat. The NRC staff has determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has potential to cause effect on historic properties because it is administrative in nature. Therefore, consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act is not required. References Unless otherwise noted, a copy of this document and the references listed below will be available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records (PARS) component of NRC's document system (ADAMS). ADAMS is accessible from the NRC Web site at . 1. Westinghouse Electric Company (WEC), LLC, Letter to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``Request for One-Time Exemption to Annual SNM Physical Inventory Frequency Requirement of Fundamental Nuclear Material Control (FNMC) Plan--License Number SNM-1107, Docket 70-1151, November 21, 2003,'' ADAMS No. ML033320331. 2. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), July 1995, ``Environmental Assessment for Renewal of Special Nuclear Material License SNM-1107.'' III. Finding of No Significant Impact Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC staff has considered the environmental consequences of amending WEC Materials License SNM-1107 to exempt WEC from the annual SNM physical inventory requirement in 10 CFR 74.31(c)(5) and extend the completion date. On the basis of this assessment, the Commission has concluded that environmental impacts associated with the proposed action would not be significant and the Commission is making a finding of no significant impact. Accordingly, preparation of an EIS is not warranted. IV. Further Information For further details, see the references listed above. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Room O-1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, . Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or (301) 415-4737, or by e-mail to . Dated at Rockville, Maryland, the 5th day of May 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Robert C. Pierson, Director, Division of Fuel Cycle Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 04-10734 Filed 5-11-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 17 NRC: Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., Indian Point Nuclear Plant, FR Doc 04-10736 [Federal Register: May 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 92)] [Notices] [Page 26412-26413] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my04-76] 440 Hamilton Avenue, White Plains, New York 10601; Order Modifying License (Effective Immediately) I Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (ENO) has been issued a general license by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission) authorizing storage of spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) in accordance with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR Part 72. This Order is being issued to ENO who has identified near term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. The Commission regulations at 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5) and 10 CFR 73.55(h)(1) require ENO to maintain safeguards contingency plan procedures in accordance with 10 CFR Part 73, Appendix C. Specific safeguards requirements are contained in 10 CFR 73.55. II On September 11, 2001, terrorists simultaneously attacked targets in New York, NY, and Washington, DC, utilizing large commercial aircraft as weapons. In response to the attacks and intelligence information subsequently obtained, the Commission issued a number of Safeguards and Threat Advisories to its licensees in order to strengthen licensees' capabilities and readiness to respond to a potential attack on a nuclear facility. The Commission has also communicated with other Federal, State, and local government agencies and industry representatives to discuss and evaluate the current threat environment in order to assess the adequacy of security measures at licensed facilities. In addition, the Commission has been conducting a comprehensive review of its safeguards and security programs and requirements. As a result of its consideration of current safeguards and security plan requirements, as well as a review of information provided by the intelligence community and other governmental agencies, the Commission has determined that certain compensatory measures are required to be implemented by licensees as prudent, interim measures, to address the current threat environment in a consistent manner throughout the nuclear ISFSI community. Therefore, the Commission is imposing requirements, as set forth in Attachment 1\1\ of this Order, on ENO who has indicated near term plans to store spent fuel in an ISFSI under the general license provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. These interim requirements, which supplement existing regulatory requirements, will provide the Commission with reasonable assurance that the public health and safety and common defense and security continue to be adequately protected in the current threat environment. These requirements will remain in effect until the Commission determines otherwise. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- \1\ Attachment 1 contains SAFEGUARDS information and will not be released to the public. ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------- The Commission also recognizes that some measures may not be possible or necessary, or may need to be tailored to accommodate the specific circumstances existing at ENO's facility to achieve the intended objectives and avoid any unforeseen effect on the safe storage of spent fuel. In order to provide assurance that licensees are implementing prudent measures to achieve a consistent level of protection to address the current threat environment, the Commission concludes that security measures must be embodied in an Order consistent with the established regulatory framework. ENO's general license issued pursuant to 10 CFR 72.210 shall be modified to include the requirements identified in Attachment 1 to this Order. In addition, pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202, the Commission finds that in the circumstances described above, the [[Page 26413]] public health, safety and interest require that this Order be effective immediately. III Accordingly, pursuant to Sections 103, 104, 161b, 161i, 161o, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202 and 10 CFR Parts 50, 72 and 73, it is hereby ordered, effective immediately, that your general license is modified as follows: A. ENO shall, notwithstanding the provisions of any Commission regulation or license to the contrary, comply with the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order except to the extent that a more stringent requirement is set forth in their security plan. ENO shall immediately start implementation of the requirements in Attachment 1 to the Order and shall complete implementation before spent fuel is initially placed in the ISFSI. B. 1. ENO shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, notify the Commission: (1) If they are unable to comply with any of the requirements described in Attachment 1, (2) if compliance with any of the requirements is unnecessary in their specific circumstances, or (3) if implementation of any of the requirements would cause the licensee to be in violation of the provisions of any Commission regulation or the facility license. The notification shall provide the licensee's justification for seeking relief from or variation of any specific requirement. 2. If ENO considers that implementation of any of the requirements described in Attachment 1 to this Order would adversely impact the safe storage of spent fuel, ENO must notify the Commission, within twenty (20) days of this Order, of the adverse safety impact, the basis for its determination that the requirement has an adverse safety impact, and either a proposal for achieving the same objectives specified in the Attachment 1 requirement in question, or a schedule for modifying the facility to address the adverse safety condition. If neither approach is appropriate, ENO must supplement its response to Condition B.1 of this Order to identify the condition as a requirement with which it cannot comply, with attendant justifications as required in Condition B.1. C. 1. ENO shall, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order, submit to the Commission, a schedule for achieving compliance with each requirement described in Attachment 1. 2. ENO shall report to the Commission when they have achieved full compliance with the requirements described in Attachment 1. D. Notwithstanding the provisions of 10 CFR 72.212(b)(5), all measures implemented or actions taken in response to this Order shall be maintained until the Commission determines otherwise. ENO's responses to Conditions B.1, B.2, C.1, and C.2, shall be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 72.4. In addition, submittals that contain Safeguards Information shall be properly marked and handled in accordance with 10 CFR 73.21. The Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by ENO of good cause. IV In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, ENO must, and any other person adversely affected by this Order may, submit an answer to this Order, and may request a hearing on this Order, within twenty (20) days of the date of this Order. Where good cause is shown, consideration will be given to extending the time to request a hearing. A request for extension of time in which to submit an answer or request a hearing must be made in writing to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, and include a statement of good cause for the extension. The answer may consent to this Order. Unless the answer consents to this Order, the answer shall, in writing and under oath or affirmation, specifically set forth the matters of fact and law on which the licensee or other person adversely affected relies and the reasons as to why the Order should not have been issued. Any answer or request for a hearing shall be submitted to the Secretary, Office of the Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff, Washington, DC 20555. Copies also shall be sent to the Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, to the Assistant General Counsel for Materials Litigation and Enforcement at the same address; to the Regional Administrator for NRC Region I; and to the licensee if the answer or hearing request is by a person other than the licensee. Because of potential disruptions in delivery of mail to United States Government offices, it is requested that answers and requests for hearing be transmitted to the Secretary of the Commission, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301- 415-1101, or by e-mail to hearingdocket@nrc.gov and also to the Office of the General Counsel, either by means of facsimile transmission to 301-415-3725, or by e-mail to OGCMailCenter@nrc.gov. If a person other than ENO requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.714(d). If a hearing is requested by ENO or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such a hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.202(c)(2)(i), ENO may, in addition to demanding a hearing, at the time the answer is filed or sooner, move the presiding officer to set aside the immediate effectiveness of the Order on the ground that the Order, including the need for immediate effectiveness, is not based on adequate evidence but on mere suspicion, unfounded allegations, or error. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section III above shall be final twenty (20) days from the date of this Order without further order or proceedings. If an extension of time for requesting a hearing has been approved, the provisions specified in Section III shall be final when the extension expires if a hearing request has not been received. An answer or a request for hearing shall not stay the immediate effectiveness of this order. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of May 2004. Jack Strosnider, Director, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. [FR Doc. 04-10736 Filed 5-11-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 18 NRC: NRC Staff Cites Honeywell Illinois Plant for Violating NRC Regulations News Release - Region II - 2004-03 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs, Region II No. II-04-039 May 11, 2004 CONTACT: Ken Clark (404) 562-4416 Roger D. Hannah (404) 562-4417 E-mail: opa2@nrc.gov After a thorough review, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has determined that two violations of NRC requirements occurred as a result of the uranium hexafluoride release at the Honeywell plant in Metropolis, Illinois, in late December 2003. NRC inspectors found that Honeywell employees reconfigured the fluorination system without detailed instructions which allowed the leak to occur. During the event, the company also failed to implement some parts of its emergency response plan and did not provide sufficient information to local emergency responders. The NRC staff seriously considered a civil penalty against the company in recognition of the potential consequences. However, since the company has not been the subject of escalated enforcement action within the past two years, the NRC considered whether credit was warranted for the companys corrective actions. The NRC determined that Honeywell took prompt and comprehensive corrective actions, exceeding those actually required. As a result, the NRC staff is proposing no civil penalty, but warned the company that similar violations in the future could result in further enforcement action. A copy of the NRC letter to Honeywell which provides details of the violations is available from the NRC Office of Public Affairs in Atlanta and will be available through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) on the NRC's Web Site at www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Help in using ADAMS is available from the NRC Public Document Room at 301-415-4737 or 1-800-397-4209. Last revised Wednesday, May 12, 2004 ***************************************************************** 19 Bellona: New strategic nuclear submarine laid down at Sevmash plant The second nuclear strategic submarine 4th generation was laid down at the Sevmash plant in Severodvinsk in March, ITAR-TASS reported. 2004-05-12 13:22 The new submarine of project 955 Borey Class will be called Alexander Nevsky. Russian prince Alexander Nevsky (1220-1263) secured the west frontiers of Russia in the result of victorious battles with Sweden and Teutonic Knights. It is planned to equip Alexander Nevsky with the rescue chamber for the whole crew of 100 submariners. The sub will be armed with modern ballistic missiles, torpedoes and antiaircraft missiles. Vladimir Zdornov headed its design development at the St Petersburg Rubin submarine design bureau. The submarine should be completed in 2008, ITAR-TASS reported. The last nuclear submarine of Borey class Yuriy Dolgoruky was laid down at the Sevmash plant on November 2, 1996, and it should join the navy in 2006, daily Krasnaya Zvezda reported. In the current century Borey class submarines are destined to become the foundation of the Russian navy together with project 971 nuclear multipurpose submarines. According to the Russian navy Chief Commander Vladimir Kuroyedov, the Russian navy should have in operation from 12 to 15 strategic and 50 multipurpose nuclear submarines, ITAR-TASS reported. Publisher: Bellona Foundation, President: Frederic Hauge Information: info@bellona.no, Technical contact: webmaster@bellona.no Telephone: +47 23 23 46 00 Telefax: +47 22 38 38 62 * P.O.Box 2141 Grunerlokka, 0505 Oslo, Norway ***************************************************************** 20 CNEWS: Radioactive devices recovered in Saskatchewan, averting 'dirty bomb' fear www.canoe.ca May 12, 2004 By JIM BRONSKILL © 2004, CANOE, a division of Netgraphe Inc. All ***************************************************************** 21 U.S. Newswire: Soaring Stocks of Weapons-Usable Plutonium Demand International Support of Comprehensive Fissile Material Treaty 5/12/2004 9:56:00 AM To: National Desk, Security Reporter Contact: Tom Clements of Greenpeace, 202-319-2411 or 202-415-6158 (cell), WASHINGTON, May 12 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Global stocks of weapons-usable fissile materials are rising as fast as during the height of the Cold War and must urgently be addressed in a comprehensive treaty, Greenpeace International warned today. "The solution to curbing proliferation in weapons-usable fissile materials -- plutonium and highly enriched uranium (HEU) -- exists via a Comprehensive Fissile Material Treaty (CFMT)," said Shaun Burnie, research director of Greenpeace International's Nuclear Campaign. The draft treaty was presented today by Greenpeace in a noon briefing at the National Press Club and has been distributed to governments worldwide at the United Nations. "Despite acknowledging proliferation and terrorist risks, international efforts by the Bush Administration and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) avoid dealing with the emerging fissile material crisis," said Burnie. "In his February 11 non-proliferation policy, President Bush failed to call for an end to further accumulation and use of all nuclear bomb materials, a policy failure which must be corrected." While most military production of plutonium and HEU has halted, stocks of plutonium in commercial plutonium programs are increasing dramatically. In Japan, France, the UK and Russia, stocks of plutonium will increase by as much as 125 tons by 2015, equal to half the plutonium produced by the nuclear weapon states during the Cold War. While civilian stocks of weapons-usable plutonium have now reached 215 tonnes, rivaling the 250 tonnes in military stocks, some are proposing only a partial fissile treaty to address only some military stocks. Of major proliferation concern in Northeast Asia is Japan's effort to start up the new $20 billion Rokkasho reprocessing plant, capable of producing 7 tonnes of weapons-usable plutonium yearly. "The world can ill afford the non-proliferation failure which start-up of Rokkasho would represent," said Tom Clements, senior adviser to Greenpeace International. Greenpeace made available video of vulnerable plutonium transports in France. "We believe transports of plutoium in Europe present one of the easiest targets for those wishing to steal plutonium," said Burnie. The upcoming G8 summit in Georgia also presents a test of international will to halt commercial use of bomb material, according to Greenpeace. "If the G8 is serious about halting the proliferation of plutonium then it must eliminate funding for a risky plutonium fuel infrastructure in Russia," said Clements. The Greenpeace treaty would place surplus military plutonium under international control, managing it as nuclear waste. http://www.usnewswire.com/ ***************************************************************** 22 NRC: National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST); Notice of FR Doc 04-10732 [Federal Register: May 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 92)] [Notices] [Page 26414] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my04-77] [[Page 26414]] Receipt and Availability of Application for Renewal of the National Institute of Standards and Technology Reactor (the NBSR) Facility Operating License No. TR-5 for an Additional 20-Year Period The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) has received an application, dated April 9, 2004, from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), filed pursuant to Sections 104c of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and 10 CFR Part 50.51(a), to renew Operating License No. TR-5 for the National Institute of Standards and Technology Reactor (the NBSR). NIST requested renewal of the license to authorize operation of the facility for an additional 20-year period beyond the period specified in the current operating license. The current operating license for the NBSR (TR-5) expires on May 16, 2004. In accordance with 10 CFR 2.109(a), NIST's application for renewal was at least 30 days prior to the expiration of an existing license, and therefore the existing license will not be deemed to have expired until the application has been finally determined. The reactor is located on the NIST campus in Gaithersburg, Maryland. The acceptability of the tendered application for docketing, and other matters including an opportunity to request for a hearing, will be the subject of subsequent Federal Register notices. Copies of the application are available for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland, or electronically from the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room under accession number ML041120161. The ADAMS Public Electronic Reading Room is accessible from the NRC Web site at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. In addition, the application is available on the NRC Web page at http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/operating/licensing/renewal/applicati ons.html , while the application is under review. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS should contact the NRC's PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209, extension 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 29th day of April 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Patrick M. Madden, Section Chief, Research and Test Reactors Section, New, Research and Test Reactors Program, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 04-10732 Filed 5-11-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 23 NRC: STP Nuclear Operating Company; Notice of Withdrawal of FR Doc 04-10735 [Federal Register: May 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 92)] [Notices] [Page 26414] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my04-78] Application for Amendment to Facility Operating License The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted the request of STP Nuclear Operating Company acting on behalf of itself and for Texas Genco, LP, the City Public Service Board of San Antonio (CPS), AEP Texas Central Company, and the City of Austin, Texas, (the licensee) to withdraw its March 4, 2004, application for proposed amendment to Facility Operating License No. NPF-80 for the South Texas Project (STP), Unit 2, located in Matagorda County, Texas. The proposed amendment would have revised the Technical Specifications to allow STP, Unit 2 to change modes with standby diesel generator 22 inoperable. The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on March 23, 2004 (69 FR 13596). However, by letter dated April 29, 2004, the licensee withdrew the proposed change. For further details with respect to this action, see the application for amendment dated March 4, 2004, and the licensee's letter dated April 29, 2004, which withdrew the application for license amendment. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/html. Persons who do not have access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS, should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737 or by e-mail to pdr@nrc.gov. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 5th day of May 2004. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Michael Webb, Senior Project Manager, Section 1, Project Directorate IV, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 04-10735 Filed 5-11-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 24 NRC: Advisory Committee on Nuclear Waste; Meeting on Planning and FR Doc 04-10738 [Federal Register: May 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 92)] [Notices] [Page 26418-26419] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my04-82] Procedures; Notice of Meeting The ACNW will hold a Planning and Procedures meeting on May 25, 2004, Room T-2B3, 11545 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The entire meeting will be open to public attendance, with the exception of a portion that may be closed pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (2) and (6) to discuss organizational and personnel matters that relate solely to internal personnel rules and practices of ACNW, and information the release of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. The agenda for the subject meeting shall be as follows: Tuesday, May 25, 2004--8:30 a.m.-10:30 a.m. The Committee will discuss proposed ACNW activities and related matters. The purpose of this meeting is to gather information, analyze relevant issues and facts, and formulate proposed positions and actions, as appropriate, for deliberation by the full Committee. Members of the public desiring to provide oral statements and/or written comments should notify the Designated Federal Official, Mr. Howard J. Larson (Telephone: 301/415-6805) between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.) five days prior to the meeting, if possible, so that appropriate arrangements can be made. Electronic recordings will be permitted only during those portions of the meeting that are open to the public. Further information regarding this meeting can be obtained by contacting the Designated Federal Official between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. (e.t.). Persons planning to attend this meeting are urged to contact the above named [[Page 26419]] individual at least two working days prior to the meeting to be advised of any potential changes in the agenda. Dated: May 6, 2004. Medhat El-Zeftawy, Acting Associate Director for Technical Support, ACRS/ACNW. [FR Doc. 04-10738 Filed 5-11-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P ***************************************************************** 25 Las Vegas RJ: Dispute surfaces in plan to move nuclear material Wednesday, May 12, 2004 House panel gets conflicting reportson plutonium, uranium headed to test site By TONY BATT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- A House subcommittee chairman who has pushed for the transfer of two tons of weapons-grade nuclear materials from New Mexico to the Nevada Test Site heard conflicting reports Tuesday on how much of the plutonium and highly enriched uranium would be moved. Rep. Jim Greenwood, R-Pa., opened the hearing of the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on oversight by saying he was pleased by the March 31 announcement that all of the nuclear material from Technical Area 18 at the Los Alamos National Laboratory would be moved to the test site. The Device Assembly Facility, a secure facility about 85 miles northwest of Las Vegas, would store the nuclear materials. They are considered accessible to terrorists at their location in New Mexico. Deputy Secretary Kyle McSlarrow testified the move would start later this year and would include "all Category I and II special nuclear material," designations for plutonium and highly enriched uranium. But Danielle Brian, the executive director of a nonprofit watchdog group called the Project on Government Oversight, told Greenwood the department plans to move only 50 percent of the nuclear materials. "Perhaps in closed session you can get a commitment when, if ever, they intend to move the other 50 percent," Brian said. Brian made the same charge at an April 27 hearing of a House Government Reform subcommittee. In that hearing, Linton Brooks, chief of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which runs the test site and the Los Alamos lab, disputed Brian's charge and said the department plans to move all of the nuclear materials. Greenwood said he understood that the 50 percent to be moved would include all of the plutonium and highly enriched uranium. "The 50 percent that would remain at Los Alamos will not include any Category I or II nuclear material," Greenwood said. Brian said she could produce a document showing the material transferred would include only 50 percent of the plutonium and highly enriched uranium. Brian urged Greenwood to seek a commitment from Brooks in a closed session after Tuesday's hearing to move all of the nuclear materials to the test site. "I hope this committee holds NNSA's feet to the fire until the TA-18 materials are permanently at the Nevada Test Site," Brian said. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 26 Las Vegas RJ: License application to come Dec. 23 Wednesday, May 12, 2004 Department reveals Yucca Mountain date By STEVE TETREAULT STEPHENS WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- The Department of Energy has chosen Dec. 23 as the date it plans to apply for a license to build a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain. Department officials had said DOE would have a license application ready by the end of 2004, but a report delivered Tuesday to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was the first time a date has been specified. John Arthur, deputy director of the Office of Repository Management, said he was "unguardedly optimistic" DOE would hit the target. Arthur said the department had finished 68 percent of the work to prepare a license application. He said that was slightly behind schedule, "but that will be covered." Bechtel SAIC Co. LLC, the project's management contractor, is scheduled to deliver a draft license application to Energy Department overseers by July 26, and an application for final DOE review by Nov. 30, Arthur said. Meeting the two deadlines would qualify Bechtel SAIC for $26.3 million in incentives under its contract. Part of the amount can be collected only when the NRC accepts the application for review. The application that will be sent to the NRC will be between 5,000 to 5,500 pages, Arthur said. It will detail the department's case that a tunnel system where decaying spent nuclear fuel would be stored in special alloy canisters could prevent radioactive particles from escaping into the environment for 10,000 years. "A couple hundred" more documents will be made available to reviewers, said Joseph Ziegler, the project's licensing director. The documents will not be made part of the formal license application because DOE wants to continue updating them, he said. Yucca Mountain Project managers delivered an optimistic report in a quarterly meeting with counterparts from the NRC. "We are far from a train wreck; this project is gaining momentum," Ziegler said. "Overall the project is on a high as we get into the final stages of developing a license application." NRC staff and congressional auditors working for the General Accounting Office have issued reports over the past month critical of quality assurance in the DOE's license preparations. Project managers said Tuesday they are heeding an NRC report that called for more "clarity and consistency" in analysis reports that will support the license application. Copyright Las Vegas Review-Journal ***************************************************************** 27 Las Vegas SUN: State GOP's view on Yucca foolish Today: May 12, 2004 at 8:54:39 PDT The Nevada Republican Party has shown its true colors with the biggest flip-flop of the campaign season. Forced to justify support for a president who lied to Nevada voters four years ago, Republicans are now encouraging Nevadans to accept the nation's nuclear waste and try to negotiate with the federal government for the best deal. The Republican's official platform statement on Yucca Mountain and their vision for Nevada's future is best described as "take the money and glow." Opening negotiations at this critical stage in the fight to protect our environment is extremely foolhardy. It is not unlike advising a woman facing her attacker to see how much he would pay. Never! The Republican's plank is an absolutely absurd strategy made by a party desperate to divert attention from Bush's first big lie. Here is my suggestion to the Republicans: Why not urge Congress to officially designate the Yucca Mountain project the "Bush/Cheney Nuclear Repository" and give them full credit they deserve. I will never give up this fight till the trucks are here! TERRY PENNISI ***************************************************************** 28 Las Vegas SUN: Editorial: Nuke tests fall short Today: May 12, 2004 at 8:54:40 PDT LAS VEGAS SUN Last year the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it would go forward with what it described as "full-scale" testing of casks that could be used to ship nuclear waste to Yucca Mountain. Within the past week the NRC has offered more details on just what it means by "full-scale" testing. In a May 5 memo the three NRC commissioners tell their staff they want the testing to be done on just one cask intended to be shipped by rail and they want the test designed in a way that will apply to all different types of casks. (The NRC wants the testing of the cask intended to be shipped by truck to occur after the Energy Department settles on a cask design for those vehicles.) The NRC says the testing, which it estimates will cost between $35 million to $40 million, should include a "realistically conservative" train going 75 mph and a "fully engulfing fire." Nevada officials are upset by the NRC's testing plan, contending it doesn't go far enough. They're right. The casks should be tested to withstand long drops down steep embankments and be able to survive a variety of terrorist attacks, including shoulder-fired missiles that could puncture the casks. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., is drafting legislation that would mandate the casks undergo testing until their destruction and require simulated terrorist attacks as well. Reid and the rest of Nevada's congressional delegation understand the stakes involved of shipping high-level nuclear waste thousands of miles across the country. All along the federal government has tried to cut corners to bury nuclear waste inside Yucca Mountain despite plenty of evidence that, geologically, it's just too dangerous to do so. The feeble testing plan the NRC is considering for evaluating nuclear-waste casks fits into this slipshod mind-set. Shipping high-level nuclear waste, because of its deadly nature, requires something far greater than one-size-fits-all testing. The NRC should re-evaluate its plan and demand that if the casks can't meet the toughest, most rigorous testing, then the Energy Department shouldn't get a license to build the dump. To do less is courting disaster. ***************************************************************** 29 Las Vegas SUN: State test shows corrosion at Yucca Today: May 12, 2004 at 11:08:34 PDT Water would corrode nuke waste casks By Suzanne Struglinski SUN WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON -- Scientists working for Nevada staged an experiment this morning that showed that water will not only drip through the rock and onto nuclear waste canisters stored at Yucca Mountain but mineral deposits from the water will cause the canisters to corrode. Corrosion is a key point in the debate over Yucca Mountain. Critics of the site fear corrosion because if corrosion causes cracks or openings in a container holding nuclear waste, radiation can get into the groundwater underneath Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas, that will eventually contaminate drinking water. The Energy Department has said that the waste will be sealed and protected by the casks and shields placed over the casks. But in live experiments done this morning at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Dr. April Pulvirenti of Catholic University and Dr. Don Shettel of Geosciences Management Institute in Boulder City demonstrated how water will move through the rock above the where the spent nuclear fuel will be stored inside Yucca Mountain and how once it hit the canisters it would eat through the metal. "It will be many lifetimes before we face the repercussions of our actions but our descendents will be faced with an environmental diaster of epic proportions," according to a video prepared by the state outlining the experiments. Nevada officials estimate that under the right conditions corrosion could start within 1,000 years. The Energy Department says the casks will stay intact for at least 10,000 years, which the law calls for. The Nuclear Energy Institute, the nuclear industry's lobbying group, says the waste casks will last 2 million years. Shettel showed how water in the rock would boil and move through the tiny cracks in the mountain rock due to the heat the spent fuel will create. Pulvirenti placed samples of Alloy-22, the metal planned to be used to make the waste storage containers, in glass flask of a concentration solution of minerals left from evaporated water. The first sample of metal corroded in about 20 minutes. She used a water "recipe" based on what the department has said is in the water in the area above where the waste will be stored. If this water hits the waste canister, it will evaporate, leave the deposits that will accumulate over time and cause corrosion. The scientist said the Energy Department has not done these types of experiments but instead has only looked at water underneath where the waste will be stored. Energy Department officials could not be reached for comment this morning. The Energy Department plans to have a "drip shield" made ot Titanium-7, another alloy, cover the waste containers, but other experiments by the state show that mineral deposits will corrode that alloy as well. A break in the shield would allow water to drip onto the water canisters. Bob Loux, executive director of Nevada's Agency for Nuclear Projects, said the department has plans for the drip shield, which is estimated to cost $8 billion, and the state will argue during the licensing hearings at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for a commitment that those shields will be put in place because without the shields corrosion could happen quicker. Loux said the experiments show that it's "not only the criticisms of the state of Nevada, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the General Accounting Office that show they (Energy Department officials) don't have the science to show how Yucca Mountain will perform over time." Allen Benson, a Yucca Mountain project spokesman, said the Energy Department has science to show the casks will perform. "What the state of Nevada demonstrated this morning was good theater," Benson said. "Our experiments and analysis demonstrate that the waste package will provide a robust barrier in excess of 10,000 years." The Nuclear Energy Institute says the states claims about the corrosion rates "are not valid." "Claims of rapid corrosion ignore what is known about the repository environment," according to a statement from NEI, which released counter arguments to Nevada's experiments on Tuesday. "Sound science concludes that the waste packages will last 2 million years in the repository," the group said. The NEI said that conclusion is based on "studies of artifacts, cave paintings and animal remains, items less suited for long-term survival than Alloy-22." The statement said that those studies have shown the items "have survived many thousands of years in environments far less favorable than that which will exist in Yucca Mountain." ***************************************************************** 30 NRC: NRC Approves Testing of Full-Scale Rail Cask for Transportation of Spent Fuel News Release - 2004-05 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Office of Public Affairs Telephone: 301/415-8200 Washington, DC 20555-0001 E-mail: opa@nrc.gov No. 04-056 May 12, 2004 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission, preparing for a high-speed crash test of a cask used to ship spent fuel by rail, has set test plans in motion by directing the NRC staff to commence the purchase of a full-scale certified rail cask. The current computer and scale-model tests provide reasonable scientific assurance NRC-certified casks can survive a transportation accident. NRC Chairman Nils J. Diaz said, The full-scale cask test will enhance public confidence about how demanding our requirements really are. The Commission authorized the purchase of an NRC-certified rail cask currently being used, or expected to be used. The Commission also directed its staff to develop a test protocol so that it will not be necessary to conduct additional tests on other certified rail casks, because the tested cask will be representative of those currently in use or expected to be used in the foreseeable future. The Commission ordered that the test include realistic scenarios (for example, involving a train traveling 75 miles per hour) and include exposing the cask to a fire. Still to be determined are the details of the proposed test and projected costs. The NRC held four public meetings in March of last year to obtain comments on both the proposed test, known as the Package Performance Study, and the proposed protocols, discussed in a February 2003 NRC report, United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Package Performance Study Test Protocols (NUREG-1768). The meetings were in Rockville, Maryland; Las Vegas and Pahrump, Nevada; and Rosemont, Illinois. The NRC establishes design standards for casks used to transport licensed spent fuel, and reviews and certifies cask designs prior to their use. Part 71 of the Commissions regulations contains the cask standards. The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires the Department of Energy to use casks certified by the NRC if it transports spent fuel and high-level waste to a national high-level waste repository, such as the one proposed by DOE at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Last revised Wednesday, May 12, 2004 ***************************************************************** 31 RGJ: Nuclear commission authorizes Yucca-related safety testing RGJ.com Reno Gazette-Journal] ASSOCIATED PRESS 5/11/2004 11:20 pm LAS VEGAS — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized new safety testing of a full-sized cask designed to carry spent nuclear fuel to a national nuclear waste dump in Nevada. Agency officials said putting the 150-ton shipping container through a 75 mph crash and fully engulfing it in fire will confirm safety requirements for nuclear waste casks that so far have been based on scale model testing and computer calculations. A disaster demonstration involving an 18-foot-long cask also might build public acceptance of a government campaign to transport 77,000 tons of nuclear waste and spent fuel to the proposed Yucca Mountain repository, they said. But the NRC plan, disclosed in a May 5 staff memo in Washington, D.C., drew criticism Monday from Nevada representatives. “The staff requirements memo is completely unacceptable,” said Robert Halstead, a Nevada nuclear waste transportation consultant. Test plan criticized State officials have lobbied the nuclear safety agency to order more comprehensive tests. They said the planned testing falls short of fully measuring cask safety. Government and industry officials say the safety of a 24-year Yucca Mountain shipping campaign will depend on the durability of the metal alloy casks containing highly radioactive fuel assemblies. The state advocated full-scale testing of several truck cask designs, as well as casks to be carried by railroad to Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas. State officials also pushed for rigorous stress testing to determine cask breaking points. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff rejected the idea of “testing to failure,” saying there were no realistic accident scenarios that could cause a cask to rupture or leak. Halstead said the state might ask Congress to intervene. He estimated cask testing will cost $35 million to $40 million, and said taxpayers will be shortchanged by testing that will not yield the most useful information. A full-size rail cask could cost the government $1 million to $3 million, industry officials have said. U.S. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., is drafting a bill to require the NRC to conduct physical tests to the failure point on full-scale models of any casks that would carry nuclear waste to the state by truck and by railroad, aides said Monday. © Copyright Reno Gazette-Journal, a Gannett ***************************************************************** 32 City Pages: Nuke 'Em! Xcel energy spearheads a high-stakes plan to store nuclear waste on a tiny, dirt-poor Indian reservation in the Utah desert citypages.com COVER STORY . VOL 25 #1223 . PUBLISHED 5/12/04 ILLUSTRATION BY MARK DANCEY By Peter Ritter From the entrance to Treasure Island Casino, Joe Campbell can look out over the field he used to farm. "That's where my back porch was," he says, pointing to a stand of cottonwoods behind the Prairie Island Indian tribe's big, modern community center. Then Campbell points out another of the tiny southern Minnesota reservation's landmarks: the twin pinkish-gray bulbs of Prairie Island's nuclear power plant. Campbell, who's lived on the reservation since 1970, is a lifelong, irascible opponent of nuclear power in general, and the Prairie Island plant in particular. "They started buying up the land from the farmers around 1958," he says. "At the time they said it was a steam plant. Well, they never said where the steam was going to come from. Most people alive today don't know what happened here." From the casino, we drive along a road that curves just outside the reservation's boundary, toward a swampy inlet by the shore of the Mississippi. Campbell points out a spot along the bank where hot water coming from the plant causes the river to bubble. Nearby, invisible except for some security cameras mounted on telephone poles, is what we've come to see: the concrete pad where Xcel Energy stores the waste from its nuclear plant. "When the leaves are on the trees you can't even tell it's there," Campbell explains. The pad is a little larger than a football field, protected by a 20-foot-high earth berm, a double chain-link fence, and a lone security guard carrying a machine gun. Clustered at the pad's center are 17 17-foot-tall white cylinders. The casks themselves have 9.5-inch-thick steel walls designed to withstand floods, fires, and even missile strikes. Jon Kapitz is a waste-storage specialist with Nuclear Management Company, which runs Xcel's Prairie Island and Monticello nuclear plants (together, the two produce around 20 percent of the state's electricity). According to Kapitz, the radiation coming from the casks is nearly undetectable at the perimeter of the pad. "They're giving off about three-fourths of a kilowatt each. That's around a dozen hair dryers' worth of heat," he says. "You can really only tell the difference in the winter, when you compare it to putting your hands on the cold steel fence." Which is good, since the casks contain some of the nastiest stuff on the planet. Prairie Island's twin reactors are fueled by zirconium rods, which are in turn filled with pencil-thin uranium pellets. Every 18 to 20 months, spent fuel rods are cycled out of the reactors. They're then moved to a large pool of water inside the reactor complex, where they're left to cool for 10 years. After a decade, bunches of rods, called fuel assemblies, are taken out of the water and sealed inside those giant helium-filled steel casks. At this point, the rods are still radioactive enough to kill anyone standing nearby in a matter of minutes. While their radioactivity continues to dissipate exponentially, they will remain dangerous enough for 10,000 years that they must be kept out of the groundwater supply. No one, obviously, is eager to welcome these casks as neighbors. Just recall the rancor attending last year's debate over waste storage at Prairie Island. In 1994, when Xcel (then called Northern States Power) first asked the state to allow the casks at its Prairie Island site, the utility promised that it would never return to the Legislature requesting more storage capacity; when, inevitably, Xcel did just that, a firestorm erupted. Prairie Island tribal members complained that the waste would compromise their safety; environmentalists complained that there was no permanent solution to the waste-storage crunch; and Xcel complained that without the extra capacity, Prairie Island would have to shut down well before its government operating license expired in 2013. Only after much political horse-trading did a compromise emerge: In exchange for permission to store 12 more casks at Prairie Island, Xcel had to increase its investment in renewable energy, and compensate the Prairie Island tribe. Yet, while last year's deal may have bought Prairie Island some time, it did nothing to solve the problem that many consider the nuclear industry's Achilles' heel: What to do with the tons of deadly waste generated every year by the nation's 103 commercial nuclear reactors? Quietly and mostly behind the scenes, Xcel has pursued an expensive, controversial plan B to decamp its--and, indeed, all of America's--nuclear waste to an impoverished stretch of Utah scrubland. To Xcel and its partner energy corporations, it's simply the only way to keep cheap and efficient nuclear plants running; to the environmentalists and politicians opposed to the idea, it's a Chernobyl waiting to happen. Will the circle be unbroken: For years, Margene Bullcreek has led a losing fight against a proposed nuclear waste dump on the Skull Valley Goshute reservation PHOTO BY FRED HAYES Skull Valley, located some 45 miles southwest of Salt Lake City, is a forlorn stretch of desert between the low-slung Cedar and Stansbury mountain ranges. In the late 19th century, a young Samuel Clemens happened to pass through the area. His assessment: "One of the most rocky, wintry, repulsive wastes that our country or any other can exhibit." At the center of this is the reservation of the Skull Valley Goshute band--a tribe of some 120 enrolled members, only two dozen of whom live at Skull Valley. In the Shoshone tongue, Goshute means "people of the dust." As it turns out, Skull Valley is an apt name for this corner of Utah, since the area has long been a graveyard for the 20th century's worst hobgoblins. At the north end of the valley is a magnesium plant that once had the dubious distinction of being the worst polluter in the U.S. To the west is a burial ground for medical waste, radioactive uranium tailings, industrial pesticides and other toxic garbage. To the east is the Tooele Ordinance Depot, where the U.S. government stores and incinerates its stockpile of chemical weapons. And to the south is Dugway Proving Ground, a military bombing range regularly visited by fighter planes from nearby Hill Air Force Base. In 1968, one of those planes accidentally carpeted the area around Skull Valley with nerve gas, killing more than 6,000 sheep. Margene Bullcreek, a Skull Valley band member who's lived on the reservation for most of her life, remembers the sheep massacre. "My father had 30 head," she says. "They buried them all here on the reservation, but no study was ever done on the effects of it. One thing that's happened is our traditional habits have disappeared, like we can't have rabbits in our diet anymore like we used to." Such experiences have helped galvanize Bullcreek's dogged opposition to a potential new neighbor, a storage facility for 44,000 tons of the nation's high-level nuclear waste. "If we say, 'Oh, our land's already contaminated', there goes our little piece of land. Does that mean the government finally succeeded in getting us into the melting pot? Just because there are things here already that doesn't justify surrounding us with more hazardous wastes." In 1997, Private Fuel Storage (PFS), a consortium of nuclear utilities led by Xcel, signed a deal with the Goshute tribe to lease 100 acres of land for the waste dump. When completed, the facility would look very much like the one at Prairie Island. Hundreds of waste-filled casks would sit on a fenced concrete slab. The $3.1 billion facility would, in theory, only be a temporary "parking lot" for the waste until the permanent, federally funded waste depository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain was ready to begin receiving the country's nuclear stockpile. According to the deal, PFS would lease the land from the Goshutes for 20 years, with the possibility of a 20-year extension. In return, the tiny tribe was promised up to 40 well-paying full-time jobs, plus a cash settlement, which, though confidential, has been rumored to be as high as $200 million. Leon Bear, the band's chairman and the man who negotiated the deal with PFS, says he was only acting in the Goshutes' best interest. "It's hard when you don't have resources," he says. "All we have is the land, a little water, no timber, no oil, no coal. All we're doing is being consistent with the area. They put these biological and chemical agents out here first. If they had built greenhouses, that's what we'd do. If there were fields of alfalfa, that's what we'd grow." Bear, who worked as a security guard for 20 years at a now-closed rocket testing facility on the reservation, is convinced that the PFS site would be safe. In fact, he says, he spent a month as an intern at Prairie Island learning about nuclear-waste storage. And, says Bear, PFS will mean more than just jobs for the impoverished Goshute; the money will also ensure the survival of their culture. Despite Bear's assurances, though, the PFS deal became a source of discord almost immediately after it was signed. The tribe quickly divided over money and power. According to Bullcreek, band meetings degenerated into shouting matches. In one instance, a fistfight even broke out at tribal headquarters, resulting in a broken arm and hard feelings all around. The PFS windfall, Bullcreek charges, was never divided equally, instead finding its way into the pockets of those who support the project. In August of 2001, another group of dissident tribal members, led by a PFS dissenter named Sammy Blackbear, held an election at which, they claim, Bear was unseated as chairman. Although Blackbear's faction claimed victory, the recall election was never recognized by the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Further complicating the already tangled web of tribal politics is the fact that everyone in Skull Valley is either acquainted or related. Bullcreek, for instance, lives across the street from Bear, who happens to be Blackbear's cousin. "We're all family here," avers Blackbear. "If you sit down and talk to folks, [PFS] is taboo. No one talks about it." Just think of them as nuclear Porta-Potties: Waste storage casks at Xcel's Prairie Island plant may find a new home in the Utah desert COURTESY NUCLEAR MANAGEMENT COMPANY But confusion and anger over PFS isn't limited to the tiny Goshute reservation. According to Jason Groenewold, an activist with the environmental group Heal Utah, the PFS project is only the latest in a string of ecological outrages in the Utah desert. "What we're trying to do is change the pattern. If you're addicted to crack, it doesn't make much sense to start a heroin habit. Are you just going to say, 'Well, I'm already a drug addict'? You're not going to rectify anything by making it worse." Groenewold says he doesn't blame the Skull Valley band for courting PFS; he does, however, blame Xcel and its partners for courting the tribe. "It's really hard when you have an impoverished community, and then along comes these predatory corporations with these horrible waste products dangling money over you. They're saying, 'We've got the solution to all your problems, just take the money.' The sad thing is, this has already torn the tribe apart. It could lead to the tribe's disappearance. If I was a ratepayer in Minnesota, I'd be a little upset that Xcel is using my money to dump nuclear waste on this impoverished Indian reservation." Bear finds this view more than a little patronizing: After all, no one made much of a fuss about the sanctity of Goshute tribal land before PFS. "As soon as we started talking about doing the spent fuel storage here, everyone's head popped up: 'Oh, there's Goshutes living out there?'" When the tribe began studying the PFS idea, Bear even went to consult Utah Governor Mike Leavitt. Leavitt's response, says Bear, was that nuclear waste would enter the state "over [his] dead body." Indeed, Utah has done everything in its power to derail PFS, including passage of a law that would impose an enormous tax on rail shipments of waste destined for Skull Valley. Leavitt went so far as to form an entire government department charged solely with keeping PFS from happening. Dianne Nielson, the head of Utah's Department of Environmental Quality, likewise claims that Xcel is unfairly targeting the Goshute. "What they're doing is bypassing a whole series of federal and state laws designed to regulate high-level nuclear waste. By targeting an Indian reservation, notably one that's quite impoverished, with a minimal level of governance, they're just looking for an easy place to dump their nuclear waste." Thus far, however, Utah's attempts to stall PFS have largely come to naught. The band's sovereignty ensures that the state of Utah has little power over what the Goshute decide to put on their land. At present, the PFS plan is under review by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Of 100 safety concerns raised by the state of Utah during NRC hearings, only two now remain points of contention. Firstly, the state has successfully argued that an F-16 from the nearby bombing range could potentially crash into the facility, rupturing the storage casks and creating a catastrophic radiation leak. PFS opponents also argue that the facility should include a "hot cell"--a sealed indoor area where a leaking cask could be contained before it released radiation into the environment. Meanwhile, the Goshute tribe, and particularly its leaders, have landed in hot water with federal law enforcement. Last year, agents from the FBI and the Department of the Interior raided the tribe's Salt Lake City business office, spurring rumors of a corruption investigation. Then, in December, a grand jury indicted Bear for allegedly embezzling $150,000 from the tribe in his capacity as chairman. In a strange twist, Blackbear, two of his fellow PFS dissenters, and their lawyer were also indicted for bank fraud and stealing from the tribe. According to the indictment, Blackbear and his faction, operating as though they were the tribal government--although, again, the Bureau of Indian Affairs had never recognized Bear's recall--had removed money from a collective tribal bank account. Neither case is connected to PFS directly, but the indictments do make mention of the nuclear-waste facility as the root of the tribe's spiraling problems. Both Blackbear and Bear say the truth will out eventually. "I'm not guilty of anything as far as I know of," says Bear. "I'll go to court." According to Bear, the investigation and indictments are simply political retaliation for his support of the PFS project--and a way for Utah to circumvent Indian sovereignty. "We're a little tribe," he says. "Because we're little, people think they can push us around or manipulate us. You know, there is a congressman or two pushing the buttons here. They think if they can get me out of the way, spent fuel will die. But I just represent the tribe." Bear's voice has an edge of bitterness when he talks about Utah's righteous rhetoric regarding PFS. As he says, the government has always been content to dump its toxic garbage on Goshute land before, and until now the tribe itself saw little or no benefit. Only a few years ago, the state legislature promised the band $2 million for economic development; the money never arrived. Maybe a nuclear-waste dump is just the shape taken by 200 years' worth of chickens coming home to roost. Utah Governor Mike Leavitt has pronounced that nuclear waste will only enter the state "over my dead body" PHOTO BY FRED HAYES In 1967, the federal government built a small nuclear plant near La Crosse, Wisconsin. The La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor was intended to convince the Cold War public of nuclear energy's peacetime uses. Less than five years later, there were 20 commercial nuclear plants in the country. NSP's Monticello and Prairie Island plants came online in 1970 and 1973, respectively. Little thought was given to the problem of nuclear waste at the time--utilities simply assumed whatever spent fuel they generated would eventually be reprocessed. Unfortunately, one of the byproducts of this process was plutonium, the key ingredient in atomic weaponry. When Jimmy Carter signed a bill banning uranium reprocessing, nuclear utilities were left holding a very expensive, very toxic bag. The fuel rods that originally powered the La Crosse reactor are, in fact, still sitting in a pool of water beneath the now-defunct plant. As nuclear waste piled up on outdoor pads like the one at Prairie Island, federal lawmakers cast about for a permanent solution to the problem. Finally, in 1982, Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, which guaranteed utilities that the federal government would build a repository to house all of the nation's nuclear waste. The underground complex would, hypothetically, remain sealed for millennia, a vast high-tech tomb for the world's deadliest poisons. Though the complex was to open in 1998, grinding bureaucracy and stout resistance from potential host states kept the project in limbo. NSP even sued the Department of Energy to get the government to honor its promise to collect the waste. Twenty years and more than $6 billion later, the government has made little progress except to select a site--a desert mountain some 90 miles from Las Vegas. As it searched for a permanent repository, the government also set up a post called the Nuclear Waste Negotiator to locate an interim storage site. The plan was to set up a Monitored Retrieval Storage area--a fancy name for the kind of "parking lot" facility slated for Skull Valley. In 1991, the Nuclear Waste Negotiator sent out letters to local government and Indian tribes offering $100,000 grants just to explore the idea of hosting the MRS site. The government was courting Indian communities: Of 20 responses to the government's query, 16 came from tribes--including both the Prairie Island and Skull Valley bands. Chip Ward, a Utah librarian and author of Canaries on the Rim, a book about the despoliation of Utah's western desert, says the targeting of Indian tribes was ingenious. Because of tribal sovereignty, the DOE could bypass state governments opposed to the project. "People think: out of sight, out of mind," Ward says. "And these groups are powerless." Yet political maneuvering ultimately killed the Nuclear Waste Negotiator's efforts, and the position was eliminated. Almost at once, private interests stepped in where the government had left off. The driving force in this renewed search for a temporary storage facility was NSP: Because Minnesota's state legislature had limited the amount of waste that the utility could keep on its Prairie Island campus, the company was facing a dire space crunch. Together with eight other nuclear utilities, NSP formed PFS, a "limited liability" company. In reality, PFS has always been a shell company, with one executive at the decommissioned La Crosse reactor and an extremely active public-relations firm in Salt Lake City. PFS first negotiated with an Apache tribe in New Mexico. When tribal opposition scuttled that deal, the utilities approached the Goshutes. According to Charlie Bomberger, Xcel's general manager for nuclear asset management, last year's state legislature decision to allow more storage at Prairie Island, while giving the utility some breathing room, didn't negate the need for a national interim storage facility. The compromise, he says, "gave us some options. But we also want to continue to pursue the most reasonable, short-term opportunity to move waste out of Minnesota." While other utilities have been less aggressive in their support of PFS--some have even suggested that they'll abandon the project if the Department of Energy makes sufficient progress at Yucca Mountain--Bomberger says once the facility has been licensed by the NRC, Xcel will be able to start selling space to other companies--turning the intractable problem of nuclear waste into a profit center. Opponents of nuclear power have a far different view of PFS. To them, the waste-storage problem is the choke point for the entire nuclear industry. Without a solution, nuclear energy must wither. "The question is, Do we want to continue on with this business?" says Lisa Ledwidge, a Minneapolis-based researcher for the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. "Or do we want to look at wind and biomass to replace this nuclear hot potato that we don't know what to do with?" And some anti-PFS activists believe that once America's nuclear waste is resettled in the Utah desert, it will never leave. Ward points out that, according to the PFS plan, it will take nearly 20 years to transport the country's waste to the Skull Valley site. If nuclear plants continue to operate, they will have by then generated far more than the 44,000 tons PFS is designed to contain. If the Department of Energy ever does complete Yucca Mountain, that repository will only hold 77,000 tons--barely enough capacity for all of the country's commercial nuclear waste now, much less in 20 years. "Do the math--it's fairly simple," Ward advises. "We already have 40 years of spent fuel. Yucca will take another 10 years to build--and if it's like other government projects I'm familiar with, probably a lot longer than that. Then you're talking about 20 years to move it all. That's twice as much fuel as Yucca is designed for right there. What happens then? The math dictates it'll sit out here forever." Gas, food, lodging--and keep your damn radioactivity to yourself PHOTO BY FRED HAYES PFS's future remains unsettled. According to Xcel's Bomberger, the discord in Skull Valley and the indictment of Leon Bear won't keep the utility from pursuing its plans. Yet Utah's Nielson says the alleged improprieties could potentially derail the effort. And, in an unforeseen twist of events, Mike Leavitt, the Utah governor who once said that nuclear waste would arrive in the state over his dead body, was recently installed as head of the Environmental Protection Agency. Meanwhile, Yucca Mountain remains in bureaucratic and regulatory limbo. The project suffered a setback recently when a federal court allowed a number of lawsuits brought by Nevada to block the facility. Margene Bullcreek might have summed up the situation for all involved. When I asked her about a recent tribal meeting, she sighed: "Very disorderly. What can I say?" At the same time, though, there are rumblings of renewed interest in nuclear power. The Bush administration has made nuclear energy a centerpiece of its national energy policy. And, indeed, just a few months ago, two different utility consortiums signaled their interest in applying for NRC licenses to operate nuclear reactors. If built, they would become the first new plants to come online in 30 years. And still, waste is piling up in places like Prairie Island. The day Joe Campbell showed me around the Prairie Island reservation, plant employees were awaiting a barge heading up the Mississippi from New Orleans. Onboard was the enormous $150 million steam generator that would replace a key aging component in one of the reactor's cores. While Bomberger insists that no decision has yet been made about the plant's future, it seemed a pretty clear signal that the Prairie Island tribe won't be bidding farewell to its nuclear neighbor anytime soon. As we were heading back to the casino, Campbell pointed out the house where his daughter, a onetime power plant employee, lives. The twin domes of the nuclear plant were clearly visible behind a line of pine trees. They were, almost literally, in his daughter's backyard. Campbell looked out the window and said, "It's like driving on a flat tire. When you get a flat, you can either get out and walk, or you can keep driving on it until your car breaks down. That's what they're doing here." Entire contents ©2004, City Pages Media, Inc. 401 North Third Street, Suite 550, Minneapolis, MN 55401 · (612) 375-1015 · All ***************************************************************** 33 Pahrump Valley Times: Department of Energy too far ahead in Yucca planning May 12, 2004 By STEVE TETREAULT PVT WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON - The state of Nevada registered a new complaint Thursday about the Yucca Mountain Project. Attorney General Brian Sandoval charged the Department of Energy has gotten ahead of itself in planning to build a 318-mile railroad through rural Nevada to the proposed repository site 50 miles north of Pahrump and 20 miles east and north of Beatty and Amargosa Valley, respectively. Sandoval said another federal agency, the Surface Transportation Board, has primary jurisdiction over rail projects and should be taking the lead on Yucca Mountain transportation matters. Sandoval sent a letter Thursday asking James Connaughton, chairman of the White House Council of Environmental Quality, to step in and "issue corrective instructions to DOE." The letter was part of an ongoing campaign by the state to challenge the Energy Department's proposal to bury radioactive spent fuel in canisters within Yucca Mountain. The White House council coordinates how agencies administer the National Environmental Policy Act, the major law that guides most government actions that impact the environment. A council spokeswoman confirmed receipt of Sandoval's letter but said it was too early to discuss possible options for action or how long the state's request would take to review. State officials said the White House council would have a range of options, including putting the Surface Transportation Board in charge of the rail project or ordering DOE to work out a formal relationship with the transportation agency. "Nevada would much rather see the Surface Transportation Board be the lead agency on this because they are more independent and are not promoting the repository," said Joe Egan, the state's lead private nuclear waste attorney. The Surface Transportation Board was created as an independent agency that assumed federal regulation of railroads when the Interstate Commerce Commission was abolished in 1995. Testifying in March before a House subcommittee that met in Las Vegas, board chairman Roger Nober said the agency would get involved in a repository railroad if DOE chooses to allow it to be used as a "common carrier" to serve other shippers, as leaders in rural Lincoln County are urging. "If, on the other hand, the Department of Energy chooses to construct this project as private track, the board would have no jurisdiction," Nober said. DOE has yet to decide how a Yucca rail line would be utilized, spokesman Joe Davis said. He said he did not know when that choice would be made. "A decision on the character of our rail line, whether it will be a private line or a common carrier, is something being considered," he said. Nevada leaders believe that decision should have already been made, Egan said. The state also contends the Surface Transportation Board should become involved because DOE is planning railroad improvements in other parts of the country as part of a Yucca Mountain network. "They are putting new trunks at nuclear power plants to connect to this," Egan said. "Essentially they are doing things that facilitate nationwide transportation. To say this isn't interstate commerce is bizarre." For comment or questions, please e-mail webmaster@pahrumpvalleytimes.com Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2003 ***************************************************************** 34 Pahrump Valley Times: Volcanic activity at Yucca a concern May 12, 2004 By MARK WAITE PVT Local officials and interested residents chat with Nuclear Regulatory Commission representative Earl Easton during an open house at the Bob Ruud Community Center Monday night. The corrosion of waste containers in Yucca Mountain and the possibility of any future volcanic activity are two of the major technical questions to be resolved in the license application for the nuclear waste repository, Nuclear Regulatory Commission representative Bill Reamer said Monday. The NRC held a "get-acquainted" open house with local residents at the Bob Ruud Community Center. Reamer is the director of the NRC high-level waste repository safety division. Reamer said the U.S. Department of Energy would have to submit applications for two licenses, one to construct Yucca Mountain, another to operate it. The license application is expected to be submitted by December. Reamer said the commission has three years to review it but could ask for one more 12-month period for additional review. During the pre-application review process, the commission flagged 293 areas for which more information is required from the Energy Department, Reamer said. He said the department provided information on about 100 technical points, on another 80 issues the DOE said they'd submit the information no later than August. Reamer said an inadequate application by the department in December could require a review longer than the three years specified in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. "We'll take as long as it takes to do the review, but when the language says three years, we think it'll take that long," Reamer said. The information submitted has to be transparent, understandable, the data has to be traced back to the source and models have to be valid work codes for the repository, Reamer said. The nuclear waste repository is scheduled to begin accepting 77,000 tons of high-level nuclear waste from around the nation in 2010. Yucca Mountain, situated roughly 50 miles northeast of Pahrump and 20 miles north and east of Amargosa Valley and Beatty, respectively, was selected as the one site for the nuclear waste based on its geological characteristics. But a major question on the waste package's risk of corrosion has to be answered, Reamer said. "DOE's estimate is that very few packages will corrode to the point of no longer containing the waste. There's a lot of skepticism about that argument," Reamer said. The 10,000-year half-life of the radioactive substances will also require a close look at the volcanic activity around Yucca Mountain, he said. "Historically there's been volcanic activity near Yucca Mountain. They would have to prove to us the likelihood of new volcanoes in the next 10,000 years is low or if not, that it won't exhume (nuclear waste) from the underground," Reamer said. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold public hearings on the license application for construction of the repository, probably in 2006 in Las Vegas, Reamer said. The Energy Department will present its case and undergo cross-examination by experts. A similar public hearing will be held on the application to bring waste to the site, he said. The NRC regulates commercial nuclear power plants across the country like Palo Verde, Ariz, and San Onofre, Calif. This will be the first time the Energy Department is being regulated, Reamer said. A stockpile of 44,000 metric tons has accumulated at nuclear power plants across the country, Reamer said; much of it is currently being stored in cooling ponds. While many critics of Yucca Mountain say the nuclear waste should be kept at the existing sites rather than shipped to Nevada, Reamer said that's not acceptable. "It's not suitable for final disposition. It needs to go underground. That's our policy nationally," Reamer said. "It should not remain aboveground. That requires constant surveillance." The NRC has to certify any packages used to transport the nuclear waste, but doesn't have authority to say how the waste would be shipped, Reamer said. The rail casks will weigh about 100 tons, the truck casks probably 25 to 30 tons for heavy-haul trucks, Nuclear Regulatory Commission transportation specialist Earl Easton said. The vast majority of that weight will be the radioactive shielding. The actual spent fuel rods for a rail shipment may only weigh 1,500 pounds, he said. "We've been shipping spent fuel for 40 years and the NRC has been approving shipping casks for the last 30," Easton said. The NRC was created in 1975. Easton said in certifying the casks for shipment the commission will want to ensure there aren't any radioactive releases, an increased dose rate through the cask, or anything that would affect criticality of the shipment and strict levels to ensure there's no contamination during the loading and unloading process. The NRC has undertaken stringent testing requirements of cask manufacturers, Easton said. That even includes a review after the Baltimore tunnel fire last summer, he said. "I feel very confident these casks are very robust. There's almost no accident where you could see a release," Easton said. "We've done a lot of studies and all our studies have shown the exposure will be very, very small." The casks used in transportation won't be the same ones used to store the waste inside the mountain, Easton said. The license application will include information on any medical services that might be required for Yucca Mountain, Reamer said. "We will be looking at what DOE's ability is to respond to emergencies at the site, including workers contaminated at the facility," Reamer said. The license application will be extremely technical and probably be 6,000 to 10,000 pages long, Reamer said. While he said Pahrump doesn't have the high-speed Internet access to download the application, he said hard copies would be available at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's North Las Vegas office. He said he would see that a copy was available for review in Pahrump. Commission officials shook hands with Pahrump residents and officials Monday. Their role will be more and more important as the project gets close to opening day. Reamer said the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would have a number of inspectors at Yucca Mountain. "We're here as long as the facility is open and operating," Reamer said. "DOE cannot close it until they get our permission." For comment or questions, please e-mail Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2003 ***************************************************************** 35 PRN: LES Supports State Involvement in the NRC License Process ALBUQUERQUE, N.M., May 12 /PRNewswire/ -- Louisiana Energy Services (LES) announced today that it supports Governor Bill Richardson's request that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) allow the state to participate in the license proceeding for the National Enrichment Facility (NEF) according to a statement released today by LES Vice President of Communications and Government Relations Marshall Cohen. "We fully support the Governor's request for state participation and we remain fully committed to working with the State of New Mexico regarding the storage, deconversion and disposal of the uranium byproduct that will be generated by the NEF," Cohen said. "My company looks forward to discussing and resolving any and all issues of concern raised by the State of New Mexico or the citizens of New Mexico and its various agencies, either within or outside the NRC process." "In addition," Cohen said, "we were pleased to see Governor Richardson's comments to the NRC about the 'economic and other benefits' the NEF will bring to New Mexico. We are going to bring these benefits in a manner that protects public health and is respectful of the environment." LES has consistently recommended that the NRC grant standing to the State of New Mexico in these proceedings and has supported the introduction of the New Mexico Environment Department's contention regarding byproduct storage and disposal into the process as well. The NEF will provide more than 200 permanent jobs and 400 to 800 short-term construction jobs in Southeast New Mexico. It will use a proven technology that has operated safely in Europe for 30 years. When the license application is approved, the NEF will introduce the world's most advanced uranium enrichment technology into the U.S. and provide an alternative, domestic enrichment supply source to U.S. nuclear energy companies. LES is a partnership of major nuclear energy companies. Partners include Urenco, Westinghouse and U.S. energy companies Duke Power, Entergy and Exelon. SOURCE Louisiana Energy Services (LES) Copyright © 1996-2004 PR Newswire Association LLC. All Rights ***************************************************************** 36 KVBC: Concern Mounts Over Radioactive Waste Storage at Yucca May 12, 2004 Mitch Truswell Reporting There are new questions today about the safety of the containers the Department of Energy plans to use in Yucca Mountain. At issue is how the metal containers, called casks, will hold up with radioactive material inside. As Mitch Truswell tells us there are two very different answers. Some scientists, along with the State of Nevada, say the Department of Energy's metal casks won't hold up for the 10-thousand years the DOE claims. To help prove their point, a scientist from a Catholic university and another from the geosciences management institute did a little experiment in Washington, DC. Researchers showed the same metal those casks will be made out of will corrode over time. Especially in the humid and acidic environment inside Yucca Mountain. "The real solution is to abandon Yucca Mountain and find a good site that the geologic structure itself will provide the protection needed. And not having to rely on man made materials that they know will not last long. The state claims once corrosion occurs, it's possible leakage could make it's way into drinking water wells in Amargosa Valley within 200 years. The DOE disputes the claim. It's calling these experiments great theater. The DOE stands by it's studies showing the metal casks will last for 10-thousand years. The Department of Energy says it will submit it's license application to store radioactive waste at Yucca Mountain, December 23rd. Once it's submitted, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will have up to three years to approve or deny the license. All content © Copyright 2000 - 2004 WorldNow and KVBC. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 37 WFSB: Move of spent nuclear rods delayed May 12, 2004 HADDAM -- The moving day for spent nuclear fuel rods has been delayed. They were set to be transferred to the decommissioned Connecticut Yankee nuclear power plant in Haddam, but the move is now postponed for about two weeks. The delay comes after Yankee employees noticed a problem with the outdoor pads where those radioactive rods are supposed to sit. Employees found a thin peeling on the pad's surface when the first two shipments or rods were moved there. When complete, more than 1,000 spent fuel rods will have been moved to Connecticut Yankee by the first few months of 2005. All content © Copyright 2001 - 2004 WorldNow and WFSB. All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy ***************************************************************** 38 WXIX: Fernald-Radioactive Cleanup Residents worried about interim storage of radioactive waste Neighbors of a radioactive cleanup project say they are worried about the federal government's plan to temporarily store the waste there. Energy Department officials say they will start removing the wastes next month as scheduled from a concrete silo at the Fernald site near Cincinnati. The government says that has to be done in order to meet deadlines under a cleanup agreement with federal and Ohio regulators to complete the Fernald cleanup by 2006. But officials say the waste may be temporarily stored at Fernald while the government tries to work out a dispute with Nevada, which opposes Washington's plans to truck the wastes to the Energy Department's Nevada Test site for disposal. The Fernald site's neighbors told federal officials at a community meeting last night they are worried about whether temporary storage of the radioactive wastes would be safe. www.fernald.gov All content © Copyright 2000 - 2004 WorldNow and WXIX-FOX19, a Raycom Media station. All Rights Reserved. ***************************************************************** 39 Pahrump Valley Times: NUCLEAR TRANSPORTING South, Northeast OK with waste casks May 12, 2004 By STEVE TETREAULT PVT WASHINGTON BUREAU WASHINGTON - Officials in the South and in the Northeast who are experienced in handling nuclear waste aren't as alarmed as counterparts in Nevada at the prospect of shipping highly radioactive material to Yucca Mountain, a study panel was told Thursday. Representatives from those regions said they don't believe it is necessary to conduct new full-scale tests for casks that will be used to ship spent nuclear fuel to the proposed repository. However, they said their states would support new tests if they serve to assure the public that nuclear waste can be shipped safely. "We understand this is a political issue," said Christopher Wells, senior policy analyst for the Southern States Energy Board, a consortium that advises 16 governors on nuclear power matters. States in the two regions also might not oppose moving nuclear waste by barge from water-accessible power plants to rail cars destined for Nevada, the officials said during presentations to a National Academy of Sciences panel studying waste transportation. The views from officials in those parts of the country contrast with Nevada leaders who have insisted the government conduct extensive full-scale tests of casks that will be utilized in a Yucca Mountain shipping campaign. Nevada officials and environmental groups also have raised alarms at potential accident dangers of shipping radioactive waste over water. There is opposition in the Midwest to having nuclear waste travel on the Great Lakes, the study panel was told. But Edward Wilds, Jr., radiation division director for the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, told the academy there may be more comfort with the idea in the East, where nuclear material has been barged on the Connecticut River and down the Atlantic coast. Wells said Mississippi, Alabama and Florida also are looking at a barge proposal the Department of Energy is considering as part of its Yucca Mountain campaign. Wells said states in the South have worked with the Department of Energy to accept nuclear waste from foreign reactors and to ship mixed radioactive material to the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico. "It is our experience from all the campaigns that both sides have to perform extra-regulatory duties," he said. "The Energy Department has to go above and beyond to satisfy the states, and the states have to go above and beyond to satisfy the public." Devoting attention to a public perception of risk from nuclear waste "is something that has to be done," Wells said. "But as the shipments become routine, the issue seems to fade away." Wilds spoke to the academy board on behalf of a Council of State Governments energy task force. On the issue of cask testing, Wilds said energy advisers to governors in the Northeast "have a lot of comfort with modeling," the system utilizing computer programs to evaluate cask designs. "There are a lot of major things built without full-scale testing," Wilds said, including the nuclear-powered Seawolf submarine assembled in Connecticut. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has come out in support of full-scale cask testing but still is considering what type of tests to conduct. Marvin Resnikoff, a Nevada-hired technical consultant, told the study panel full-scale cask tests performed at Sandia National Laboratories in the late 1970s have grown outdated. "There are new casks that are being used," Resnikoff said. "Programs should be benchmarked by these new tests." Resnikoff said Nevada advocates new tests that would determine how much stress casks could withstand before they fail. For comment or questions, please e-mail Copyright © Pahrump Valley Times, 1997 - 2003 ***************************************************************** 40 DOE: the Central Characterization Project (CCP) of transuranic (TRU) FR Doc 04-10775 [Federal Register: May 12, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 92)] [Proposed Rules] [Page 26351-26353] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr12my04-17] radioactive waste at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California proposed for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). The documents are available for review in the public dockets listed in ADDRESSES. We will consider public comments received on or before the due date mentioned in DATES. In accordance with EPA's WIPP Compliance Criteria, we will conduct an inspection of the Central Characterization Project (CCP) at LLNL to verify that, using the systems and processes developed as part of the DOE Carlsbad Office's CCP, DOE can characterize TRU waste consistent with the Compliance Criteria. EPA will perform this inspection the week of May 3, 2004. This notice of the inspection and comment period accords with 40 CFR 194.8. DATES: EPA is requesting public comment on the documents. Comments must be received by EPA's official Air Docket on or before June 11, 2004. ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted by mail to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0066-2004-0053. Comments may also be submitted electronically, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. Follow the detailed instructions as provided in Unit I.B of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Feltcorn, Office of Radiation and Indoor Air, (202) 343-9422. You can also call EPA's toll-free WIPP Information Line, 1-800-331-WIPP or visit our Web site at http://www.epa/gov/radiation/wipp . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. General Information A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information? 1. Docket. EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0066. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air and Radiation Docket in the EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the telephone number for the Air and Radiation Docket is (202) 566-1742. These documents are also available for review in paper form at the official EPA Air Docket in Washington, DC, Docket No. A-98-49, Category II-A2, and at the following three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New Mexico: In Carlsbad at the Municipal Library, Hours: Monday-Thursday, 10 a.m.-9 p.m., Friday-Saturday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m., and Sunday, 1 p.m.-5 p.m.; in Albuquerque at the Government Publications Department, Zimmerman Library, University of New Mexico, Hours: vary by semester; and in Santa Fe at the New Mexico State Library, Hours: Monday-Friday, 9 a.m.- 5 p.m. As provided in EPA's regulations at 40 CFR part 2, and in accordance with normal EPA docket procedures, if copies of any docket materials are requested, a reasonable fee may be charged for photocopying. 2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document electronically through the EPA Internet under the Federal Register listings at http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket/ to submit or view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Once in the system, select ``search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Certain types of information will not be placed in the EPA Dockets. Information claimed as CBI and other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute, which is not included in the official public docket, will not be available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. EPA's policy is that copyrighted material will not be placed in EPA's electronic public docket but will be available only in printed, paper form in the official public docket. To the extent feasible, publicly available docket materials will be made available in EPA's electronic public docket. When a document is selected from the index list in EPA Dockets, the system will identify whether the document is available for viewing in EPA's electronic public docket. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility identified in Unit I.B. EPA intends to work towards providing electronic access to all of the publicly available docket materials through EPA's electronic public docket. For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, will be made available for public viewing in EPA's electronic public docket as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in the version of the comment that is placed in EPA's electronic public docket. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted material, will be available in the public docket. Public comments submitted on computer disks that are mailed or delivered to the docket will be transferred to EPA's electronic public docket. Public comments that are mailed or delivered to the Docket will [[Page 26352]] be scanned and placed in EPA's electronic public docket. Where practical, physical objects will be photographed, and the photograph will be placed in EPA's electronic public docket along with a brief description written by the docket staff. For additional information about EPA's electronic public docket visit EPA Dockets online or see 67 FR 38102, May 31, 2002. B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments? You may submit comments electronically, by mail, by facsimile, or through hand delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked ``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments. However, late comments may be considered if time permits. 1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. i. EPA Dockets. Your use of EPA's electronic public docket to submit comments to EPA electronically is EPA's preferred method for receiving comments. Go directly to EPA Dockets at http://www.epa.gov/edocket , and follow the online instructions for submitting comments. To access EPA's electronic public docket from the EPA Internet Home Page, select ``Information Sources,'' ``Dockets,'' and ``EPA Dockets.'' Once in the system, select ``search,'' and then key in Docket ID No. OAR- 2004-0066. The system is an ``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. ii. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0066. In contrast to EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send an e-mail comment directly to the Docket without going through EPA's electronic public docket, EPA's e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket, and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. 2. By Mail. Send your comments to: EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC), Air and Radiation Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West, Mail Code 6102T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460. Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2004-0066. 3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Air and Radiation Docket, EPA Docket Center, (EPA/DC) EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW., Washington, DC, Attention Docket ID No. OAR- 2004-0066. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation as identified in Unit I.A.1. 4. By Facsimile. Fax your comments to: (202) 566-1741, Attention Docket ID. No. OAR-2004-0066. C. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My Comments for EPA? You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your comments: 1. Explain your views as clearly as possible. 2. Describe any assumptions that you used. 3. Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support your views. 4. If you estimate potential burden or costs, explain how you arrived at your estimate. 5. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns. 6. Offer alternatives. 7. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified. 8. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket identification number in the subject line on the first page of your response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and Federal Register citation related to your comments. II. Background DOE is developing the WIPP near Carlsbad in southeastern New Mexico as a deep geologic repository for disposal of TRU radioactive waste. As defined by the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act (LWA) of 1992 (Pub. L. 102- 579), as amended (Pub. L. 104-201), TRU waste consists of materials containing elements having atomic numbers greater than 92 (with half- lives greater than twenty years), in concentrations greater than 100 nanocuries of alpha-emitting TRU isotopes per gram of waste. Much of the existing TRU waste consists of items contaminated during the production of nuclear weapons, such as rags, equipment, tools, and sludges. On May 13, 1998, EPA announced its final compliance certification decision to the Secretary of Energy (published May 18, 1998, 63 FR 27354). This decision stated that the WIPP will comply with EPA's radioactive waste disposal regulations at 40 CFR part 191, subparts B and C. The final WIPP certification decision includes conditions that (1) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP from any site other than Los Alamos National Laboratories (LANL) until the EPA determines that the site has established and executed a quality assurance program, in accordance with Sec. Sec. 194.22(a)(2)(i), 194.24(c)(3), and 194.24(c)(5) for waste characterization activities and assumptions (Condition 2 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 194); and (2) (with the exception of specific, limited waste streams and equipment at LANL) prohibit shipment of TRU waste for disposal at WIPP (from LANL or any other site) until EPA has approved the procedures developed to comply with the waste characterization requirements of Sec. 194.22(c)(4) (Condition 3 of appendix A to 40 CFR part 194). The EPA's approval process for waste generator sites is described in Sec. 194.8. As part of EPA's decisionmaking process, the DOE is required to submit to EPA appropriate documentation of quality assurance and waste characterization programs at each DOE waste generator site seeking approval for shipment of TRU radioactive waste to WIPP. In accordance with Sec. 194.8, EPA will place such documentation in the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, and informational dockets in the State of New Mexico for public review and comment. EPA will perform an inspection of the TRU waste characterization activities [[Page 26353]] performed by the DOE's Central Characterization Project (CCP) staff at LLNL in accordance with Condition 3 of the WIPP certification. The CCP is a mobile characterization facility that DOE is developing to assist TRU waste generator sites with complex waste characterization activities. We will evaluate the adequacy, implementation, and effectiveness of the CCP technical activities contracted by LLNL for characterization of the disposal of newly-generated and retrievably- stored debris waste at the WIPP. The overall program adequacy and effectiveness of CCP-LLNL documents will be based on the following DOE documents: (1) CCP-PO-001--Revision 8, 3/15/04--CCP Transuranic Waste Characterization Quality Assurance Project Plan and (2) CCP-PO-002-- Revision 9, 3/15/04--CCP Transuranic Waste Certification Plan. EPA has placed these DOE documents pertinent to the CCP/LLNL inspection in the public docket described in ADDRESSES. They can be found online in EDOCKET ID No. OAR-2004-0066 and also in hard copy form as item II-A2- 49 in Docket A-98-49. In accordance with 40 CFR 194.8, EPA is providing the public 30 days to comment on these documents. The inspection is scheduled to take place the week of May 3, 2004. EPA will inspect the following technical elements for characterizing newly-generated and retrievably-stored TRV solid and debris waste: Data validation and verification, acceptable knowledge (AK), nondestructive assay (HENC/Gamma), Digital Radiography/Computed Tomography, visual examination (VE), and data tracking and reporting via the WIPP Waste Information System (WWIS). If EPA determines as a result of the inspection that the proposed CCP quality assurance and waste characterization processes and programs used at LLNL adequately control the characterization of transuranic waste, we will notify DOE by letter and place the letter in the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, as well as in the informational docket locations in New Mexico. A letter of approval will allow DOE to dispose of transuranic waste from LLNL (via the CCP) at WIPP. The EPA will not make a determination of compliance prior to the inspection or before the 30-day comment period has closed. Information on the certification decision is filed in the official EPA Air Docket, Docket No. A-93-02 and is available for review in Washington, DC, and at three EPA WIPP informational docket locations in New Mexico. The dockets in New Mexico contain only major items from the official Air Docket in Washington, DC, plus those documents added to the official Air Docket since the October 1992 enactment of the WIPP LWA. Dated: May 5, 2004. Jeffrey R. Holmstead, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. [FR Doc. 04-10775 Filed 5-11-04; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P ***************************************************************** 41 Daily Camera: Allard announces clean-up funding for Rocky Flats Mailing address: Broomfield Enterprise 1006 Depot Hill Road, Suite G Broomfield, CO 80020 $664 M appropriation bill was expected, coalition leaders say By Alisha Jeter, Enterprise Staff Writer May 12, 2004 The Senate Armed Services Committee gave its nod to a defense appropriation bill containing full funding for the Rocky Flats cleanup, U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard (R-Colorado) announced Friday. Allard, a member of the committee, also announced approval in the bill of $250,000 in funding for the Rocky Flats Coalition of Local Governments, an oversight group of local leaders. The Department of Defense Authorization Bill allots $664 million appropriation to the clean-up project for fiscal year 2005. The $3 billion cleanup of the former nuclear munitions plant just north of Broomfield is projected to completed by December 2006. "The committee remains very supportive of the completion of this project and the eventual transformation of the Rocky Flats site into a national wildlife refuge. This funding keeps us on schedule for the 2006 completion and closure," Allard said in a prepared release. Hank Stovall, an ex-officio member of the coalition, said he was pleased about the funding allocation, though it wasn't a surprise. "Those of use who have been involved for some time at the Flats and have been working with Sen. Allard and (U.S.) Rep. Mark Udall's office have their commitment. The funding has been level and it will continue to be there," Stovall said. The Rocky Flats coalition called the appropriation an important step toward the funding, which must actually be allocated by a separate action. "The coalition continues to be thankful of the efforts of Sen. Allard as he continues to show his commitment to this project and to the coalition. We're fortunate to have a senator that understands the value of the cleanup and the coalition," said David Abelson, coalition executive director. The group is comprised of leaders and staff from the cities of Arvada, Boulder, Superior and Westminster and the counties of Boulder, Broomfield and Jefferson. Allard also helped restore fiscal year 2004 funding for the coalition earlier this year after the group learned its $250,000 appropriation had been scrapped. In addition to the Rocky Flats funding, the $422.2 billion defense bill also contains a 3.5 percent across-the-board pay raise for military personnel and an additional $925 million for heavily armored Humvees and other equipment, according to Allard's office. The Daily Camera and the E.W. Scripps Company. All rights ***************************************************************** 42 Tri-City Herald: States threaten to enter lawsuit This story was published Wednesday, May 12th, 2004 By Annette Cary Herald staff writer Washington and Oregon are asking to participate in mediation of a lawsuit brought by the Yakama Nation over restoration of natural resources at the Hanford nuclear reservation. If not allowed full participation in the mediation, the states are threatening to enter the suit as plaintiffs, according to letters mailed this week to other parties in the suit. "We take this case very seriously," said Elliott Furst, senior counsel for the Washington attorney general. Under the federal Superfund law covering hazardous waste sites, governments, including tribes and states, may file suit asking for compensation for damage to natural resources. Congress' intent was to encourage full cleanup by raising the possibility that entities such as the Department of Energy might have to pay damages if they tried to save money by cutting corners on restoration of Superfund sites. The Yakama Nation filed suit in 2002 and expanded the suit in 2003 to force DOE and the Department of Defense to plan, pay for and restore natural resources damaged at Hanford. The first requirement could be taking a comprehensive look at what damages have occurred and what damages might occur if cleanup is not completed to a certain level. "Those studies have not been done," Furst said. The Yakamas and other tribes once used what's now the nuclear reservation as a crossroads in their annual hunting, gathering and fishing migrations. Several treaties signed in 1855 guarantee the tribes access to Hanford, including the Columbia River, to continue those activities. The Yakamas' suit covers several Superfund sites at Hanford, including old missile silos used by the military, the 1100 and 300 Areas at the south end of the nuclear reservation and the 100 Area in north Hanford where reactors lined the Columbia River. The suit also could cover resources that can be proved to have been damaged by production in those areas, such as fish populations or habitat in the river. From World War II through the Cold War, plutonium was produced for weapons at Hanford, with millions of gallons of wastes dumped into open trenches. Contaminants seeped into the ground and continue to seep into the river. Before the suit was filed, the Yakama Nation tried to get DOE and the EPA to tackle restoring natural habitat for animals, insects and fish simultaneously with the site's nuclear cleanup, said Tom Zeilman, an attorney for the Yakamas when the suit was expanded to more Superfund sites at Hanford in 2003. But the Yakama Nation believed its concerns fell on deaf federal ears. Earlier this year, the Yakamas and the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to try to settle the case out of court with a mediator and asked for a federal ruling requiring mediation. The ruling allows other parties and issues not already in the case to be included in the negotiations. On Monday, Washington and Oregon sent letters to the attorney for the federal government and Ray Givens of Coeur d'Alene, who is representing the Yakamas. They are asking that an agreement be reached in 30 days on their full participation in any mediation. The Yakamas have agreed to the states' participation, Furst said. No reply has been received from the Justice Department. Other tribes or states also could ask to be included in mediation. © 2004 Tri-City Herald, Associated Press &Other Wire Services ***************************************************************** 43 pogo.org Testimony of POGO's Danielle Brian before the House Energy and Commerce Subcomittee on Oversight and Investigations 5/11/2004 Project On Government Oversight May 11, 2004 In October, 2001, the Project On Government Oversight (POGO) issued our report, "U.S. Nuclear Weapons Complex: Security at Risk." In that report we presented extensive evidence and raised an overall alarm that the Department of Energy (DOE) was not taking security of the nations nuclear weapons facilities seriously. Since beginning our investigation, POGO has worked with over 100 insiders from the nuclear weapons complex, who are concerned at the state of security. During this time, we have been in virtual armed combat with the DOE bureaucracy. In light of the new terrorist threats our nation faces, it is extraordinary how hostile the DOE has been to suggestions that would increase security while significantly reducing costs. In January 2004 Secretary Abraham, Deputy Secretary McSlarrow and Oversight Director Glenn Podonsky began a dialogue regarding our recommendations for security upgrades. Since then, we have been cautiously optimistic that DOE may be turning the corner. Friday's speech by the Secretary further reassured us. This is the first time a DOE Secretary has recognized and admitted the extent of the change necessary to improve security in the weapons complex. For example, he announced reevaluating the Design Basis Threat (DBT), the security standards that facilities are required to meet. Increasing the DBT to better reflect the intelligence community's Postulated Threat is essential. This review, along with the April 5, 2004 directive requiring all sites with Improvised Nuclear Device (IND) vulnerabilities to increase their defensive posture to a "denial" strategy, will vastly improve security. An IND is an actual nuclear detonation on site, which can be accomplished within minutes by a terrorist bringing a few additional materials in a rucksack. Recently, former DOE Security Czar General Eugene Habiger stated that such a blast would be comparable to one- twentieth of the size of the Hiroshima detonation. Experts interviewed by POGO believe it would be even more devastating. In the past, the bigger concern had been to thwart the theft of nuclear materials. As a result, it was considered adequate to allow a terrorist to enter the facility but prevent him from being able to leave again. Now, the "denial" requirement means a terrorist must be prevented from entering the facility at all, given the possibility that a suicidal terrorist could detonate an Improvised Nuclear Devise. Concerns about INDs underscore the need to further consolidate Special Nuclear Materials, as a number of sites simply will not be able to meet these higher standards or afford the required upgrades. Eliminating the burst reactor at Sandia National Laboratory and removing the highly-enriched uranium fuel core will save over $30 million per year in security costs by eliminating the need for extensive physical security. We are disappointed, however, in the timeline for this step. It shouldn't take three years, as this reactor currently is rarely used. For example, in early 2000 when DOE considered moving the reactor from Sandia, its next scheduled mission wasn't until October of 2002, 2 ½ years later. In addition, raising the need to blend down 100 tons of HEU is one of the highlights of the Secretary's announcement. It is important to begin looking at step two in the process of improving security in the weapons complex. Step one is to consolidate the materials into fewer and more secure locations. Step two is to blend down the excess HEU and immobilize the excess plutonium so that they no longer present such an attractive target to terrorists. We are not sanguine that the agenda outlined by Secretary Abraham will become a reality. He will need to fight the weapons complex bureaucracy, its contractors, and its handmaiden the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), which wants to protect the status quo at all costs. Frankly, the NNSA has repeatedly proven itself eager to place the lab's interests over the nation's security interests. Of course the most obvious example of this is Los Alamos National Laboratory's TA-18. In 2000, then- Secretary Bill Richardson ordered the removal of Category I and II Special Nuclear Materials from that site. Since then, the foot-dragging by NNSA and Los Alamos has been award-winning. While POGO was heartened by the April 1 announcement reaffirming the move, our hopes were dampened after meeting with the head of the nuclear weapons complex, Dr. Everet Beckner on April 16. Despite Secretary Abraham's intentions that all Category I and II Special Nuclear Materials be out of TA-18 by 2005, Dr. Beckner informed us that NNSA only intends to move 50% of it. In fact, I would like to submit for the record a document dated April 9 of this year, written by Dr. Beckner. It states, "Beginning in September 2004, NNSA will ship about 50 percent of the entire TA-18 programmatic SNM inventory to the DAF during an 18-month period." Dr. Beckner also tried to justify the ballooning estimated cost for this move - from $100 million to over $300 million. He told us that this exponential growth was in large part a result of the requirement to produce Authorization Basis documents to move the burst reactors from Los Alamos and to operate the reactors at the Nevada Test Site. He said this paperwork requirement alone would cost $150 million. We checked with the person in the Los Alamos Area Office who is responsible for signing off on such documents: He estimated the cost to be between $1-2 million if done correctly, and as much as $6 million on the outside if it needs to be reworked. An earlier internal email, dated February 23, 2004, actually discusses DOE's intention to keep nuclear materials at TA-18 until 2011, and Los Alamos's proposal to extend the timeline to 2015. I think you get the idea. I believe the bureaucracy knowingly provides completely baseless information to Headquarters as a way of protecting the status quo. According to this email, even the former Director of Los Alamos, John Browne, stated that the lab cannot operate TA-18 "securely beyond 2010." I hope this Committee holds NNSA's feet to the fire until the TA-18 materials are permanently moved to the Nevada Test Site. The next piece of evidence we can present that NNSA is dragging its feet concerns the building of the Highly-Enriched Uranium(HEU) Materials Facility at Y-12. Some in DOE and the Congress have identified Y-12 as the most serious security concern in the complex. Y-12 stores hundreds of tons of highly-enriched uranium, and is a prime target for terrorists who would want to create an IND within minutes. Given the obsolete infrastructure currently housing the HEU, it should come as no surprise that the Y-12 guard force has been told to cheat in order to pass security performance tests. They simply cannot protect the highly-enriched uranium in the six material access areas given the multiple targets, dilapidated infrastructure, and speed with which terrorists can reach their target. We were pleased to see the Secretary announcing an expedited schedule for building the new facility, but our worry is - which design? The current contractor operating Y-12, BWXT, inexplicably changed a plan to build a bermed facility covered by earth on three sides and its roof, similar to the Device Assembly Facility at the Nevada Test Site, and is now planning instead to build an above-ground facility. The change in design was approved based on the contractor's estimate that it would both increase security and save money. However, in a March 19, 2004, Inspector General report about Y-12, the IG concluded that the new design for the storage facility will actually decrease security and significantly increase costs. Project costs have skyrocketed, going from an estimated $144 million in 2001 to $253 million in 2004, while security features for the facility have been seriously degraded. All the security experts we have interviewed conclude that a bermed facility would be far more secure. Immediate funding for underground storage at Y-12, and the blending down of the over 100 tons of excess HEU, should be the top priorities of the NNSA budget. Again, this would lead to significant savings in annual security costs, because only one hardened facility would need to be protected, versus the current six aging buildings. We were pleased to see the Secretary put the de-inventorying of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory of its Special Nuclear Materials on the table. We believe these materials pose an unacceptable risk to the surrounding San Francisco Bay area community. The Livermore guard force can not protect the plutonium and highly-enriched uranium the way these materials are protected at other nuclear weapons sites. In light of the facility's vulnerabilities, POGO recommends that all weapons quantities of plutonium and highly-enriched uranium should be de-inventoried from Livermore immediately and sent to the Device Assembly Facility (DAF) at the Nevada Test Site. Any research that requires weapons quantities of SNM can easily be accomplished by flying the Livermore scientists to the DAF, only a one-hour flight away. This move would dramatically increase security while saving about $30 million in annual security costs. We have asked a number of experts on the experiments conducted at Livermore and have concluded that the missions considered critical to Stockpile Stewardship are completely redundant to those being conducted at Los Alamos. We are concerned, however, that the decision won't be made until early next year. Particularly concerning is that just two weeks ago, before another House Committee, NNSA Administrator Brooks testified a position in direct contradiction to the Secretary's announcement. He stated, "the subcommittee has heard suggestions to eliminate special nuclear material at Lawrence Livermore. In our judgement, that would preclude our carrying out our stockpile stewardship assessments, and that's because while we can move the material someplace else, we can't move the research capabilities and processes that exist at Livermore." We are also already hearing complaints from Livermore that it is necessary for national security to keep the materials at the lab, and that in fact rather than de-inventorying, the lab needs to double the amount of plutonium housed there. This is a sign of things to come. I would suggest that these defenders of the status quo need to balance the value of the science and convenience of the scientists with the homeland security vulnerabilities posed by keeping the plutonium and highly-enriched uranium at the lab. Furthermore, I would suggest that a far more parochial interest is at play. As a former Livermore official suggested, losing the special nuclear materials raises the specter of whether Lawrence Livermore Lab needs to exist as a weapons design laboratory at all anymore. I suspect the Bay area community would be unhappy to hear that the lab is clinging to its plutonium and highly-enriched uranium as an insurance policy to justify its existence. Still unaddressed are Argonne West and the Idaho National Lab. There is no requirement for these sites to use special nuclear materials to perform their missions. In fact, we have been told that at one of these sites, they spend more money to protect the materials than they do on their programs. Federalizing the security forces is certainly worth considering, as it would address a number of the problems we have encountered across the complex. In the meantime, the current private security companies employing the security officers around the complex need to do a much better job in keeping their morale up by reducing overtime, increasing training, and providing adequate compensation packages. We were also pleased to see the Department is finally going to move to a media-less computing system, which will eliminate concerns repeatedly raised by missing hard drives and computer disks. Finally, the Secretary acknowledged that whistleblowers have been forced outside the system, often suffering retribution for telling the truth, and that there is a need for a change in the management culture. This is the third DOE Secretary I have heard say this. What can we all do to make it happen? Congress needs to pass the whistleblower protection legislation introduced by Rep. Ed Markey as a first step. It is clear that Secretaries with the best intentions can not protect whistleblowers from the wrath of an angry bureaucracy. POGO is guardedly optimistic that Secretary Abraham and Deputy Secretary McSlarrow are sincerely concerned about the state of security at the nuclear weapons complex. However, these two officials have a limited time in office. The Office of Security and Safety Performance Assurance will be the entity left behind to oversee any improvements. Our concern is that the Office is doing important work, but currently is not given either the necessary independence or power to see this difficult job through. They will have to confront NNSA's insidious efforts to delay, delay, delay any security improvements until they fall off the radar screen. POGO recommended in our 2001 report that the Oversight Office be moved outside the DOE in order to establish real institutional independence. At the very least, Congress needs to formalize its communications with this Office, as it has with the Inspector General. In the end, it is clear NO change will happen without you, the Congress, providing vigilant oversight. I believe it will be some of the most important work you will do. © The Project On Government Oversight 2004 ***************************************************************** 44 The Cincinnati Enquirer: Emptying of silos opposed Wednesday, May 12, 2004 Fernald neighbors say it's too unsafe By Dan Klepal The Cincinnati Enquirer CROSBY TWP. - U.S. Department of Energy officials in charge of the $4.4 billion nuclear cleanup at Fernald said Tuesday they are prepared to begin removing 153 million pounds of radioactive waste from the first of three concrete silos at Fernald on schedule next month, even if they have no place to ship it for final disposal. That means the radioactive powder in silo 3 could be placed into storage bags, the bags placed into shipping crates and the crates stacked onto a concrete slab at the Fernald site while a legal dispute between the Department of Energy and the state of Nevada is resolved. It's impossible to say how long it will take to resolve the dispute. If the dispute were to drag on into the fall, more highly radioactive waste from silos 1 and 2 would also be removed from the two concrete vessels and placed in metal holding tanks. Nearby residents are concerned that temporary storage would be unsafe, and they are suspicious that temporary storage on the Fernald site could drag on. Energy department officials outlined their plans Tuesday night at a community meeting. Lisa Crawford, leader of the Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety and Health, said, "The concrete silos were interim storage 50 years ago. It's hard for me to sit here and hear you talk about interim storage." The Department of Energy's decision is contrary to both the state and federal Environmental Protection Agency recommendations. Both EPAs say a clear destination needs to be found for the waste before it is removed because temporary storage on Fernald grounds is against the rules governing the silo cleanup. This issue is important because the silo work is behind schedule, and any delay will make it difficult for the Department of Energy to finish the cleanup by the June 2006 deadline. All 153 million pounds of silo waste were to be shipped to the Nevada Test Site, 65 miles northwest of Las Vegas, for permanent disposal. But three weeks ago, the state of Nevada threatened to file a federal lawsuit to stop those shipments before they can begin. The Nevada Attorney General says Fernald waste can't legally be stored at the Nevada Test Site. Energy Department officials said Tuesday they are still studying the legal arguments raised by Nevada attorneys, agreeing to give the state 45 days' notice before making the first shipment. John Stattler, the Department of Energy's project manager for silos, said the department wants to begin removing the waste so it can be shipped as soon as its final resting place is determined. He also said removal of the waste from concrete silos that have safely stored the material for 52 years is "the safest thing to do." E-mail dklepal@enquirer.com [Cincinnati.Com] Copyright1995-2004. The Cincinnati Enquirer, a Gannett Co. Inc.newspaper. ***************************************************************** 45 PISJ: Comment sought on plan to demolish old INEEL lab Pocatello Idaho State Journal: IDAHO FALLS - The United States Department of Energy, along with the State of Idaho and the Environmental Protection Agency, seeks public comment on a proposal to demolish an unused analytical laboratory at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. According to a press release, public comments will be accepted through May 19. Details about the proposal to demolish the unused analytical laboratory at INEEL are contained in a revised "Engineering Evaluation and Cost Analysis" recently published by DOE. The CPP-627 EE/CA was first issued on April 1, but was revised and reissued April 19. The comment period has been extended to allow the public time to review the revised version of the proposal. "By removing this building now, we accomplish two things," said Jim Cooper, manager of the project responsible for remediating contaminated sites at INTEC. "We prevent the contamination and hazardous materials within the building from posing a risk to workers or the aquifer, and we'll make it easier to take action in the future on soil and other buildings in this area." The 15,000-square-foot building CPP-627 was constructed in 1955, as part of a larger group of buildings called the Fuel Reprocessing Complex at INTEC. It was built to house experimental and decontamination facilities supporting fuel reprocessing operations that took place in nearby Building 601. The building has not been used since 1997, and is known to contain radiological and chemically hazardous substances. It contains several glovebox lines and other equipment used for experiments and spent nuclear fuel reprocessing sample analyses. No contamination is known to have been released from the building. However, removal and proper disposal of the building and the contaminants it contains will reduce the risk of contaminants reaching the environment. Once the building is demolished and the debris sent to the INEEL CERCLA Disposal Facility, the soil underneath the remaining concrete slab and the slab itself will be sampled. Results will guide decisions about further action. This action is part of ongoing cleanup at the INEEL. It was recently proposed as part of an initiative to address problems in their early stages before contamination reaches the environment. Under the DOE's Performance Management Plan for accelerating cleanup at INEEL, the department is focused on reducing risk and completing the majority of remaining cleanup work from past INEEL missions by 2012. More information is available in the Administrative Record, located at the DOE Reading Room of the INEEL Technical Library in Idaho Falls. Copies can be found at Albertson's Library at Boise State University. The Administrative Record also can be accessed on the Internet at http://ar.inel.gov/. Public comments can be submitted online at http://cleanup.inel.gov or by sending comments to: Jim Cooper, U.S. Department of Energy, P.O. Box 1625 MS 1154, Idaho Falls, Idaho 83415-1154 or Copyright © 2004 Pocatello Idaho State Journal P O Box 431 Pocatello, ID 83204-0431 ***************************************************************** 46 Oak Ridger: ORNL nabs supercomputer deal Story last updated at 12:16 p.m. on May 12, 2004 LAB CHIEF: 'Oak Ridge will help lay the foundation for our country's next generation of scientific discovery.' By: Paul Parson | Oak Ridger Staff The Department of Energy plans to build the world's fastest supercomputer at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, according to information leaked to the national news media. "This is a historic decision for the nation and for ORNL," said Jeff Wadsworth, the lab's director. "America will regain its leadership in high-performance computing. And, Oak Ridge will help lay the foundation for our country's next generation of scientific discovery." ORNL was one of four DOE Office of Science national laboratories vying for the supercomputer project. The local lab competed against Brookhaven National Laboratory, Upton, NY; Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Berkeley, Calif.; and the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center, Palo Alto, Calif. ORNL Here's a look inside Oak Ridge National Laboratory's Center for Computational Sciences - the nation's largest unclassified computing facility. Considered part of the lab's $300 million modernization program, the facility has 40,000 square feet of space for computer systems and data storage. Lab officials said the supercomputer deal may be the most important project for ORNL since the Spallation Neutron Source - a top-notch research facility currently under construction in Oak Ridge. Japan's Earth Simulator - the world's current fastest supercomputer - is capable of 40 teraflops, or 40 trillion calculations per second, according to officials. While ORNL is expected to receive an initial $25 million grant to begin developing a sustained, high-speed computing capability of 50 teraflops, lab officials hope to achieve 100 teraflops by 2006 and 1,000 or more teraflops by the end of the decade. Reportedly, ORNL will receive two years of federal grants totaling $50 million. The Oak Ridge lab's Center for Computational Sciences is likely the reason the research facility won the competitive bid for the supercomputer project. The new 170,000-square-foot facility, which includes 40,000 square feet of space for computer systems and data storage, is part of the ORNL's $300 million ongoing modernization effort. ORNL has several major networks in place or under construction, linking the computer facility with DOE laboratories, universities and other centers. According to an ORNL fact sheet, the Energy Sciences Network links the local lab with the other facilities at a data transfer speed of 622 megabits per second, with plans to upgrade to 2.5 gigabits per second. ORNL also connects to the academic community through the National Science Foundation Internet2 network, which has a data transfer speed of 10 gigabits per second, according to the fact sheet. Cray Corp., IBM Corp. and Silicon Graphics Inc., all private companies, will be involved in the ORNL supercomputer project, according to lab spokesman Mike Bradley. Other participants include Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Duke University, the universities of Texas and Tennessee, and Argonne and Pacific Northwest national laboratories. ***************************************************************** 47 CEP: NUKE TEST SITE TO TEST AGAINST GERM WAR AGENTS CITIZENS EDUCATION PROJECT NEWS RELEASE May 11, 2004 Contact: Steve Erickson801-554-9029 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Rural residents downwind of the nations nuclear weapons testing site who were harmed by radioactive fallout from past nuclear tests have a new fear. The Nevada Test Site north of Las Vegas proposes to expand its mission to conduct open air dispersion tests of simulated biological and chemical weapons to learn how to protect the nation against terrorist attacks. Under the radar screen of burgeoning local opposition to the push to resume nuclear testing, the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the U.S. Department of Energy, which runs the test site, want approval to conduct 5 to 20 open air tests annually of chemicals and biological agent simulants to train first responders and perfect detection systems and protective equipment. The NNSA released a Preliminary Draft Environmental Assessment on the proposed action April 12. Comments from the public are due May 15. But not many people know about the proposal. Thats just they way they want it and planned it, said Steve Erickson, director of the watchdog Citizen Education Project in Salt Lake City. Play it as nothing special, business as usual, national security. Best way to hide a major new mission for a facility and an industry that needs new product lines to stay viable. Erickson points out that operational testing of actual and simulated germ agents has been done extensively for years at other locations, like Utahs Dugway Proving Ground, and questions whether the NTS plan is an unnecessary duplication of past and current training and experiments. It appears that this may be a case of mission creep by NNSA and DOE, he said. The Environmental Assessment has a number of shortcomings, according to Erickson. The EA fails to document the need for these tests, doesnt adequately examine alternatives, doesnt specify where on the Test Site these actions will take place. It doesnt provide a list of the chemical agents to be used in tests, contains insufficient information on the impacts on migratory birds, and doesnt address possible conflicts and incompatibilities with other projects at NTS, like resuming nuclear testing. The EA does admit that suspended aerosols could move off-site, but pooh-poohs the potential harm that could result, he stated. The proposal also includes plans to disperse killed Influenza A virus, which the EA describes as non-infectious and harmless to human health. Erickson complains that the document doesnt offer enough information on the source of the virus and how it would be killed. It may be that the virus would be killed at Dugways new gamma irradiator and shipped to Nevada, he speculated. There are too many uncertainties involved and too little information available to properly evaluate the potential impacts of this major federal action,  Erickson asserts. A full Environmental Impact Statement, with public hearings, should address these issues and other concerns of the public and elected officials in Nevada and Utah before any decision to proceed is made. Comments on the document are due on May 15. A copy of the proposal(PDF) is posted on the DOEs Nevada Office website. -END- ***************************************************************** 48 Google News Alert - nuclear Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 13:33:14 -0700 (PDT) TIME to Resolve Issue of Iran ’ s Nuclear Dossier : British ... Merh News Agency - Tehran,Iran Dalton told the Mehr News Agency, “We believe Iran ’s nuclear dossier should be resolved through dialogue.”. He expressed hope ... See all stories on this topic: LOW-LEVEL Talks Begin on N. Korean Nuclear Programs Voice of America - Washington,DC,USA In Beijing, diplomats of six nations have begun low-level talks on North Korea's nuclear programs. Teams from China, Japan, North ... See all stories on this topic: CHINA able to build 1-million-kW nuclear power plant Viet Nam News Agency - Hanoi,Vietnam Beijing, May 12 (VNA) -- China is ready to build a nuclear generating unit with a capacity of 1 million kW with the help of the latest foreign design software ... See all stories on this topic: US backs China joining nuclear group Xinhua - China ... May 12, (Xinhuanet) -- The Bush administration, after fierce debate, is backing China's membership in an influential group that controls nuclear exports. ... See all stories on this topic: NUCLEAR commission authorizes Yucca-related safety testing Reno Gazette Journal - Reno,NV,USA LAS VEGAS — The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has authorized new safety testing of a full-sized cask designed to carry spent nuclear fuel to a national ... See all stories on this topic: VN determined to ratify nuclear test ban treaty Viet Nam News - Hanoi,Vietnam HA NOI — National Assembly chairman Nguyen Van An has acknowledged the dangers posed by nuclear weapons and says Viet Nam is determined to oppose any abuse ... See all stories on this topic: NK, US Must Resolve Nuclear Issue: DJ Chosun Ilbo - South Korea PARIS -- Former President Kim Dae-jung said in Paris on Wednesday afternoon (local time) that the North Korean nuclear crisis is not a difficult problem to be ... WORLD News > Iran warns Israel against attacking its nuclear ... New Kerala - Ernakulam,Kerala,India Iran Tuesday issued a stern warning to Israel against carrying out any military attack on its nuclear facilities, Xinhua reports. ... See all stories on this topic: AUSTRALIA snipes at NZ nuclear ban New Zealand Herald - Auckland,New Zealand Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer has stepped into New Zealand's nuclear row, saying governments need to reflect on their national interest ... See all stories on this topic: INDIA, Pak won't be accepted as nuclear weapon states: US Khilafah.com The United States has ruled out the possibility of accepting India and Pakistan as nuclear weapon states. Washington is sticking ... See all stories on this topic: This daily-once News Alert is brought to you by Google News (BETA)... - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Remove this News Alert: http://www.google.com/newsalerts/remove?s=92d1672a1b037a07&hl=en Create another News Alert: http://www.google.com/newsalerts?hl=en Try Google News: http://news.google.com/ ***************************************************************** 49 The Sunflower - May 2004 - Issue 84 Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 12:17:01 -0500 (CDT) The Sunflower is a monthly e-newsletter providing educational information on nuclear weapons abolition and other issues relating to global security. Download the complete PDF Version To receive our free monthly e-newsletter subscribe at http://www.wagingpeace.org/subscribe/ * Perspectives * Confronting Proliferation at the 2004 NPT Review Conference * Take Action * Tell Congress to Oppose New Nuclear Weapons * Contact the Department of Energy to Stop the Development of New Nuclear Weapons * "Abolish Nuclear Weapons Now!" Support the World Conference Against A & H Bombs * Join the Movement to Oppose the New Nuclear Arms Race * Nuclear Whistleblower * Israel's Nuclear Whistleblower Released from Prison * Proliferation * US Report: "Mini-Nukes" have "No Practical Impact" on Non-Proliferation Efforts * US Nuclear Weapons Budget Doubles in a Decade * Iran and Middle Eastern Nuclear ConcernsNorth Korean Nuclear Concerns * North Korean Nuclear Concerns * Brazil Uranium Enrichment Plant Under Question * US Warns of New Concern over Myanmar * Uncovering Abdul Qadeer Khan's Nuclear Underworld * Disarmament and Non-Proliferation * Pakistan and India to hold Confidence-Building Talks * Missile Defense and Outer Space * Costly Missile Defense System Deployed without Confidence * Israel Equipping Passenger Fleet with Anti-Missile Systems * Kwajalein Landowners Continue to Reject Agreement * Taiwan Purchases US Anti-Missile Systems * Russia Reaffirms Demilitarization of Space * International Law * United Nations Security Council Unanimously Passes WMD Resolution * US Polls Support Multilateral Non-Proliferation Efforts * Nuclear Energy & Waste * Cheney Supports US Nuclear Reactor Construction in China * Nuclear Industry * UC and the Nuclear Weapons Lab Contracts * Nuclear Insanity * US Ambassador Argues for "Incremental Approaches" to Nuclear Disarmament * UK Considers "Madcap Schemes" to Tackle Nuclear Waste Legacy * Foundation News * Foundation Research and Advocacy Coordinator Attends Alliance for Nuclear Accountability DC Days * Youth Participation: See for Yourself * NAPF at the NPT * Resources * Disarmament: The Missing Link to an Effective Non-Proliferation Regime * The Weaponization of Space: An International Student/Young Pugwash Perspective * Debate Transcript: Should the UC Run the Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories? * The Ambushed Grand Jury by Wes McKinley and Caron Balkany, Esq. * Quotable * Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qadhafi * Freed Israeli Whistleblower Mordechai Vanunu * Daniel Ellsberg, member of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation Advisory Council * Robert Fisk, author of The Man Who Knew Too Much * John F. Kennedy * Editorial Team * Luke Brothers * David Krieger * Carah Ong * Justine Wang Perspectives Confronting Proliferation at the 2004 NPT Review Conference | Top By David Krieger and Carah Ong When the Cold War ended a decade and a half ago, few observers would have predicted that nuclear proliferation would become an increasingly pressing problem for the world. This watershed moment presented an unprecedented opportunity to fulfill the promises of Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to end the nuclear arms race and to engage in good faith negotiations to achieve nuclear disarmament. Now, nearly 15 years later, the bright possibilities at the end of the Cold War have faded and nuclear proliferation looms as an imminent threat. The NPT continues to be undermined by state and non-state actors seeking to obtain nuclear weapons or the nuclear materials necessary to make such weapons and by existing nuclear weapons states pursuing policies that would make the use of nuclear weapons more likely. [.] The promises made by the nuclear weapons states at the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference have not been kept. Most notably, the security assurances made by the nuclear weapons states to the non-nuclear weapons states have been set aside. In the December 2001 US Nuclear Posture Review, seven countries were identified, four or possibly five of which are non-nuclear weapons states, for which the US was developing contingency plans for the use of nuclear weapons. Such policies provide incentive for other countries to develop their own nuclear arsenals for purposes of deterrence against a possible nuclear attack. Further commitments to fulfill the nuclear disarmament obligations of Article VI of the NPT were made at the year 2000 NPT Review Conference. These commitments have also been treated cavalierly by the nuclear weapons states. On virtually all of the 13 Practical Steps for Nuclear Disarmament agreed to in the year 2000, the nuclear weapons states have not complied. The US abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty after promising to maintain and strengthen it. The US and China have also failed to ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, and the US has made preparations to lessen the time necessary to resume nuclear testing. In addition, the US with Russia, created the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT), which fails to abide by the commitment to make nuclear disarmament irreversible. In sum, the actions of the US and other nuclear weapons states have negated the solemn commitments made under the NPT and demonstrated to the world a clear double standard and sense of exceptionalism related to their own nuclear behavior. The "unequivocal undertaking" for complete nuclear disarmament made at the 2000 NPT Review Conference has not been evident either in any of the nuclear weapons states nuclear policies or actions. In the current series of crises throughout the world, conditions have become too volatile and hostile for a continuation of the nuclear status quo that is based on double standards and exceptionalism. Nuclear weapons cannot deter nuclear-armed extremists, and the more nuclear weapons that exist in the world the more likely it becomes that extremist groups will obtain nuclear weapons. It is a fool's game to continue to promote nuclear double standards. The only protection against nuclear weapons is the dramatic reduction of nuclear arsenals on the way to zero, and the placement of all nuclear weapons, weapon-grade materials and the equipment to make nuclear weapons under strict and effective international controls. This requires the fulfillment of the NPT bargain for nuclear disarmament that is set forth in Article VI of the treaty. So long as this bargain remains unfulfilled, the likelihood of nuclear proliferation to both additional states and extremist groups will continue to increase. The full report is available as a pdf download from the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation website at: http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/2004/04/28_npt-book.pdf To view the entire Sunflower, visit: http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resrources/sunflower To receive our free monthly e-newsletter subscribe at http://www.wagingpeace.org/menu/resources/subscribe/ ***************************************************************** NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. For more information go to: *****************************************************************